Question about "power"

peter3hg

BOWFER said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

BOWFER said:

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

I had this discussion with someone recently, he could not get his head around a three-cylinder 1000cc turbo engine putting out as much power/torque as a normally aspirated 2000cc engine from 'his era', reliably.
He was convinced the things are on the edge of grenading themselves into a thousand pieces.
basically his argument was "they must be"
Like someone who refuses to believe an iphone has more computing power than an old spacecraft.

But one also has to consider the fact that the 1.0 turbo three cylinder is producing something close to the maximum power that it is able to, given the constraints of its small capacity and missing cylinder.  The modern 1.0 Ford Focus produces 123 bhp and 148 lb/ft.  My old 2.0 basic one produces 143 bhp and 136 lb/ft of torque.  It's significantly faster too, oddly.  According to the article I looked at, the 1.0 is capable of generating about 180 bhp with a larger turbo, which is interesting.  

As you've mentioned Ford, at one point they were talking about making the 3 cylinder 1-litre ecoboost the only engine they made, as they decided it could do over 200bhp perfectly well and would therefore be able to be used in just about every car in their range, from smallest to biggest.
Perhaps they still plan to do this, seeing as ICE has a limited life anyway.
Certainly makes a lot of sense to only use one basic engine with lots of differing power levels.

That is pretty much what BMW/Mini have. They have a base modular block design that is expanded from a 1.5l 3-cyl to a 2.0l 4-cyl and finally a 3.0l 6-cyl.
Parts such as pistons, rods and valves can be shared across the range. The same basic modular block is used for both their petrol engines and diesel.

Herzlos

Sure, but it's also made with stronger components and much finer tolerances.

We're not talking about Dave in a shed somewhere taking a 1 litre engine and sticking a great turbo on it to see how much power he can apply to it before it explodes. We're talking about international car companies with thousands of staff and millions of dollars of R&D budget. These engines will be subjected to far harder testing than they'd ever see on the road.

Technically, a low boost engine will be under less strain than a higher boost, sure. It'll handle both though.

If the engines weren't up to the job, we'd be inundated with reports and recalls in the 10 years since smaller displacement turbos become commonplace.

caprikid1

"Sure, but it's also made with stronger components and much finer tolerances."

Google Ecoboost failures..... how many miles will an Essex engine do or a 2.0 Mk4 golf engine ?

AdrianC

caprikid1 said:

"Sure, but it's also made with stronger components and much finer tolerances."

Google Ecoboost failures..... how many miles will an Essex engine do or a 2.0 Mk4 golf engine ?

Because nobody ever did anything silly with a minor ancillary design back in the day.
A hose went pop because the plastic wasn't the right type, and embrittled too quickly.
A hose that de-aerates and bleeds the cooling system.
Nothing that's unique to a downsized turbo.
It was a problem on cars built in the first few years of that engine being produced, nearly a decade ago, and is long-since fixed.

It's not like the Essex v6 had compressed-fibre timing gears that broke up...

And if we're looking at issues with VW engines, let's just say 1.9 diesels... <wince>

it's not as if "prestige" brands like BMW ever drop furries over things like inlet manifold swirl flaps or cam chains on non-downsized engines, is it?

BOWFER

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

BOWFER said:

Deleted_User said:

Similar to my Suzuki 1.0 3 cylinder turbo - I wonder about reliability - when you are producing so miuch power from a small engine (especially when powering a larger car)  - surely reliability /lifespan must suffer ?

This is the whole crux of the argument.
Why must it?
I've been a member of the latest AW Polo forum for three+ years now, there's not been a single post about engine-related reliability, even from the members who remap them.
It just doesn't stand to reason that they're fragile, the manufacturers would be opening themselves up to warranty claims all over the place.
I'm not ruling out the odd one throwing a rod, that can happen with any engine.
But the evidence is there that modern build techniques and materials can mean reliability from small engines.
I thrashed my 3-cylinder Polo every day, mercilessly - I wouldn't buy a car off me.
No issues.

From Ford's site

The engine’s compact, low-inertia turbocharger spins at up to 248,000 rpm – more than 4,000 times per second and almost twice the maximum rpm of the turbochargers powering 2014 F1 race car engines.

The 140 PS 1.0-litre EcoBoost engine’s turbocharger delivers 1.6 bar (24 psi)* of boost pressure. Peak firing pressure of 124 bar (1,800 psi) equates to a five-tonne African elephant standing on the piston.

Source: Ford’s Tiny but Powerful 1.0-litre EcoBoost Wins International Engine of the Year for Unprecedented Third Straight Year | Ford of Europe | Ford Media Center

Every single mechanical component is under greater strain than in a two litre engine with comparable output.  The EcoBoost uses very high intake and injection pressure to cram more air and fuel into the cylinder, which generates the power, but it also has a high compression ratio for a forced induction engine at 10.0 to 1.  As a result, the crank has to push harder on the upward stroke and the connecting rod has to take greater force.  The same happens on the firing stroke, in that there's powerful combustion in a small space.  As such the ignited charge exerts huge pressure per square inch on the piston crown.  Extra cubic inches take the pressure off, to a degree, as the power is produced in a more natural fashion and the ignited charge is allowed to spread out. 

