To be exact, Mazda & Ford done research on GDI together before & after divorce. For global market where EU/US market are top priority, they have to begin with 2.0L first. Now they made it, they are turning to smaller engines with GDi technology. Same goes to Korean, they began with 2.0L engine first followed by others. Reason being, the 2.0L can be fitted in most segments and type of chassis - sedan, hatchback C/D segment, SUV, MPV worldwide. With proper engine then comes with turbocharger.

1.6L turbo tuned to 2.4L engine output/torque consumes more FC than standard 1.6L engine but less FC than 2.4L.

2.0L Turbo tuned to 3.5L engine output/torque consumes more than standard 2.0L engine but less FC than 3.5L.

In US, the inline4 2.0T will not have the nice rev sound of 3.5L V6. The larger more luxury sedans will still remain with V6 ad V8 natural aspirated engines.

By the way, try not to fit too small engine with turbo on larger heavier car. Example, 1.6T fitted to >1500kg D-segment, at 1200-1500rpm before turbocharger activate, could feel sluggish. Same goes to 2.2L Turbo diesel engine fitted on >2000kg behemoth, at low end when start moving, it could hardly move without turbo assist at 1500rpm onwards.

IMHO most engines feel rather sluggish at 1200 rpm, no? The 1.4 TSI kicks in at... mh, I think it was 1600-1800, whereas our 1.4 NA engine really has nothing at all going on below 2000. There is no kick, yes, but even at 2000 there is no power. Now of course with bigger displacement there will be more power, but isn't it so that NA engines usually have the most oomph around 4000 rpm or so? Below that... well, not so much.

Also starting from a 2.0 and then adding a turbo may not be such a good idea... at least according to the Ford PR. They claim that the 1.0 EcoBoost was designed from the start to be turbocharged, thus they could circumvent a few limitations of turbochargers. Currently the Mondeo comes with a 1.6 with 120 hp as baseline engine. They want to replace it with a 1.0 with 120 hp, and probably more low end torque. So that should be ok... hopefully.

For N/A, torque down low depends a lot on engine displacement, the bigger it is, the more punch you can get in lower rpm. The trade-off is usually in trying to get the big engine also to rev as high to achieve big power as well at the top of the rev ranges, since there would be bigger/heavier and more parts to move faster, so more difficult than getting smaller engines to rev higher. But big engines do not need to rev too high anyway since they can already generate a lot of power in lower rpms. That's the inherent advantage of big N/A engines. FI nowadays has become more and more sophisticated to substitute for displacement. In a way a car engine is like an air pump, big engines can suck more air while FI serves to supply more air. The challenge is to make it as responsive as N/A response, especially down low. So you cannot compare directly a 1.4 FI with a 1.4 N/A engine and expect the N/A to be able to match the performance of the FI one.

Any engine as long as they're designed from the beginning to be FI engine, then should be fine, regardless of the displacement. The bigger the engine, top it off with proper FI, the merrier it will be IMHO.

These small turbo engine really sucks fuel in city drive..

Can give example how thirsty they are? Like how many kms/ltr on average?

Around 8.3km/l ...

Hmm that's pretty thirsty, maybe have to be more patient/smooth with the right foot?

If youre stuck in traffic, how smooth can u go?

Haha yeah, if stuck in traffic jams, no choice, your FC will go out of the window already. My 2.5 V6 N/A also can only get best avg. of around 9km/ltr if stuck in jams.

What car? the Rocco?

Better put bike engine inside a car. Imagine having a Hayabusa 1.3 inside. Change gears at 12000 rpm. Search for smartuki on google.

Thats actually good for a 2.5l, my dad's 1.6Turbo once reach an average of 6.9km/l on a single full tank. Avg speed that the car travelled during that single tank of fuel was around 17km/h

The 308 cc, but then the Passat also drinks as much fuel, though a little bit less than the 308 cc. I heard the Preve sucks fuel also. Dont know how Vios is so economical.

Those average are measured with everyday trip thru Sungai Besi-Tun Razak route, so yeah not that bad.
Whoa avg speed really only 17kph?? That must be super massive jams! No wonder FC dropped so bad la.

Vios N/A engine and low power too, so nothing special there.

hehehe...u devil!! I know what a Hayabusa engine can do for small cars


back to topic.... It seems Daimler is showing interest in Ford's small engines.. Check out this article about Daimler and Ford sharing notes on their engines.

The big boys are keenly pursuing small engines and its a matter of time before everyone else follows suits.

Wonder which MB models Daimler will be putting small engines into..

Weird, don't they already have access to the new Renault three pot? Why do they develop a new one for Renault?

Yup, they have one for the Renault Twingo and plans are in place for the engine to be applied to the next generation of Smart For 2.

I guess the interest in the ford engines are probably for future developments or partnerships. We won't know where this is heading unless further news is released.

but hey...mana tau Mb puts this into their A-Class

Well, Renault has that 0.9 that is in the Clio right now, and I think they put it into some Dacias too. That would be a nice engine for the Twingo (120 hp, and there are lower tune ones too). Thought Mercedes might use it in their Clio based B segment car. So perhaps the Mercedes engine will be even smaller? I don't really understand it...

do you all think powerful small engine is reliable as bigger but less powerful engine?

Good question. Theoretically might not be since smaller engines need to have forced induction and/or rev higher to achieve the same power as bigger engines. Or shall I say it's more effortless for bigger engines to make the same power, hence should not stress the engine as much as smaller engines. With forced induction also will have more parts in the car, so more things can break/wear out. But maybe with the advancement of technology in practical terms it should be reliable enough.

I think the new eco friendly forced induced small displacement engines should be the way forward if you are thinking of the future...

In theory, they are just covering the flaws of a standard NA engine where it could not achieve high percentages of volumetric efficiency.. so they just run small volume turbochargers to increase the volumetric efficiency to sort of maximize the capabilities of a said displacement...

if you say the manufacturers are pushing boost pressures to force more power output from the same engine.... then of course there is certain dangers if cooling systems are not designed properly or parts are not properly re-inforced to take the stress...and in long term, improperly maintained cars...

NA cars has always targeted 100bhp per liter output as the holy grail of NA engines and they usually cover that by increasing revs...anything in the region of 125bhp per liter on this new boosted eco engines would be relatively safe in our weather i guess...