Chet
|
| posted on 13/2/13 at 11:47 AM |
|
|
1.0 EcoBoost ?
I'm very interested in using the new 1.0 EcoBoost engine and manual trans in a lightweight mid engined car.
I'm in the USA however and as of now they aren't yet available here.
I'd be grateful if anyone would let me know their real life impressions of this engine and trans.
Thanks
Chet
|
|
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 13/2/13 at 12:45 PM |
|
|
In terms of what it is like in a lightweight sports car, rather than a tonne-and-a-half of Ford hatchback, try Googling 'Caterham
EcoBoost'... Caterham has produced a Seven with the EcoBoost engine that has been road tested by several magazines/websites, for example:
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&t=1210568&nmt=RE%3A+Driven%3A+Caterham+Ecoboost
Several of the reviews seem to suggest that it doesn't feel quite right in the Seven, due to the flat torque curve you get with turbo engines -
reading between the lines, it's been designed (in the interests of economy) to deliver reasonable performance without having to be worked too
hard, hence it's disappointingly unrewarding when you make the extra effort to wring it out.
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 13/2/13 at 01:33 PM |
|
|
No real world experience with this particular engine, but I've never driven a 7 type without a turbo. If you give it the boot to abruptly, my
Nissan engine will send you off the road in no time, so it's kind of pointless in a way too, I suppose (open differential). Is it fun to drive?
Does the pope have health issues?
The new one weighs hardly anything, and should be more reliable than the BEC's, so I think it's a great choice. When did they say it would
be available to us here in North America?
If we go by what the previous poster's reports, everyone ought to have Kent crossflows, which is a bit past it now, isn't it? Modern
engines in old designs are always going to be different; but that's not a bad thing. I for one, could use a bit of economy, for example.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 13/2/13 at 02:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RKIf you give it the boot to abruptly, my Nissan engine will send you off the road in no time...
If we go by what the previous poster's reports, everyone ought to have Kent crossflows, which is a bit past it now, isn't it?
Modern, small-capacity 'eco turbos' like the EcoBoost are a LOT different to your Nissan turbo (I've driven several and currently
own one, in case you think I'm still living in the era of the Crossflow).
You won't detect any turbo lag or any sense of the engine 'coming on boost' AT ALL, unless you do something ludicrous like ask it to
pull full throttle from very low revs in a high gear. They use small turbos that boost from low revs to 'fill out' the torque curve, but
the corollary of this is that they don't give the big surge in power that you expect at higher revs on 'traditional' turbo engines,
either.
They feel curiously 'flat' and linear in their response.
Also, contrary to your assertion that 'the new one weighs hardly anything', the 1 litre (though not the 1.6 and 2.0 litre versions)
has an iron block and the Caterham installation weighed in at 13 kilos more than a Sigma-engined car.
I'm not anti-technology, but I think you'd be foolish not to recognise that the EcoBoost was designed first and foremost as a
high-economy, low-emissions engine to get Ford through increasingly tough emissions legislation. It's designed to replace the Sigma because the
Sigma can't meet forthcoming regs.
It's NOT designed to be in any way sporting.
You can apparently change the character of the engine quite a bit by bolting the turbo from the 1.6 unit onto the 1.0 version, which gives you back
some of the 'old skool' boost characteristics (and lag, presumably!) of a 'big turbo' engine, but it's early days in the
development of the engine at this stage.
Oh, and at the moment, with ECU's etc, they are VERY expensive compared to a Sigma or Duratec of similar power output, if you buy them new.
On a practical note; if you're planning to fit one in a mid engined car, have you considered what to do about the intercooler?This is normally
packaged 'close coupled' to the engine in the transverse, FWD installation for which it was designed.
[Edited on 14/2/13 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
Paul Turner
|
| posted on 13/2/13 at 02:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
Caterham has produced a Seven with the EcoBoost engine that has been road tested by several magazines/websites, for example:
Read the test quote "This isn't a Caterham project yet - this is Ford showing off the capabilities of its baby".
Caterham built a turbo CVH car back in the 80's and it was never made. The development drivers found it fast but souless and they used the
Cosworth BDR instead.
When I was hilclimbing and sprinting plenty of drives turned up with turbo cars but not were that succesful, the power delivery was not suited to a
small lightweight car. My stone age 1860 x-flow regularly managed to beat them. One guy had a Westfield with a Turbo Lotus twink in it which was built
by a Ford engineer, probably the best I saw but still not that fast and very difficult to drive. Worst was a Busa turbo in a Dax, totally rediculous,
unstable even in a strait line.
I love turbo engines, would not have anything else in my road car (petrol or diesel) but after 25 years of sevening I would not entertain a turbo in
it. There are better way to die than in a lightweight sports car will too much power.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 13/2/13 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Read the test quote "This isn't a Caterham project yet - this is Ford showing off the capabilities of its baby".
