[shivasuma]

Originally Posted by rajesh.sml

Is there a genralized proof of the above statement present, I am not sure hence asking ..

Do the hyundai Kappa Engine's or Maruti's K10's have lesser lifespan as compared to engines delivering same power having higher displacements ??

Theoretically, yes. But practically for the kind of mileage (1.5-2 lakh kms at the max) we do on our cars I don't think so. I am sure the manufacturers would have done their homework before releasing them in the market.

[Warwithwheels]

Originally Posted by rajesh.sml

Is there a genralized proof of the above statement present, I am not sure hence asking ..

Do the hyundai Kappa Engine's or Maruti's K10's have lesser lifespan as compared to engines delivering same power having higher displacements ??

Classic case in point: Toyota. Check out the displacement of the Innova, Fortuner etc., they have a displacement of 2500cc, 3000cc respectively but a relatively low power on tap.

End result: Excellent engine life of about 2 to 3 lac KM without any major engine overhaul.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by rajesh.sml

Is there a genralized proof of the above statement present, I am not sure hence asking ..

Do the hyundai Kappa Engine's or Maruti's K10's have lesser lifespan as compared to engines delivering same power having higher displacements ??

The Alto K10 and Hyundai Kappa are very low output engines. 1.2L engine with 80Ps and 1.0L engine with 68PS is hardly a high output.

Here we are talking 1.0L 3 cylinder with 122PS. To get that power output means that you almost always have the engine running near peak.

Even with the K10 and Kappa you mentioned. To get performance, you need to wring it causing additional stress. As they say, sometimes there's no replacement for displacement.

One example I can think of is the Fluence and the Laura. The Fluence has a 1.5L engine and 110PS whereas the Laura has a 2L engine with 110PS. If you drive both you will see that the Fluence has a bit of lag and is not as easy to drive around town than the Laura. The fluence requires a downshift and higher revs to pull off an overtaking manoeuvre whereas the Laura is much more relaxed and it easily pulls in a higher gear at lower rpm's. I'm not saying Fluence motor is not reliable but it will run at higher stress than a relaxed 2L motor with same output. In the end that may or may not lead to some reliability issues.

It should be interesting to see the reliability of the EcoBoost over a long term.

[sunilg33]

I don't believe in the theory that higher displacement engines are less stressed.
As technology advances the machines are bound to become smaller. We have to keep in mind that the engine components are stronger and smoother now than a decade earlier. Their stress bearing capacity has increased.
Ex : Tata sumo - 3 litre engine giving out approx 75 bhp where as the fiat multijet a 1.3 litre engine gives out equal amount of power and torque. Now. Tell me which would you pick if you have to make a new car. Me - eyes closed will choose the multijet.

[dnahelix]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

The Alto K10 and Hyundai Kappa are very low output engines. 1.2L engine with 80Ps and 1.0L engine with 68PS is hardly a high output.

Here we are talking 1.0L 3 cylinder with 122PS. To get that power output means that you almost always have the engine running near peak.

Even with the K10 and Kappa you mentioned. To get performance, you need to wring it causing additional stress. As they say, sometimes there's no replacement for displacement.

One example I can think of is the Fluence and the Laura. The Fluence has a 1.5L engine and 110PS whereas the Laura has a 2L engine with 110PS. If you drive both you will see that the Fluence has a bit of lag and is not as easy to drive around town than the Laura. The fluence requires a downshift and higher revs to pull off an overtaking manoeuvre whereas the Laura is much more relaxed and it easily pulls in a higher gear at lower rpm's. I'm not saying Fluence motor is not reliable but it will run at higher stress than a relaxed 2L motor with same output. In the end that may or may not lead to some reliability issues.

It should be interesting to see the reliability of the EcoBoost over a long term.

Good empirical observation. More power from less displacement requires more work from the engine, however improvement in metallurgy (better composite materials and alloys), precision and electronics along with design can make it happen without compromising engine life much BUT if the same generation of alloys, precision and technology are deployed, a higher displacement engine still wins.
Here are some interesting posts on EcoBoost related problems in the US:
I would still approach this with equanimity as this engine has won many awards and figure that the jury would be well informed.

[indivic]

Originally Posted by dnahelix

I would still approach this with equanimity as this engine has won many awards and figure that the jury would be well informed.

I don't want to sound cynical the various awards for car or engine of the year don't have any possibility to consider long term reliability.

[Nilesh5417]

What are the chances that Ford launches the Ecoboost engines that haven't done sufficient reliability tests and become a cause of recall/issues in US & Europe?

Given that these engines are no more just on paper, does anyone have any factual data about the issues that have occurred?

I find this theoretical debate about ecoboost interesting but maybe there is already information out there. Not just one that Dnahelix has put up there.

[NFS2024]

Originally Posted by Gizmokid

One of the most comprehensive videos giving exteriors & interior perspectives of the ecosport.

The interiors looks classy for sure with that dashboard and all the gizmos and features. The space at the rear looks good as well. Will we get all those in the Indian version as well? God knows..!!

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

The Alto K10 and Hyundai Kappa are very low output engines. 1.2L engine with 80Ps and 1.0L engine with 68PS is hardly a high output.

Here we are talking 1.0L 3 cylinder with 122PS. To get that power output means that you almost always have the engine running near peak.

Even with the K10 and Kappa you mentioned. To get performance, you need to wring it causing additional stress. As they say, sometimes there's no replacement for displacement.

Good point. *thumbs up*

But how often have we heard of small-displacement engine-failures due to high levels of stress? The K10 / Kappa / 1.2 iVtec mills are fairly reliable, nay, extremely reliable. Sure, they need to be wrung to extract maximum performance, but how often would people do this? Most people don't exceed certain RPM levels on a daily basis and modern technology / material / components will be able to deal with high levels of stress anyway.

