The latest news on Honda's return to Formula 1 just reminded me of the new rule the FIA announced in 2010.

That the 2.4L V8s are to be replaced with 1.6L V6 turbocharged engines. I think its great. I am familiar with older compact V6 technology thanks to my old Eunos 1.8V6..lelelele.

Anyway, that's not why I am sharing this, what I find most interesting is that while F1 goes in smaller engine direction, we are already seeing a shift in development of new cars where smaller engines will are making headways.

Ford has the Ecoboost 3 cylinder (1.0 in Fiesta and Ecosport SUV) and 4 cylinders small engines (1.5 in Mondeo and 1.6 in the Kuga) in some of their cars. BMW is soon to release a 3 cylinder B38 1.5L engine for the 1 series.

Volkswagen group did a number with their 1.4 TFSI engines a while back. Peugeot has a 3 cylinder 1.0L and 1.2L engines for the 208 (which we may not see it here).

So far it's just big boys for now but expect to see smaller ones follow suit as well. One day, maybe Proton also.

But what I dont understand is that some of us a quick to shoot down smaller engine technology. I've been reading through some post here in the F&F and more often than not I find a large number of adverse opinions concerning reliability/durability and power. I am actually for one, is looking forward to see how smaller engines can perform through applications in larger vehicles, the Ford Mondeo 1.5 for example. the plus point for me, cheaper road tax and the efficiency promise. Sometimes I think there are too many of use spoilt by T & H reliability that we are scared of new things.

Maybe if T & H started this earlier, we would accept it differently..

I guess with F1 going with the smaller engine route will be good start to see how this will work.

This post has been edited by cokeaddict: May 16 2013, 07:43 PM

T&H where got reliability nowadays. It's just the PERCEPTION of reliability. Overpriced crap cars with little features, sucky drive and average reliability. Hey, remember, Toyota has killed people with their high-end LEXUS with brakes which won't work.

This post has been edited by Matrix: May 16 2013, 07:46 PM

The Mondeo will also get the 1.0. Renault has a 120 hp 0.9 that is set to reach Malaysia in 2014 in the Clio.

To a certain degree the fears of new engines is not unfounded, the first 1.4 TSI with 170 hp has a bad reputation for a good reason.

We simply don't know how reliable the new engines will be. That being said I think Toyota and Honda are overrated these days.

small engine have to endure more stress compared to much larger engine with equivalent hp/torque

unlike couple decades ago when manufacture can boast on how reliable their cars are i.e merc masterpiece, manufacture these days are only build their cars to last not more than 10 years or less because by this time the car will prolly on scrap yard anyway due to the regulation on most developed country

hence the concern on the engine reliability

Future of automobiles focus on using small engines assisted by new technology & turbocharger/supercharger would generate enough power equivalent to large V6 and V8 engines.

1.6L Inline4 GDi with dual valve timing + VGT turbocharger could generate output/torque of 2.4L engine. Whereas 2.0L with same thing could generate strength of 3.0L to 3.5L. BMW, Ford, Audi, Pug/Citroen, even Koreans have started this concept. Japanese have yet to follow except Mazda seems willing to take the first move while MMC they are like giving up on producing own cars but instead focus on selling engines & tech to Koreans and Americans.

world's oil reserve is dwindling...well...this is the sign for those who doesnt believe

Mazda is trying to achieve better fuel consumption through upsizing though.

It's not upsizing. Mazda used to come up with 2.0L V6, 2.5L V6, 3.0L V6 with main focus on performance. Then in 2000's, they changed to FC but retain good handling and now they turned to technology focus on FC, performance & handling and for first time ever, biggest car in segment. The engine sizes still small today, 2.0L & 2.5L GDi and soon to come is the 1.6L GDi. V6 engines limited to larger cars like CX9 while Mazda 6 for US, no longer using V6 3.7L. They are looking forward to get turbo on the 2.0L.

from the 60's to the end of 80's F1 series already has the option to use 1.5L turbo engine

Small engines are good enough if got good FI systems to boost. Boost is the replacement for displacement.

Hm ok. What I meant was their engines are still around 2, 2.5 liter when their competitors move to 1.4, 1.6, maybe 1.8... or even 1.0.

@boonwuilow: F1 engines aren't exactly known for reliability.

Small engines with more power entails increase in efficiency. That's the direction to go, not building bigger engines. Most ICE are nudging 40% only. There's still a good 50% + to be harnessed. Put money on that

This post has been edited by GoldenHawk: May 17 2013, 11:11 AM

Where's the "Love it" button when u need one?

I remember, in the 80's it was all about reliability. Then came the 90's it was all about performance. After that, we started moving into efficiency and I guess at this stage is where, a lot of changes were made in vehicle engineering.

We used to get reliability thanks to car makers who often tend to over-engineer certain models in their stable to beat competitors. In the case of Mercedes it was the W124 which I still consider till today as a bullet proof car (hell...it's bombed with a canon and could still crank!), BMW did a number on Mercedes with their E39 5 series.

I guess at some point some bean counter dude must have realised that making reliable cars are hurting their wallets... no one is coming in for part replacements so lets put a cap on reliability..

