carguy123 wrote:
So is it just a stroked 1.0? That would make it torquey but you'd lose the revs of what has already been reported as an engine that didn't like to rev.
I love the concept, especially if we can get it standalone, but I don't like low revving torquers.
I never heard of increasing the stroke adding 50 percent to the displacement.
Is it an iron block like it's smaller cousin? If so, it will be a net weight increase over the 4 cylinder. Hopefully they managed to control vibration with Aluminum.
Kreb wrote:
I never heard of increasing the stroke adding 50 percent to the displacement.
Is it an iron block like it's smaller cousin? If so, it will be a net weight increase over the 4 cylinder. Hopefully they managed to control vibration with Aluminum.
How do you figure it would be heavier than a 1.5l 4 cyl? It would be really close if it was, but I don't see it heavier.
Kreb wrote:
I never heard of increasing the stroke adding 50 percent to the displacement.
Ford Kent engines started life as 1-liter engines and were later stroked to 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.6l engines.
The 3-cyl 1.0 has no more room for more bore, apparently there is only 3mm between cylinders! So the only way to get more displacement is more stroke, or offsetting the cylinders like VW did for the 4.2 V8, or outright expanding the bore centers, which may as well be a completely different engine.
I've a feeling that Ford designed the three with deliberately a lot more room for more stroke but started out with the 1-liter because it wouldn't make sense to have a 3 and a 4 of almost the same displacement. Why, that would be like having a 427ci, a 428ci, and a 429ci engine available in the same year in the same car! 
Seems to me, the simplest way Ford could do a 1.5 turbo triple, with that output and retaining some fun zinginess, would be to start with the 2.0 ST engine and just cut a cylinder off. It would also reduce the number of new parts that would need to be designed.
If it's anything like Triumph's triple motorcycles, the engine note will be glorious.
WildScotsRacing wrote:
Seems to me, the simplest way Ford could do a 1.5 turbo triple, with that output and retaining some fun zinginess, would be to start with the 2.0 ST engine and just cut a cylinder off. It would also reduce the number of new parts that would need to be designed.
Easier would be half of a 3.5 Ecoboost, I think. You would even be able to use one of the existing head castings and the cams in that head, since V6s are even firing on each bank.
It would be a lot physically larger than the current engine, though, and as such would be missing the point.
Why does everyone keep pushing the easy button?
Is it that hard to think that an engine that is projected to sell well in excess of 500,000 units a year would be totally unique?
And that 500k is in the US- between the Fusion and Escape. Add more for the rest of the world.
The only other engine mentioned that sells anywhere near that is the 2.0l turbo. The 3.5 turbo is about 300k in the truck, whereas the 2.0l turbo is in excess of 500k, too- with the Explorer, Edge, Escape, Fusion, MKZ, etc.
A better question is "what was wrong with the 1.5 4cyl to abandon so quickly?" Which I have no idea to.
(the 1.6 was pretty old, updated by the 1.5- which isn't going to last all that long, oddly)
alfadriver wrote:
A better question is "what was wrong with the 1.5 4cyl to abandon so quickly?" Which I have no idea to.
Because Ford, is my guess. There is a long and interesting history of short-lived engines like the 8 years' production Y-block, and the 3 years' producton 351C (which was made at the same time as the 351W, because why not), or one/two year only displacements like the 410.
alfadriver wrote:
Kreb wrote:
I never heard of increasing the stroke adding 50 percent to the displacement.
Is it an iron block like it's smaller cousin? If so, it will be a net weight increase over the 4 cylinder. Hopefully they managed to control vibration with Aluminum.
How do you figure it would be heavier than a 1.5l 4 cyl? It would be really close if it was, but I don't see it heavier.
My understanding is that the iron-block 1.0 weighs as much as the all-aluminum ecoboost 1.6. So my concern is that if the 1.5 triple also has a heavy iron block, it could be a significant net weight increase over the older 4-banger engine. But I don't know. Hven't seen any eight figures on the new engine. Very few specifics at all in fact.
You make a good point about designing a unique engine. The 1.0 has huge production numbers in Europe, so it makes sense to go all-out if they expect the 1.5 3-cylinder to be their ubiquitous motor.
Why would the block be different? If anything any increase in block size would just be deck height, which is a pretty minimal amount of metal. Maybe 4-5lb max for an engine that size, and that is being pessimistic.
Displacement doesn't really make engines heavier. I would not doubt if Ford designed the engine to be 1.5l from the get-go, since 500cc/cyl seems to be the sweet spot for efficiency. So it's not so much that the 1.5 is bigger, it's that it was originally released as an undersized engine for its potential.
That is pretty common, actually. Few engines are initially offered at their maximum displacement potential. (How much heavier is a 302 relative to a 221? It isn't, really...)
In reply to Kreb:
Can't say that it's my understanding. Especially when a block was carried in on board luggage as an advertising stunt. The 1.0l is a very thin wall cast iron design. Which is so good that even though an aluminum block has been designed, iron is still the one being used.
iirc the 1.0 with accessories and turbo is only like 200lbs wet.
Hmmm, I read it on an internet forum, so it must be right!
According to wikipedia, the 1.6 is 38 lbs. heavier (251 versus 213), and since rumor has it alfadriver knows a thing or two about Fords, I stand corrected.
I've been waiting for this rumor of a 3-Cylinder ST to come true for awhile now. I've driven the current ST and the 1.0L tri-pot and found them both entertaining to drive. The noises the little three makes are sweet.
In reply to Nitroracer:
IIRC there was a thread, on this very discussion forum, about putting the ST suspension bits under the 1.0 Fiesta and getting a kind of ST Lite.
And that the 1.0 was making around 130-135 horsepower at the wheels in independent testing. Very curious.
(This is all so bizarre. When I was growing up, Ford was mostly known for making sorta-crappy cars with uninspiring engines. Even the OMG V8 MUSTANG!!! made 135hp at some bogus RPM like 3600. They weren't "TORQUEY" they just laid down and died once past a fast idle. Now they are making world-class cars with 1 liter engines making more than the V8s did)
