HowardB
|
| posted on 29/7/14 at 06:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by baz-R
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by eddie99
I've been looking into the ecoboost range recently, i've been told the 1 ltr is unbalanced,
Three cylinder engines are naturally more unbalanced than a 4 cylinder ones. Instead of adding a balancer shaft Ford unbalanced the crank/flywheel
assembly so most of the vibrational energy occurs in the horizontal plane instead of the vertical plane, which can be absorbed by the engine mounts
more easily. It's a clever scheme, but implies that vibration could be a problem if you want to use stiffer engine mounts.
when i was studying engine design i was told that 3cyl inline engines ballance very well (vibration wise) if you ave a 120deg crank and from 3cyl bike
and car engines i have played with would say this is just not true yes there is a problem with 4 strokes and 3cyl's to get an even power strokes
but its not a real issue and theres plenty of engines outhere with uneven power strokes or oddfires as thay are somtines called.
saying that i have no exact design on what ford have actualy done in the 1l ecoboost but im sure it could be ironed out 
the future is that we are all just going to have to move on at some point so we best make an early start
I am guessing that Triumph have fixed the problem in their very popular "triple" range?
Howard
Fisher Fury was 2000 Zetec - now a 1600 (it Lives again  and goes zoom)
|
|
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 29/7/14 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
97kg all-up for 125bhp.
I'd rather have a Sigma engine!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
HowardB
|
| posted on 29/7/14 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
97kg all-up for 125bhp.
I'd rather have a Sigma engine!
How about this
one....10hp
per kilo
That's a bit good
Howard
Fisher Fury was 2000 Zetec - now a 1600 (it Lives again and goes zoom)
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 29/7/14 at 08:08 PM |
|
|
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 29/7/14 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
It's all progress
Emissions rule
but we modify
Look at how the Duratec is the new darling
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 29/7/14 at 09:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by baz-R
when i was studying engine design i was told that 3cyl inline engines ballance very well (vibration wise) if you ave a 120deg crank and from 3cyl bike
and car engines i have played with would say this is just not true yes there is a problem with 4 strokes and 3cyl's to get an even power strokes
but its not a real issue and theres plenty of engines outhere with uneven power strokes or oddfires as thay are somtines called.
saying that i have no exact design on what ford have actualy done in the 1l ecoboost but im sure it could be ironed out
the future is that we are all just going to have to move on at some point so we best make an early start
Triples with 120 degree cranks have perfect primary and secondary balance, but they have quite a strong 'rocking couple' which causes
vibration unless cancelled out with a balancer shaft.
quote:
Originally posted by HowardB
I am guessing that Triumph have fixed the problem in their very popular "triple" range?
They have a balancer shaft, as does my Benelli triple.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 29/7/14 at 11:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by eddie99....it doesnt lend itself towards RWD applications.
Although Caterham trialled it in the Seven, of course:
Link
The comments I've seen from PistonHeads and others support what MikeRJ said about the torque characteristics being somewhat at odds with the
usual rev-hungry ethos for small-capacity 'Seven' engines.
|
|
|
baz-R
|
| posted on 31/7/14 at 07:22 PM |
|
|
if we are getting picky then quite a few modern 4pots also have ballancer shafts
|
|
|
JMDWestley
|
| posted on 3/8/14 at 04:35 PM |
|
|
Providing were all happy paying tax under the old scheme I don't think these small three cylinder engines are worth using in a kit or a small
production car.
10 years time that may of changed but we can always rebuild engines.
Who knows by then someone could of brought rights to a zetec or duratec engine or invented their own that uses the ford bell housing pattern?
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 3/8/14 at 05:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JMDWestley
Providing were all happy paying tax under the old scheme I don't think these small three cylinder engines are worth using in a kit or a small
production car.
10 years time that may of changed but we can always rebuild engines.
Who knows by then someone could of brought rights to a zetec or duratec engine or invented their own that uses the ford bell housing pattern?
The current generation of MX5's use the Duratec engine, mated to inline 5- and 6-speed gearboxes, so there's a decent source of donors
there, for the next few years.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even if you use an ultra-efficient modern 3-pot in a kit car, you don't get
the benefit of the reduced tax bracket unless you do formal emissions testing for that specific vehicle (on account of, for example, an
EcoBoost engine in a typical 'Seven' will give quite different emissions figures than the same engine in a Ford hatchback).
I did some work looking at the EcoBoost a couple of years ago for a kit car manufacturer, who thought he could get the marketing benefit of £30/year
tax on his kit, and I was forced to disillusion him for this reason: unless you're prepared to meet the cost of putting your car through the EU
emissions type approval test, you're still going to be paying tax under the old regime.
|
|
|