Frankly speaking, I am not sure how the small engines would fair myself but I know the auto makers and engineers put a lot of time into research and development and even test these powertrains under real life simulations.

To be honest, years back I did have some fun with a 3 cylinder turbocharged engine in my Kancil. had many trips up and down Genting and Cameron plus numerous highway trips. Frankly, never had any problems with the car nor the engine in the 5 years I had it.

IMO, engines and gearbox usually shows signs by the 7th year...but of course, depends on your mileage also. My Savvy clocked only 50k+ in 6 years...LOL.

Wear and tear is inevitable but if we practise preventive maintenance...change the necessary parts when it is due..I think the engine will last for a very long time.

A generation of us played around with older cars which means we had to study the car and the engines to be sure of what to expect. And due to the fact that these were older cars, tere were heaps of resources available for reference and remedies as well.

I guess new technology scares people because there is a lack of resources in terms of usage as it is still new. Maybe there is merit for people to doubt it then.

It's true...new techs and cars...frankly all unproven. Nobody knows what problem can occur...especially nowadays cars have so many electronics.....sure more problems then those old cars which is mostly mechanical. Electronic breaks down pretty easily..

Which is why some people only buy cars after they have been out in the market for 2 years or so...let some other white rats test it first!!! LOL.

wah... 1.6 v6 turbo... can't imagine how the noise looks like, high pitch exhaust/engine sound + continuous waste-gate sound

As for sound...


Supercharged V16 with 1.5 liter. 12000-14000 rpm. And the best sound in a car... EVER. Only thing that might get close is the LF-A.

This post has been edited by kadajawi: May 17 2013, 06:08 PM

Ford's 1.0L Ecoboost won the 2012 International Engine of the Year.

There must be something good about it and I am sure the technology must have been proven in testings.

It'll take a while for new tech to be accepted and like Matrix said, we have to wait and see. I too have doubts - yes it may work for smaller cars but how would it perform in larger cars?

In the case of the Mondeo with a 1.5L ecoboost, even if it generates enough torque to pull the car's weight, how would it perfom at high cruising speeds? Wait and see lorr...

This post has been edited by scaramanga: May 17 2013, 06:52 PM

1.5 is more than enough. I drove the massive Galaxy with a 1.6 liter diesel and it was perfectly fine (only 115 hp... not suitable for racing, but as a daily driver it's not an issue). I'd be more worried about the 1.0 EcoBoost in the Mondeo. (Yes, they'll already announced it...).

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...

They also modify the engine so that it can take the higher stress...

it's all down to demand. see lots of t&H on the road..already think that the car is good. might be true since, most t&h car is bare spec. less airbag=less problem.

true..got both 508 and 308 at my hse using thp engine. city drive a bit thirsty..but good on hway cruising.

bro...big or small....any engine will suck fuel in city drive bro... imagine the countless times we get stuck in traffic..on the way to work, meetings and home? Pure waste of fuel.

I know, but somehow N/A engine sucks less than turbo in the same situation, a N/A car like Honda Civic 2.0 is easily able to get +- 10l/100km while cars like the 308 Turbo, under the same condition and driving style would get around 11.5 - 12l/100km

it also depend on engine stroke length, the longer the stroke is, more torquey the engine will be, even if the engine displacement is big, but have big bore short stroke engine configuration , the punch will still be suck at low end but it will be rev happy engine with high rev limit

most big engine have long stroke small bore ratio, that's why most car with big CC have low rev limit

Maybe because the turbos are small enough that they'll already spool up fast in lower rpms. Also maybe tuned to be more rich to increase reliability of the engine.

Yeap, oversquare vs undersquare engines.

Gone are the days of big displacements. manufacturers are taking a step back, but developing what was left behind. Convert heat, wasted energy via turbochargers. Low comp? No problem... now high comp with direct injection to inject fuel anytime if knocking occurs.

Btw,

Check out the Tata Nano, 800cc two-cylinder turbodiesel. Fuel consumption? 40km/l

The Tata weights nothing though...

Undersquare, square or oversquare, it depends what chassis carmaker wanted to fit that engine in. You want performance in sports sedan, go oversquare. If you wanted torque aka pulling power for larger heavier car, go undersquare. Square engine is in between usually found in 2.0L engine such as Camry, Lancer, Sonata, Forte, old Bluebird Altima.

To be exact, turbocharged engine is designed to compete larger engines (competitor) or as successor to the bigger N/A engine. Example, Pug508 1.6T output 156ps@6000rpm torque 240Nm@1400rpm acceleration 0-100km/h 9.2s is designed to counter D-segment 2.4L. It is wrong to compare Pug508 1.6T engine with normal 1.6L N/A engine. It should compare to Camry 2.4L, Accord 2.4L, Teana 2.5L, etc in FC.

Bigger engine such as 3.5L, 4.0L or 5.0L V6/V8, they are already breaching the more than optimum level especially in similar weight chassis as powered by 2.4L engine therefore, the excessive strength is more than enough to give it the punch at low rev. Not just the stroke length, the size of the engine alone is already powerful enough to pull a 3tonne truck.