[RavenAvi]

The Ford Motor Company is hard at work on an innovative new engine management system that could prove to make their award-winning 3-cylinder 1.0L EcoBoost even more fuel efficient. This was revealed at the ongoing Vienna Engine Symposium by Ford director for Global Powertrain, Research & Advanced Engineering, Mr. Andreas Schamel.

For this, Ford engineers conducted an experiment on cylinder deactivation during on-road tests using a Ford Focus equipped with the 1.0L EcoBoost, which improved the fuel efficiency of the downsized motor by a further 6 percent.

For the test they also developed a new dual mass flywheel. This enabled cylinder deactivation to take place at a wider range of engine loads and speeds, and helped minimize noise, vibration and harshness levels.

These findings were presented today to the world renowned Vienna Engine Symposium by Andreas Schamel, Ford director, Global Powertrain, Research & Advanced Engineering. Cylinder deactivation is among a number of fuel efficiency solutions Ford is investigating for the 1.0-litre EcoBoost, at the European Research and Innovation Centre in Aachen, Germany.

“Even for an aggressively downsized engine such as the 1.0-litre EcoBoost, a significant improvement in vehicle fuel economy could be found by exploiting cylinder deactivation,” Schamel said. “The highest priority in the development of new combustion engines for automotive applications is the ongoing reduction of fuel consumption.”

SOURCE - AutoCar Professional

[GTO]

The 1.0L EcoBoost is a sweet engine. Good refinement & power out of a small 1.0L 3-cylinder.

However, it's only a myth that the EcoBoost is 'magically' fuel efficient. Driving it with a heavy foot on Goa's highways, we saw 7.9 kpl. Drive with a light foot and you should realistically expect 11 - 12 kpl. That's decent, but certainly not brag-worthy for a small SUV that has the footprint of a hatchback. Ford should stop harping about the efficiency of this motor as it unreasonably raises owner expectations.

Here's what owners have to say:

Originally Posted by saisrujan

Alright, here are the FE figures for the ecoboost - using a full-tank to full-tank averaging method. I drove a total of 507km since my last full-tank and the tank took in 44.25 liters of unleaded at Shell.

So, the mileage I got is 11.45 kmpl.

Originally Posted by arunphilip

Odo: 5600 km
Age: 8 months
City mileage: 11.5 km/L

Originally Posted by agambhandari

I'd say about 10-12 Kpl in pure city conditions.

Originally Posted by JyotirajH

I bought my Ecosport Ecoboost, almost an year ago. And after clocking, 20,500 KMs, with an average of 11.5 kmpl

Originally Posted by penpavan

I drove 480 Kms. 400 on highway at almost a constant speed of 120 kmph and around 80 Kms in city.
Tank to tank method gave me a figure of 12.43 where as MID was showing 12.6.

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by GTO

However, it's only a myth that the EcoBoost is 'magically' fuel efficient. Driving it with a heavy foot on Goa's highways, we saw 7.9 kpl. Drive with a light foot and you should realistically expect 11 - 12 kpl.

Ford sets the wrong expectation by repeatedly highlighting the 1.0L displacement of this engine. When you have a turbo 1.0L engine giving the approximate performance output of a 1.6L NA engine, we should expect the fuel consumption to be in the range of a 1.6L engine. After all, turbo helps jam in a higher volume of air in a smaller space, but the engine runs on roughly a similar fuel-air ratio. This is not an engine that's 25% larger than an Alto engine, with 25% worse mileage than an Alto.

The key observation I see about the EcoBoost engine is the obvious one - it is immensely more sensitive to driving style than a higher capacity NA engine. While the EcoBoost can lose 40% of its mileage with spirited driving, a higher capacity engine (say the 2.0L in the Cedia) would not exhibit such a pronounced variance due to different driving styles.

This is why with reasonable driving in the city I get:

Originally Posted by arunphilip

Odo: 5600 km
Age: 8 months
City mileage: 11.5 km/L

And on the highway I get anywhere from 14.5 to 18.6 km/L based on how nutty I am with my right foot:

Originally Posted by arunphilip

I had decided to try driving in a more sedate manner, since my previous run on the same route resulted in 14.5 km/L, with a heavy foot.