As I understand it, it's a collaborative project between Ford, Caterham and Mountune (who actually did most of the nuts-and-bolts
installation).
Whatever... the outcome so far is that it hasn't attracted particularly dazzling praise.
It may be that we will have to live with this form of engine in lightweight sports cars at some stage in the future, mind you, as in a few years time
they may be all that's available and/or compliant with emissions legislation.
[Edited on 13/2/13 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
Texan
|
| posted on 13/2/13 at 09:47 PM |
|
|
It sounds as if the Ecoboost has a power band about like a diesel. It does the job, but isn't very good with the fun factor. It truly might be
better mid corner or when things get hairy, but it's not as much fun.
I too was thinking the Ecoboost 1.0 might be a really good 7 engine. Physically small & light is what I thought. I saw the pic of the short
block sitting in a suitcase with room left over. That was exciting from a packaging & a weight concentration factor. I'm disappointed to
hear that it is heavy. I swear all the articles I've read about the engine touted it's low weight, but then again, at this stage articles
are mostly just recycling advertising lines.
A Ford employee on another forum said it would be very difficult to transplant as the ecu depended upon too many inputs to deliver power in anything
but a limp mode. I like the idea of the CanBus as that could simplify wiring, but only if you can make it work right.
The engines we use (especially over here since we were never offered most of the physically smaller engines you guys use) concentrate too much of the
total percentage of the weight into a single spot as compared to the original. We keep building almost to the old specs, but that weight
concentration rightly should change how some things are built.
I'm with you Sam_68 on the too much power aspect. They say it's better to drive a slow car fast rather than a fast car slow and I'd
agree, but really the limits for me come down to risk/reward. I want to have fun and be proud of my ride, but I don't want serious danger to be
a constant part of the equation.
Big powerful Vipers car fun, but the speed at which they can reach a minor off can become life threatening and that skews the risk/reward equation to
me.
I'll take Quick over Fast any day. I don't need to go 160 mph. I've done that over and over and found at those speeds I'm not
having fun. It's great for bragging rights but I find it's better for special occasions rather than for a daily fare.
I drive therefore I am.
|
|
|
Paul Turner
|
| posted on 14/2/13 at 08:14 AM |
|
|
Stupid amounts of power do not make a car more fun or quicker form A to B. All they do is drain your wallet and can make a car so difficult to drive
it becomes a chore.
My first Seven in 1988 had a 1700 x-flow, probably about 130 bhp. I could get from home to Cadwell (70 miles) in about an hour and 15 minutes (no
motorways - 2 miles of dual carriageway). The car was great fun but over the years I had various motors in that car and the one that replaced it with
up to 208 bhp. Now I have about 175 bhp and it takes me 1 1/2 hours to get to Cadwell, exact same roads but more muppets on them who want to prevent
you overtaking even if its safe.
So more power and a much wider power band and I am slower, that's real progress.
Best time ever to Cadwell was 55 minutes at 7.00 on a Sunday morning, in a Golf GTi before I had the Seven. Indicated 115 mph in close formation with
a very well driven X19 on Portuguese plates, great fun and it was only 112 bhp. Who needs a Seven or a turbo.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 14/2/13 at 10:23 AM |
|
|
To be fair, the EcoBoost in standard form doesn't have stupid amounts of power. It has the same as the (lighter, simpler, cheaper, naturally
aspirated) 1600 Ford Sigma.
What it has, thanks to the turbo, is much broader torque spread: the standard 123bhp Sigma1600 produces a peak 117-lb.ft of torque at
4,100rpm (and in the Caterham installation, the peak torque is actually listed as being reached at an even higher 5,350rpm). The EcoBoost produces a
constant 125 lb.ft everywhere between 1,300 and 4,500rpm with an 148 lb.ft 'overboost' facility for acceleration.
So you don't need to work as hard - not so much need for those pesky gearchanges and lots of revs. Which is great if you're a mummy on the
school-to-supermarket run, or a sales rep clocking up mega miles on the motorway...
But how much use is an ultra-lightweight, ultra-focused, enthusiast sports car that doesn't reward you for working it hard?
|
|
|
johnH20
|
| posted on 14/2/13 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
I run a 120 ps Ecoboost Focus as the family shopping car. It is an absolute hoot to drive. It feels and sounds almost as if you have got a low reving
straight 6 in there BUT I don't think I would want one in my kit car because the driving modes are so completely different. I haven't
driven it of course but I can imagine the reports on the Caterham Ecoboost are right about this.
|
|
|
Chet
|
| posted on 15/2/13 at 06:13 AM |
|
|
Thanks everyone for your comments!
I agree that the character of the engine / trans is more important than the HP level.
It seems that the UK consensus is that the stock 1.0 EcoBoost engine is not a good choice for a lightweight sports car.
The 1.6 Zetec SE / Sigma engine family was not available in the USA until last year in the new Fiesta.
