Ford produces the smallest motor in its history - three cylinder 1.0-Liter EcoBoost

Ford produces the smallest motor in its history - three cylinder 1.0-Liter EcoBoost
View 7 Images
View gallery - 7 images

It's a sign of the times that Ford is gearing up to launch the smallest capacity engine, with less cylinders than any it has previously produced. The new 1.0-liter EcoBoost will be launched globally in all small Ford cars, and in addition to recognized technologies employed by Ford in its EcoBoost engines, such as turbocharging, direct injection and twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT), the new three-cylinder engine will have an offset crankshaft for improved fuel economy, a split cooling system that allows the cylinder block to warm up before the cylinder head, and the exhaust manifold is cast into the cylinder head to lower exhaust gas temperatures and save weight.

The one liter EcoBoost engine was first spied at the 2010 Beijing Auto Show in the Ford Start concept and this year featured in the Ford B-MAX shown at the 2011 Geneva Motor Show.

The EcoBoost 1.0-liter engine was designed at Ford's Dunton Technical Centre in the U.K. where engineers focused on improving thermal efficiency and reducing friction, particularly during warm-up when engines emit higher pollutant levels.

Though no specific figures have been released, Ford claims the new engine will deliver performance equivalent or better than most normally aspirated 1.6-liter petrol engines. Details of the new motor will be announced at this year's premier European auto show in Frankfurt.