This time around, I got an overall trip mileage of 18.6 km/L for a distance of 415 km. More interestingly, I checked the MID ... just before ascending the ghats..., I'd had a mileage of 19.9 km/L.

That said, some of the improvements sound interesting:

they also developed a new dual mass flywheel. This enabled cylinder deactivation to take place at a wider range of engine loads and speeds, and helped minimize noise, vibration and harshness levels.

I wonder how that flywheel will alter general driveability, without cylinder deactivation.

And on that topic of cylinder deactivation:

Even for an aggressively downsized engine such as the 1.0-litre EcoBoost, a significant improvement in vehicle fuel economy could be found by exploiting cylinder deactivation

I've heard of cylinder deactivation in V6 and higher engines, this is probably a first where you're starting with a measly 3 cylinders, and are already looking at turning one of them off!

[SchumiFan]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

When you have a turbo 1.0L engine giving the approximate performance output of a 1.6L NA engine, we should expect the fuel consumption to be in the range of a 1.6L engine. After all, turbo helps jam in a higher volume of air in a smaller space, but the engine runs on roughly a similar fuel-air ratio. This is not an engine that's 25% larger than an Alto engine, with 25% worse mileage than an Alto.

The key observation I see about the EcoBoost engine is the obvious one - it is immensely more sensitive to driving style than a higher capacity NA engine. While the EcoBoost can lose 40% of its mileage with spirited driving, a higher capacity engine (say the 2.0L in the Cedia) would not exhibit such a pronounced variance due to different driving styles.

If it doesn't give such an advantage with the turbo, is it not better to have the 1.6 liter engine itself. The engine will be much more relaxed than this puny 1.0 liter one. It would be a proper 4 cylinder engine and like you say be less susceptible to variation in driving styles. Customers would also save on import costs of the engine (at least in India).

I understand the Ecoboost giving less mileage when pushed. But I would expect it to have higher efficiency in the City at least owing to the small size of the engine.

There are complaints about the Ecoboost engine abroad as well saying how it returns very bad mileage when it is loaded etc.

Having driven a few 1.6/2.0 Ecoboost engines myself, I would say the 2.4L ones in the competitions offer better/consistent mileage than the Ford engines.

I even had the embarassment of losing out to a minivan with a 3L V6 while I was driving a Escape with an Ecoboost engine

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

If it doesn't give such an advantage with the turbo, is it not better to have the 1.6 liter engine itself. The engine will be much more relaxed than this puny 1.0 liter one.

I see the key difference is the additional torque that the turbo releases at a much lower rpm, which lets me be more lazy/stupid with gear changes. But your general point is very valid, and is the crux of the whole NA vs. turbocharged debate

But that all deals with driveability, the technical angle and all the stuff that excites petrolheads. Look at it from the financial perspective: a smaller displacement engine allows tax savings that a manufacturer can use to either increase their profit, pass on to the customer via a lower sticker price, or both. And that also determines why you don't see the EcoBoost engine in certain markets like Brazil.

[petroguzzler]

Originally Posted by GTO

However, it's only a myth that the EcoBoost is 'magically' fuel efficient.

Originally Posted by arunphilip

Ford sets the wrong expectation by repeatedly highlighting the 1.0L displacement of this engine. When you have a turbo 1.0L engine giving the approximate performance output of a 1.6L NA engine, we should expect the fuel consumption to be in the range of a 1.6L engine.

Then where is the efficiency in the ecoboost engine. If the FE numbers are similar to 1.6 four cylinder engines, then whats the point? Is it to save some metal cost during manufactuing?

That said petrol engines are far more sensitive to driving styles than diesel ones. You can high-rev the national engine and drive it with a heavy foot, but its FE would never slip into single digits.

[SchumiFan]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

I see the key difference is the additional torque that the turbo releases at a much lower rpm, which lets me be more lazy/stupid with gear changes. But your general point is very valid, and is the crux of the whole NA vs. turbocharged debate

But that all deals with driveability, the technical angle and all the stuff that excites petrolheads. Look at it from the financial perspective: a smaller displacement engine allows tax savings that a manufacturer can use to either increase their profit, pass on to the customer via a lower sticker price, or both. And that also determines why you don't see the EcoBoost engine in certain markets like Brazil.

