JonBoy

It has three cylinders and is giving up nearly 40% of its displacement as compared to a normally aspirated motor. Even Ford only gave up 30% of its displacement for TWIN TURBOS for its 3.5L EcoBoost motor (compared to the 5.0L V8 that has roughly similar horsepower numbers in their truck).

At 1.0L of displacement, you have higher parasitic losses (as a percentage of power) for accessories, a single turbo, and very little power until boost hits on an inherently imbalanced engine. I wouldn't expect magic or anything. It'll be interesting to see how well it works in real life.

Triple-H

I'll tell ya how it will work in real life, it will f'ing eat a CR-Z alive, and spit out the bones
For both performance and fuel economy


Great Honda my asss...

Triple-H

I totally agree
And the thing for me that I keep coming back to, is something that applies to me specifically
You see I'm the kind of person who buys a vehicle new, and then holds onto it for a very long time
I see over and over and over these owners of hybrids having to lay out $3,000-$4,000 to replace a battery pack
This Ford approach of finding another way to achieve high fuel economy is monumental to me
The turbo will provide a dramatic bump in torque, but it does not come with the huge wait gain and cost of the battery
And of course NONE of all the non-green things associated with manufacturing and recycling huge batteries

rockville

I don't follow you. How are the losses of accessories worse on this motor vs say an NA 1.6? If both produce the same power then wouldn't both have the same parasitic losses. Yes, an I3 is inherently imbalanced. So is an I4.

I share the healthy skepticism that this will actually be more efficient than a larger displacement non-turbo. Still, I don't see the points you just tried to make.

JonBoy

Higher percentage of losses, not actual higher losses. At lower RPM especially, before boost hits, this motor will be producing fairly low power while trying to drive (potentially) the alternator, A/C, power steering, etc, etc... This will play a part in driveability and will probably push Ford to employ a fairly small, fast-spooling turbo to overcome this type of issue.

Penforhire

I think it is great that Ford is bringing world-intent motors to the US.

But I think the VW Lupo with 1.2 liter 3 cylinder turbo diesel (60 HP, 103 Ft-lb) showed the way at 78 miles per gallon! The original metric units record sounds more impressive, 100 km using 3 liters of fuel. And check out their 1L concept -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

luder_5555

Were we expecting a large turbo?

Also, when the F*** are we going to get European style turbo diesels that get 70+ mpg? I really don't get why Diesel is not more popular here? Heck it's even dominating in racing these days... Can we finally accept that it is better at everything except small sports cars?

This coming from someone who will NEVER own a diesel anything other than perhaps a truck.

NuncoStr8

Diesel sucks as a personal car fuel. The exhaust stains building and trashes your lungs. It's dirty, bottom line. It's not just about mileage, it's about the foul crap that comes out of the tail pipe. "Clean burning" my ass. More like "expensive particulate filters on new cars, which are hacked off old cars so they foul the air horribly." Gas engines with catalytic converters spew out fairy dust, by comparison.

If you've ever been overseas to a place where diesel is common as a passenger car fuel you can't have missed the smell in the air nor the yellow color of "white" buildings. The last thing a country that wants clean air will endorse is diesel passenger cars. Diesel isn't so bad at a constant throttle, but during acceleration and deceleration, diesel spews nasty omissions. That's why Switzerland is so opposed to truck traffic through its territory.

Diesel's crap as a personal transportation fuel. I'd ban it for cars entirely if it were up to me. Anyone who buys a diesel car thinking they are doing the environment a favor deserves a hard kick to the head.

Penforhire

I'm not convinced you're right about diesel being crap now and forever. I agree it is a traditional problem and when I think diesel I think of those rattling smoking VW Rabbits we had years ago.

We have recent strict fuel (ULSD) requirements ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Low_Sulfur_Diesel ) and manufacturers are starting to respond with AdBlue, Bluetec, etcetera methods of reducing emissions. Seems like a practical fuel.

Ted H

Clean Diesel technology--like what BMW runs in their diesel vehicles--is much nicer on the environment than what you're talking about. Diesel is changing.

http://www.dieselforum.org/meet-clean-diesel

BMW Advanced Diesel