View gallery - 7 images
I learned to drive in the 1960\'s in the UK. The car I learnt in was a Ford \'Prefect\', less than 1 litre, 3 speed gearbox with no syncro on first gear,
Søren Algreen-ussing
A two stroke could yield the same enrgy/force profile, at 30 % less material take-off, and lugging-about installed weight. With direct fuel injection, and newest materials, higher rev\'s and wider power band possibly also. Two stroke with Turbo, and ceramics from plasma spraying onto cheeper metal parts. For long distances, an steam energy transfer exhaust-to-inlet air energy exchange, would decrease lower- to -higher- specific burn-heat value, and elevate peak process temperature of the individual \'inlet charge\' batches, also incresing efficiency, inherently.
The Ford Anglia (1959-1967) had a 997cc engine. I believe there was an older model of the Anglia that had a 933cc engine. (The Prefect, by the way, had an 1172cc side valve engine, which coupled with a 3 speed gearbox produced absolutely dreadful performance. A later version had the same 107E engine as the 997cc Anglia, couple with a 4 speed gearbox) Accuracy aside, this is an interesting development and hopefully we shall see more \'super economical\' internal combustion engines developed in the future.
There is a parallel here with the design of sailing ships, where the period of most rapid design improvement actually occurred during the final 50 years of so, as sail gave way to steam in merchant ships. Similarly we shall almost certainly see the greatest increase in IC engine efficiencies as the threat of replacement by electric motors gradually materializes.
Facebook User
Does your paycheck come from Detroit?
Not a word about Suzuki building a 50 mpg, 3 cylinder, 1 liter for the past 20 years.
I also thought that the puddle jumper prefect from 1948 had a very small engine. According to google-1172cc! One up for gizmag! Richard
Back in 1992 when I was still working in the UK the company hack was a Ford Fiesta 957. That\'s a 957cc engine. This may be the smallest engine in terms of mass but Ford has done smaller capacity before. The USA isn\'t the whole world and Ford has history in other places.
Facebook User
I believe that the systems developed by Lotus, having the variable engine cylinder head, called Omnivore, coupled to an electric generator can supply enough electricity for a battery that drives an electric motor. These hybrid systems, undoubtedly, are more efficient than pure internal combustion engines, as good as can be those compression and injection technologies introduced.
1. a 2 stroke can get lots of power and torque out of a small engine, but doesn\'t exactly do favors on the emissions side of things. Snowmobile riders can tell you about that.
2. Yes, tiny engines have appeared in the past, but they have also put out tiddly bits of power and torque. Absolutely horrible to drive. Those \"cars\" had no room inside and part of the reason they got good fuel econ, is because those rollerskates did not weigh anything. EcoBoost gives you an engine that replaces a bigger one, and can be used inside the larger vehicle. Just like the 3.5L EcoBoost in the F-150 does what the 6.2L V8 can. It can pull 10,000 lbs, accelerates just as well as the 6.2 V8, and gets 5 mpg better, in an engine that costs less to buy than the 6.2, and runs on unleaded (the cheaper fuel). Yes, 3.5L V6s existed before that, but not one that can do what the EcoBoost does. So my point is, that people are missing the point.
The Morris Minor was produced by the Morris Motor Company in two versions. From 1928 to 1932 the cars had an 847 cc single overhead camshaft engine. This was then replaced by a more conventional side-valve unit of the same capacity until production ended in 1934. 39,087 of the overhead camshaft type and 47,231 of the side valve version were made[1].
The success of the Austin 7, launched in 1922, stimulated Austin\'s competitors to come up with rival designs. The Minor was Morris\'s attack on the very small-car market that had really been created by the Seven.[2] Although the company\'s main assembly plant was at Cowley, outside Oxford, the new car was not designed there. The chassis and running gear were designed at one of the companies subsidiaries, EG Wrigley, a Birmingham-based gearbox maker who had been bought out of receivership and renamed Morris Commercial Cars. The engine was based on one designed by Wolseley who were by then owned by William Morris personally. It was largely a new design being much smaller than any existing Wolseley unit and having the overhead camshaft driven by a geared shaft that passed through the dynamo carrying the armature. A single SU carburettor was fitted and coil ignition used. The engine produced 20 bhp (15 kW) at 4000 rpm[1]. The electrical system was 6 volt.
The 78 inch (1981 mm) wheelbase chassis[3] was built of channel-section steel and the suspension was by half-elliptical springs all round with rigid front and rear axles. Brakes were on all wheels and cable operated. Initially the only body types offered were a 2-door fabric-bodied saloon and a four-seat tourer. At the launch at London\'s 1928 Motor Show, the saloon cost £135 and the tourer £125. Steel-bodied cars and a van were added for 1930.
The engine was proving to be expensive to make and suffered from oil getting into the dynamo and so, in 1931, a simplified side-valve version was designed giving nearly the same power output, 19 bhp (14 kW) at 4000 rpm. For a while both version were produced with the overhead-camshaft unit surviving until 1932 in the four-door model which also gained hydraulic brakes[1]. The lower cost of the new engine allowed the Minor to be sold for the magic £100 in a stripped-down two seater[2].
In 1932 the body was slightly restyled with a more rounded look and the fuel tank moved from the scuttle area below the windscreen to the rear of the car. An electric fuel pump was fitted. 1933 saw a four-speed gearbox replacing the three-speed unit on the more expensive models and in 1934 this was fitted with synchromesh on the top ratios. All models now had hydraulic brakes.
The Minor was replaced by the Morris Eight in 1934 which continued as a sales success and the Morris Minor name was revived in 1948 on the Issigonis designed car.
seems to show FORD is not up to date??
I think Im missing the point. Is this engine being designed to lower emissions? My thought is once everyone has cars getting more miles per gallon, our fuel prices will increase. I\'ve read somewhere about a man who designed a car that did over 300 miles to the gallon back in the 1960\'s, and was forced by the government to shut down any ideas of production. If we are concerned about emissions, why not hydrogen power? The world is 75% water, and there\'s said to be more energy available in one glass of water, than a gallon of gas. It seems our automakers work for the oil companies as well. I would much rather have a v-8 engine with more power and hauling capabilities, that runs on hydrogen. Then miles per gallon wouldnt matter, nor emissions. I guess until someone can control all the earths water supply, and be able to tax everyone in need of it, we will be using harmful petroleum based fuels.
Load More