[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Ashley2

I was always wondering why there exists a trend of lowering the CC of an engine and claiming to be good?
Actually you are trying to push(squeeze) the engine to its limits and extracting maximum output. Will this not translate into reduced overall life of engine? What is the life of this engine compared to higher CC engines? Any camparo?

As technology improves there is bound to be optimzation of engines hence smaller lower capacity mills will outproduce earlier large engines. Having said that can someone give at what rpm range does the Ecosport engine produce its 120 horses and 17kgm torque?

[sansvk]

Couple of pictures of an undisguised Ecosport spotted near chennai.
Ford EcoSport spied undisguised in Chennai | Full Throttle - Yahoo! News India

[Ashley2]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

As technology improves there is bound to be optimzation of engines hence smaller lower capacity mills will outproduce earlier large engines. Having said that can someone give at what rpm range does the Ecosport engine produce its 120 horses and 17kgm torque?

That's different. I was interested in the overall life of two engines with same output one from lower capacity and other from higher capacity engine.

[sumeshmani]

Originally Posted by sansvk

Couple of pictures of an undisguised Ecosport spotted near chennai.
Ford EcoSport spied undisguised in Chennai | Full Throttle - Yahoo! News India

Superb. That EcoSport got really caught in that toll gate that too without any camouflage. Not that Ford would have just let this happen. Must be part of early publicity. Good photographs though.

[MAS]

Originally Posted by sansvk

Couple of pictures of an undisguised Ecosport spotted near chennai.
Ford EcoSport spied undisguised in Chennai | Full Throttle - Yahoo! News India

These pictures were originally taken by Motor Vikatan and have been posted in this same thread http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post2814680

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Ashley2

That's different. I was interested in the overall life of two engines with same output one from lower capacity and other from higher capacity engine.

Thats the whole reason my friend, why I asked for the rpm range in which the bhp and torque are produced. If this engine produces most of the bhp and torque low down in the rpm range (unlikely in such a small capacity engine) then it is relatively unstressed. If it produces it high up in the rpm range then the engine is relatively more stressed, also the driver would be stressed if he/she has to rev like a sportsbike to get moving anywhere.

The more stressed the engine, the lower is the engine life....this is what I understand

[anachronix]

Whats your take on engine life while comparing an old traditional 2.5L DI turbo generating 63 odd horses and 180Nm of torque in a Bolero vs the national 1.3L puny diesel unit generating 90bhp and 240Nm of torque!?

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Thats the whole reason my friend, why I asked for the rpm range in which the bhp and torque are produced. If this engine produces most of the bhp and torque low down in the rpm range (unlikely in such a small capacity engine) then it is relatively unstressed. If it produces it high up in the rpm range then the engine is relatively more stressed, also the driver would be stressed if he/she has to rev like a sportsbike to get moving anywhere.

The more stressed the engine, the lower is the engine life....this is what I understand

Originally Posted by Ashley2

That's different. I was interested in the overall life of two engines with same output one from lower capacity and other from higher capacity engine.

[shankar.balan]

A matter of harnessing greater efficiencies with technology.
The XUV 2.2 mill developing 140 BHP is a better bet than the old Scorp 2.6 mill developing 115 BHP.

Originally Posted by anachronix

Whats your take on engine life while comparing an old traditional 2.5L DI turbo generating 63 odd horses and 180Nm of torque in a Bolero vs the national 1.3L puny diesel unit generating 90bhp and 240Nm of torque!?

[DieselFan]

Originally Posted by anachronix

Whats your take on engine life while comparing an old traditional 2.5L DI turbo generating 63 odd horses and 180Nm of torque in a Bolero vs the national 1.3L puny diesel unit generating 90bhp and 240Nm of torque!?

Our national engine can easily run for 300000 kms without opening for overhaul. We have seen it reach 200000 kms with only oil/filter changes and that too every 20,000 kms oil change frequency. modern diesel engine technology has improved engines leaps and bounds.

[AutoIndian]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

As technology improves there is bound to be optimzation of engines hence smaller lower capacity mills will outproduce earlier large engines. Having said that can someone give at what rpm range does the Ecosport engine produce its 120 horses and 17kgm torque?