Can anyone tell me if the six speed manual transaxle from the 1.6 EcoBoost fits the standard Fiesta 1.6?
Thanks again for your help.
Chet
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 15/2/13 at 08:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChetCan anyone tell me if the six speed manual transaxle from the 1.6 EcoBoost fits the standard Fiesta 1.6?
It should, I think, yes.
I've certainly electronically 'mated' (using the CAD files of the engine) the 1.0 litre EcoBoost to the 6-speed current
generation Mazda MX5 gearbox (which is standard Ford bellhousing bolt pattern and mates straight up to the Duratec and other Ford engines), so I see
no reason that the Sigma shouldn't, in return, mate straight up to the EcoBoost's transaxle.
If you have access to CAD (and a beefy computer - they are big files and need a lot of processing power to manipulate), your local Ford
OEM engine supplier should be able to provide you with the appropriate CAD files to check, if you ask them nicely.
Edited to add: best check the ratios on the EcoBoost's transaxle, too... given the wide torque spread of the engine, they may be unsuitable for
the Sigma in a sports car. Certainly, I'd expect a very tall top gear, but you may also find that the intermediate ratios are quite widely
spaced, as well.
[Edited on 15/2/13 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
DH2
|
| posted on 15/2/13 at 09:33 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
I've certainly electronically 'mated' (using the CAD files of the engine) the 1.0 litre EcoBoost to the 6-speed current
generation Mazda MX5 gearbox (which is standard Ford bellhousing bolt pattern and mates straight up to the Duratec and other Ford engines), so I see
no reason that the Sigma shouldn't, in return, mate straight up to the EcoBoost's transaxle.
Hello 'sam' 
I think your CAD has gone squiff because the Duratec(HE) and Sigma are certainly not "standard Ford bellhousing bolt pattern", nor are
they compatible with each other. MX5 NC is a Duratec block (since the HE came from the MZR), so gearbox does mate, as a few people here have done,
but they do run with the engine canted over.
Given that EcoBoost is based on the Sigma block, I would expect the 1.0 to mate to the Sigma IB5, but that is based purely on assumption from me, and
as you have mated them, perhaps they have changed it to match the HE (seems unlikely though, TBH). The 1.6 EcoBoost block certainly looks
(superficially) identical to the Sigma 1.6 block sitting in my kitchen.
DH2
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 15/2/13 at 10:27 AM |
|
|
Yes, you're right - on re-checking my files it seems that the EcoBoost 2.0 has a different bellhousing bolt pattern to the EcoBoost 1.0. I
thought I'd mated both the 1.0 and 2.0 EcoBoosts to the Mazda box, but it must have been my memory playing tricks on me!
The EcoBoost 2.0 and the Duratec share the same bolt pattern (and bolt directly up to the Mazda 6-speed), and from what you've said the Ecoboost
1.0 must match the Sigma bolt pattern.
The good news for Chet, though, should be that this still means the Sigma will bolt directly to the EcoBoost 1.0 6-speed transaxle.
[Edited on 15/2/13 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
DH2
|
| posted on 15/2/13 at 11:30 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
Yes, you're right - on re-checking my files it seems that the EcoBoost 2.0 has a different bellhousing bolt pattern to the EcoBoost 1.0. I
thought I'd mated both the 1.0 and 2.0 EcoBoosts to the Mazda box, but it must have been my memory playing tricks on me!
The EcoBoost 2.0 and the Duratec share the same bolt pattern (and bolt directly up to the Mazda 6-speed), and from what you've said the Ecoboost
1.0 must match the Sigma bolt pattern.
Seems likely as I understand that the 1.0 is broadly a Sigma with a cylinder lopped off, the 1.6 is a Sigma, and the 2.0 is a Duratec HE... in terms
of engine block, I suspect a fair amount of the other parts differ.
DH2
|
|
|
cr500dom
|
| posted on 27/2/13 at 05:40 PM |
|
|
Ecoboost 2.0l is effectively a Turbo GDI duratec with duratec bellhousing pattern
Ecoboost 1.6L is a Turbo GDI version of the Sigma, with Sigma bellhousing pattern
Ecoboost 1.0L is a totally new architecture, Turbo GDI 3 cylinder but it has the same bellhousing pattern as fords of old
So the 1.0 Ecoboost will fit where a Pre-Xflow, x-Flow, Pinto, RWD CVH, Zetec currently resides ;o)
And yes a 1.0L ecoboost with a 1.6l ecoboost turbo is a very potent package
Likewise a 1.6L Ecoboost with the turbo from the 2.0L and an intake manifold with conventional injectors fitted is even better (You need PFI on this
as the GDI injectors are at their limit around 210hp) but adding a conventional fuel rail and injectors alows you to fuel effectively above the limit
of the std GDI injectors
HTH
Dom
|
|
|