*The Sierra Cosworth produced 10.1 psi turbo boost in standard trim

And...?
I'm not being funny and I'm not doubting any of the above, but does it mean it's unreliable?
There's no evidence the VW Tsi three cylinder 1.0 are at all.
Not once report of a mechanical failure in the 3+ years I've been on the AW Polo forum.
Plenty of other issues, our daughter's 1000 mile old Polo broke down to a throttle body issue just last week, but that's car life for you and isn't indicative of the engine being under excessive pressure.

caprikid1

"It's not like the Essex v6 had compressed-fibre timing gears that broke up..."

It's great to have someone around with such a depth of knowledge both old and new, given that most are around 50 years old and still going strong (Mines 1971) my guy feel is those that died were caused by tuning and reving beyond manufactures original tolerance. I'd probably give you oil pump drives though....

tr7phil

caprikid1 said:

tr7phil said:

Deleted_User said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

Deleted_User said:=

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

The Essex engine fitted to the 3.0 Capri (as also used in the Transit of that era) was something of a boat anchor and wasn't exactly a free revving screamer out of the factory, even in RS3100 form.  It could be tuned to work at higher revs and produce more power (TVR used it in some cars at one point), but you wanted to retrofit a Cosworth GA if you really wanted it to go as they revved past 9000 and produced over 450bhp. However they were also mindbendingly expensive.

My Capri 3000s had a full length Webasto sunroof and Recaro interior, and used to average 20mpg !!

I was a 23 year old student at the time - the Capri was immaculate and then the rear axle destroyed itself - I part exchanged the  Capri for  a Cavalier SRi - and received less than £1000 in part ex - today, in good condition, the Capri could have been worth around £50k !!

The problem is even with the ridiculous prices for Capris these days, the amount you'd have had to spend to have it in good condition now would have still made it not much of an investment.  Still at least it would have made something unlike my Triumph TR7 but it's academic anyway as I'm not selling!

If you kept it as a daily car then yes the Capri would have cost to maintain, I have a few (2.8 , 3.0 and 1.6) probably less that cycling cars every few years though.  I was lucky bought mine years ago, averaged a 1000 miles a year. In my opinion the 2.8 was a step backwards, the 3.0 with 2.8 is the best combo or a 2.8 Turbo. I guess it's the motorbike equivalent of a Triton.

The point I was making (probably badly) is that cars seem like a good investment in hindsight, e.g. "I wish I'd kept my old Capri, it would be worth £25,000 now, I sold it for £1,000".  Conveniently forgetting that the £1,000 would actually be about £3,000 in today's money, would have cost at least £300 in today's money per year of ownership to keep it nice even if not used.  Whereas if the £1,000 had been invested conventionally it would almost certainly be worth more than the car now.  Also the £1,000 wasn't actually available to invest as it needed to be spent in order to replace the car in the first place.

There are of course exceptions, but nobody knows for certain what they are without the benefit of hindsight!

caprikid1

I absolutely get your point so here is an example.

2.8 capri crystal blue - Google Search

2.8 Crystal Blue Capri Purchase 2001 56K on the clock for £2400
Now 65K on the clock worth c £15000, costs c£300 per year plus around £2000 over the last 20 years in repairs.

Great investment ? Probably not, hearing the noise out of Stainless Janspeeds as the engine hits 5000rmp or turning around and looking at it after you parked it ? Tell me a share that does that an I am buying.

Ideal wedding car | The car you always promised yourself...t… | Flickr

The above has cost me a bit more to maintain and probably lost me money , but done about 20 odd weddings over the years so generated an income.

But I agree cars are never and investment but if they can at least not go down then they can be a nice place to keep some money.

tr7phil

caprikid1 said:

I absolutely get your point so here is an example.

2.8 capri crystal blue - Google Search

2.8 Crystal Blue Capri Purchase 2001 56K on the clock for £2400
Now 65K on the clock worth c £15000, costs c£300 per year plus around £2000 over the last 20 years in repairs.

Great investment ? Probably not, hearing the noise out of Stainless Janspeeds as the engine hits 5000rmp or turning around and looking at it after you parked it ? Tell me a share that does that an I am buying.

Ideal wedding car | The car you always promised yourself...t… | Flickr

The above has cost me a bit more to maintain and probably lost me money , but done about 20 odd weddings over the years so generated an income.

But I agree cars are never and investment but if they can at least not go down then they can be a nice place to keep some money.

We're on exactly the same page, my "investment" didn't do as well as yours though!  Triumph TR7 convertible bought for £3000 in 1996, worth roughly £6500 now.  Average cost of ownership per year is just under £1000, but I have recently had an engine rebuild and I spent £3500 on a custom leather interior that it didn't need but I wanted which added maybe £500 to the value!

[Deleted User]

I prefer a series 3 - this is identical to my old one - except for the missing brown vinyl roof

They WERE good looking cars weren't they ?

Better than todays euroboxes