This has been discussed at length in the earlier pages of this very thread (message #482 Pg 33)

Here is the link --> http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post2717456

Quote:
Maximum torque of both power output versions is 170 N·m (125 lb·ft)—10 N·m (7.3 lb·ft) better than the 1.6-L. The EcoBoost’s torque curve is remarkably flat, producing the maximum figure from 1400 to 4000 rpm for the 73.5-kW version and 1400 to 4500 rpm for the 92-kW version, the latter having a 200-N·m (147.5-lb·ft) transient overboost capability.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Thats the whole reason my friend, why I asked for the rpm range in which the bhp and torque are produced. If this engine produces most of the bhp and torque low down in the rpm range (unlikely in such a small capacity engine) then it is relatively unstressed. If it produces it high up in the rpm range then the engine is relatively more stressed, also the driver would be stressed if he/she has to rev like a sportsbike to get moving anywhere.

The more stressed the engine, the lower is the engine life....this is what I understand

As you can see from the figures above, this engine can produce its peak torque from very low rpms (infact 90% of the peak torque is produced @ 1300rpm). Hence this miniature engine is likely to perform unstressed.

[anachronix]

Thanks guys! I am sure you guys answered the discussions over reliability while extracting higher power than normal from a smaller CC unit with help of TC!

Originally Posted by DieselFan

Our national engine can easily run for 300000 kms without opening for overhaul. We have seen it reach 200000 kms with only oil/filter changes and that too every 20,000 kms oil change frequency. modern diesel engine technology has improved engines leaps and bounds.

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

A matter of harnessing greater efficiencies with technology.
The XUV 2.2 mill developing 140 BHP is a better bet than the old Scorp 2.6 mill developing 115 BHP.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

How does it matter really even if its a plasma pulse engine driven by light rays from an atom? As per the average buyer the questions asked is with petrol rates @75per liter is this engine giving me so extraordinary milage compared to a competitor? Is it giving me the same value for money as the next brand? Is it better than a DDSi deisel?

New technology isn't for the "average buyer". New technology is for early adopters who do not mind paying a premium for cutting edge technology. For the "average buyer", there is always a Premier Rio or a Bolero.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

New technology isn't for the "average buyer". New technology is for early adopters who do not mind paying a premium for cutting edge technology. For the "average buyer", there is always a Premier Rio or a Bolero.

Which average buyer has bought the RiO? Are there even 10 RiO's sold per city? No average buyer buys a flop car. If Renault/Ford wants to launch cutting edge cars/with cutting edge technology then definitely a hatchback suv is not the right platform.

Piggybacking on the claims of 'new technology' to sell these cars for large sums of money will def bring out a failure. Heck people are not ready to pay 18 lacs for an Aria why should they pay 15 lac for a ecosport?

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Which average buyer has bought the RiO? Are there even 10 RiO's sold per city? No average buyer buys a flop car. If Renault/Ford wants to launch cutting edge cars/with cutting edge technology then definitely a hatchback suv is not the right platform.

Piggybacking on the claims of 'new technology' to sell these cars for large sums of money will def bring out a failure. Heck people are not ready to pay 18 lacs for an Aria why should they pay 15 lac for a ecosport?

Rio was an extreme example because you brought the "average buyer" into the picture, when the discussion at that point was about whether the 1L petrol engine could be called "revolutionary" or not. "Average buyer" is a broad term which can be used to represent a wide range of people depending on the way you want to look at it. On a more realistic note, if you are too worried about the price of the 1L petrol engine, you have the 1.5L diesel which should be "average" enough for the "average buyer". I think, the "average buyer" should stop worrying about technology and stick to mediocrity. Check with Maruti whether they have anything in the pipeline.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Rio was an extreme example because you brought the "average buyer" into the picture, when the discussion at that point was about whether the 1L petrol engine could be called "revolutionary" or not. "Average buyer" is a broad term which can be used to represent a wide range of people depending on the way you want to look at it. On a more realistic note, if you are too worried about the price of the 1L petrol engine, you have the 1.5L diesel which should be "average" enough for the "average buyer". I think, the "average buyer" should stop worrying about technology and stick to mediocrity. Check with Maruti whether they have anything in the pipeline.

Its nothing personal my friend. I am not even looking at this small suv segment, thanks I am happy with a full size suv and a hatch which I possess.

My take on the ecosport was, if Ford wants to sell its new car well, then it should price it right. This was because lot of forum members were saying since the ecoboost is new technology its right to price it at a premium. There might be a miniscule number of enthusiasts who understand are are ready to pay for better technology. unfortunately these people would not be enough numbers to make a success for ford. End of the day the ecosport has to compete with the I20, jazz, Bolero, Ertiga and the likes in the same market space. So having 5 seats a hatchback footprint and a big suv price may not click.