IMO, this is precisely the issue with going too low on the cylinder displacement level when it comes to Petrol engines fitted with turbocharger. There is simply no way that a 1.0 engine will be able to perform well until the turbo kicks in.

Having a greater capacity engine will help alleviate the problem and provide the user with the boost when the turbo kicks in. Thus not leaving all the work to be done by the turbo.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

If it doesn't give such an advantage with the turbo, is it not better to have the 1.6 liter engine itself.

A smaller turbo-charged engine helps with packaging in the engine bay and attracting lesser tax in some countries. It is also lighter.

The reasons that the EcoSport's EcoBoost isn't fuel-efficient are:

- It's very powerful. 123 BHP is on the higher side for such a small motor. Ford's own 1.6L n/a engine used to make 100 BHP.

- The power output shows that a bigger turbo has been used. This brings the turbo-lag. Turbo-lag isn't good for fuel economy as you have to revv the engine more than you would normally.

For all its technology, the 1.0 EcoBoost certainly isn't as nice as the old 1.6L n/a (at least in my books). The Fiesta's 1.6L had better driveability, was quick, more refined and revv-happier. It owns the EcoBoost in nearly every area.

Originally Posted by arunphilip

I see the key difference is the additional torque that the turbo releases at a much lower rpm, which lets me be more lazy/stupid with gear changes.

Not in the EcoBoost, you can't. It's suffers from turbo-lag.

Originally Posted by petroguzzler

That said petrol engines are far more sensitive to driving styles than diesel ones. You can high-rev the national engine and drive it with a heavy foot, but its FE would never slip into single digits.

. That's true, I've seen it across a wide range of cars.

That said, do keep in mind that the diesel has restricted revvs of 4,000 - 5,000, compared to the usual 6,500 - 7,000 range of most petrols. Try keeping the petrol within 5,000 revvs and you probably won't see as severe a dip in fuel economy.

[alpha1]

Fuel consumption (Litres per hour) depends on the BHP being produced.
Keeping the engine efficiency equal, Engine A producing 50BHP @ 2500 RPM will consume same amount of fuel as Engine B producing 50BHP @ 2500 RPM.
Whether Engine A is 800 cc, Engine B 8000 cc, Engine A comes with variogeometry turbo charger, Engine B does not, cannot change the basic point of physics.

If I pedal my Ecoboost1.0L to produce 123 horses, I cannot expect it to consume markedly less fuel than Honda iVtec 1.5L being pedaled to produce 117bhp.

Now where the difference may arise is when we introduce the consumption measurement in Litres per km.
Which means keeping the Litres per hour figure same, how can I improve the km per hour.
Or in other words, how can I drive at the higher possible gear with the lowest possible RPM?
For this, the engine should have as flat torque curve as possible.
And this is where a turbocharge helps.

[priyankar85]

Going through this post I feel I am back to square-one in the search for a new compact SUV. I had made up my mind on taking up the 1L Simba(with the new facelift coming in) but 10-12 is way too low even by the Diesel vs Petrol calculation chart

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

IMO, this is precisely the issue with going too low on the cylinder displacement level when it comes to Petrol engines fitted with turbocharger. There is simply no way that a 1.0 engine will be able to perform well until the turbo kicks in.

Also, just visualizing an Alto engine panting and sweating while trying to pull the Ecosport till it reaches 1400, I feel sorry for the revv crazy driver of the ecosport

Originally Posted by petroguzzler

That said petrol engines are far more sensitive to driving styles than diesel ones. You can high-rev the national engine and drive it with a heavy foot, but its FE would never slip into single digits.

Thats what I experienced too. I drive my car with a light-foot shifting at 3000 where as my friend releases the clutch at the 1st gear @2500. He gets an FE of 14KMPL whereas I get something above 16KMPL in the Swift Diesel. He too was correct about quoting "what is the use of a TurboJet if you arent going to use it"
On the other hand, when I drove my Zen during my vacation in Delhi for 3-4 days, my family commented on the improvement of FE for that full-tank