Hondas are known to last just as long as Toyotas even though their engines are much more high-strung.

Also, if the engine is torquey especially lower down the rev-range, you can get good performance without having to wring the engine much. This would improve longevity, wouldn't it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I wouldn't be able to comment on the EcoBoost engine, given that it has a blower. Turbos do add helluva lot more stress to the engine and its components. Cars that come a turbo factory-fitted are famous for going kaput, let alone after-market turbochargers. Hopefully, it will be reliable.

[MaddyCrew]

Originally Posted by sunilg33

I don't believe in the theory that higher displacement engines are less stressed.
As technology advances the machines are bound to become smaller. We have to keep in mind that the engine components are stronger and smoother now than a decade earlier. Their stress bearing capacity has increased.
Ex : Tata sumo - 3 litre engine giving out approx 75 bhp where as the fiat multijet a 1.3 litre engine gives out equal amount of power and torque. Now. Tell me which would you pick if you have to make a new car. Me - eyes closed will choose the multijet.

@sunilg I don't think you have made a fair comparison here!! IMHO, comparing an internationally acclaimed engine to a crudely built desi engine is just not right.

Let us compare the 1.3 litre FIAT multijet (75HP) to a 1.3 litre (160+ HP) Hayabusa engine. Which one of these "similar capacity" engines do you think will be more reliable?

The reliability of an engine is affected by quite a lot of 'variables' other than the engine specs itself - like the operating conditions, driving style, usage pattern, fuel quality, maintenance policy etc.

Keeping those factors aside and considering only the engine specs, I think a bigger CC engine will almost always be a "smoother/ unstressed performer" than a smaller CC engine while delivering similar power/ torque levels. This becomes even more relevant in the context of forced-induction engines (supercharged/ turbocharged). The lower stress levels contribute to less wear & tear and hence enhanced engine life. This is the theory part. However in the real world, the "non-engine" variables have quite a big impact and hence this reliability enhancement is extremely difficult to quantify.

As for the Ecoboost engine's reliability in the Indian scenario, let us just wait and watch as the story unfolds

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

Good point. *thumbs up*

But how often have we heard of small-displacement engine-failures due to high levels of stress? The K10 / Kappa / 1.2 iVtec mills are fairly reliable, nay, extremely reliable. Sure, they need to be wrung to extract maximum performance, but how often would people do this? Most people don't exceed certain RPM levels on a daily basis and modern technology / material / components will be able to deal with high levels of stress anyway.

The K10 / Kappa / 1.2 i-vtec engines are not really high output motors. They need to be wrung but again within the limit. Like you say not many people even drive like that.

Hondas are known to last just as long as Toyotas even though their engines are much more high-strung.

Honda's are in a different league altogether. They are usually high strung low torque motors so again less mechanical stress. But the Honda's are designed pretty much to work at high rpm's. Any other motor starts feeling so strained in the upper rev band.

Also, if the engine is torquey especially lower down the rev-range, you can get good performance without having to wring the engine much. This would improve longevity, wouldn't it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yup that is true. If it is torquey then it is not a problem but again since the motor has a turbo the characteristics are different.

There's no doubting the capability of the EcoBoost motor. Ford have done a lot of changes to the way the engine is designed from the block materials to use of NVH reducing technologies.

It's just something to keep in mind that high strung engines are not without their disadvantages.

Another point is fuel quality. VW could have got the 1.4TSI in higher tune in Jetta but decided to play safe.

[pgsagar]

Sure there IS no replacement for displacement. But, as has been rightly said above, how many people push an engine to its peak? Our chaotic roads hardly provide an opportunity to do that. So I wouldn't worry about the engine stress part.

Second, longevity. Yes, longevity will be shorter than high dispplacement engines. But then again, these days people get bored with their cars faster than their car engines get "bored". Gone are the days when you lug a car around for a decade. Three/four year down the road and you start itching to get what would be latest then. Also, what good is it when engine lasts eons but everything else around it starts falling apart or rusting? Whether one likes it or not, cars are becoming use-and-throw commodities.

[ampere]

Guys,

Sorry if I pushed the discussion in the wrong directions. My only intent was to understand. Off course no manufacturer would leave an engine into production without extensive field tests.

- One aspect which I felt was, (as is echoed by others) that higher displacement engines, for the same power/torque would be lesser stressed.
- But that does not mean the smaller displacement engines for the same specs are not going to hold on.
- May be the engine architecture and its metallurgy has been given the due consideration and this has been taken into account.
- If that is the one which causes a major difference in the construction of the engine, then may be reliability consideration should be base lined to the changed equation.
- And off course the other aspect is availability of higher grade fuels if they are a requirement for these new age engines.

[shabash]

Originally Posted by pgsagar

Whether one likes it or not, cars are becoming use-and-throw commodities.

....I think most people just ear-marks a certain amount for EMI every year and just keeps changing when the loan period ends, say 3-4-5 years as the case may be.

One more aspect that I see is that many people do not want to even have a single failure during the lifetime the car is with them, especially if the ladies are driving it (I saw a lady, whose esteem [at least a decade old] had broken down on the road, shouting at her husband over the phone on why he does not change the car poor guy) I don't want to be in that position.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by shabash

One more aspect that I see is that many people do not want to even have a single failure during the lifetime the car is with them, especially if the ladies are driving it (I saw a lady, whose esteem [at least a decade old] had broken down on the road, shouting at her husband over the

Oops poor guy!

Anyway, I also prefer reliability over some extra performance, as long as acceptable level of performance is there. So good observation.