05-13-2015, 04:44 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,527
Thanks: 4,078
Thanked 6,976 Times in 3,612 Posts
|
Ford testing cylinder deactivation with 1.0L turbo 3-cyl Ecoboost engine: 6% gain
OK, you know things are getting serious when they start investigating cylinder deactivation in a triple.
Ford says they've been doing on-road testing of rolling cylinder deactivation in their 1.0L turbo, with a series of countermeasures to manage NVH:
Quote:
They fitted the prototype (Ford Focus) with a newly developed system that combined a dual mass flywheel, a pendulum absorber, and a tuned clutch disc; and is particularly effective at low revs. As well as enabling a wider operating range of cylinder deactivation, this system helped counteract any effect that the cylinder deactivation had on levels of noise, vibration and harshness.
Fuel efficiency improvements were recorded in homologated conditions and during test drives of the first prototype vehicle, for a typical commuter distance of 55 km on a combination of motorway, city roads and rural roads, in and around Cologne, Germany. The development is a collaboration with Ford’s engineering partners at the Schaeffler Group.
|
The results: Fuel efficiency improvements of up to 6 per cent
The "rolling" deactivation approach means each cylinder takes turns being the deactivated one.
Quote:
|
The benefit is a more well-balanced temperature level inside the combustion chambers and consistent firing intervals for three-cylinder engines operating in deactivation mode.
|
Source: Green Car Congress: Ford exploring cylinder deactivation for 1.0L EcoBoost; testing shows up to 6% fuel efficiency improvement
And Ford: https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...enhancing.html
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:
|
|
 Today
|
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2015, 04:48 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
home of the odd vehicles
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere in WI
Posts: 3,891
Thanks: 506
Thanked 867 Times in 654 Posts
|
hmm a modern hit and miss engine.  |
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rmay635703 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
05-13-2015, 04:54 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,527
Thanks: 4,078
Thanked 6,976 Times in 3,612 Posts
|
Put a big enough flywheel and muffler on it, and nobody'll be any the wiser!
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2015, 04:58 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,203
Thanks: 2,501
Thanked 2,587 Times in 1,554 Posts
|
I must say I'm surprised by the 6% figure. Seems high to me considering that 1.0L engine still wants higher engine load on a Focus even...
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2015, 06:44 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
Every time I drive the T-Racer with it's 2.0L I think, "This car has waaaay too much engine"!
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2015, 07:18 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,527
Thanks: 4,078
Thanked 6,976 Times in 3,612 Posts
|
The 1.8L Civic gave me the same reaction. I have never said the same thing about the Firefly/Metro though!
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2015, 07:37 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
With Metros I drop the "waaaay" but I think a 2-cyl Metro would suit me just fine; that is, if it gives me enough fe improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
05-14-2015, 02:22 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
home of the odd vehicles
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere in WI
Posts: 3,891
Thanks: 506
Thanked 867 Times in 654 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daox
I must say I'm surprised by the 6% figure. Seems high to me considering that 1.0L engine still wants higher engine load on a Focus even...
|
Direct water injection on off cycles could recover even more free FE |
|
|
|
|
05-14-2015, 05:54 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Furry Furfag
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Apple Valley
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 67
Thanked 409 Times in 313 Posts
|
Instead of making these damn cars harder to work on/diagnose, how about just more aerodynamic? That 6% will never pay for itself when it takes me an extra 2 hours to diagnose an engine misfire problem and I charge you 90$ an hour for labor.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2015, 05:50 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Tinkerer
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 284
Thanks: 7
Thanked 63 Times in 54 Posts
|
Looks like greencarcongress has a comparison of fixed cylinder deactivation versus rolling deactivation on Fords 1 liter triple. NVH, complexity and cost balanced in the comparison. Looks like fixed is winning out in the cost and complexity without loosing too much gains in mpg. I'm not a fan of using dual mass flywheels because they fail often and at great cost in the used car market. They use them to help overcome the shakes.
|
|
|
|
|
