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,
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. The electrical system was 6 volt.
The 78 inch (1981 mm) wheelbase chassis 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. The lower cost of the new engine allowed the Minor to be sold for the magic £100 in a stripped-down two seater.
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.
I think that when oil goes through the roof even compared to the present high price, people like cheveypower will see that they are the ones missing the point. Søren Algreen-ussing\'s final paragraph has it just about right.
While we\'re talking about accuracy, please note that it hasn\'t got \"less cylinders than any it has previously produced.\"
It has FEWER.
People, read the title and article properly before making comments.
Ford produces the smallest motor in its history - three cylinder 1.0-Liter EcoBoost
(in \"its\" history being the key word!).
Didn\'t the original Fiat 500 have a 479cc engine?
What amuses me is that every single \"advanced\" feature cited dates to the dawn of internal-combustion engines! Not a single one is newer than eighty years old. It is unusual to find them all in one engine, and even more so in such a small one.
It\'s great news, but despite this, I\'m still waiting for news that a new model car will actually be lighter than it\'s predecessor. Why don\'t the manufacturers respond to this simple fact? Every successive model gets bigger and heavier. This forces the designers to do much more to the engines to cope with the extra weight and reduce fuel consumption.
Make the carbon fibre car a reality!
peteepositive - June 6, 2011 @ 01:06 pm PDT
Because it takes almost twice the energy to extract the hydrogen from the water, than the freed hydrogen contains.
fewer cylinders plus improvements described to inductions and process of fuel is is a developement in the right direction it really is an introduction for the upcoming 4 cylinder falcon wounder what holden is doing maybe 1 litre deisel with countinously vaible transmission to be fitted to the commodore now that will go down well with families
I apologise for my misinformation about the Ford Prefect cubic capacity.It was a truly awful engine in every respect. The windscreen wipers worked off a vacuum so if you were climbing a hill and went onto the flat the wipers used to go beserk till you adjusted the control knob on the dash.But I did pass my test first time in this car.
So no regenerative braking? Still a dinosaur then I am afraid... Why not have electric motor(s) at rear doing at least some recycling of KE instead of just throwing it away as heat. Simple regen braking is the new ABS challenge, get it right and we save at least 1/3 energy right away!
Ian Walker - June 7, 2011 @ 05:13 am PDT-- There is not a hybrid on the market today that will save in fuel costs, what the extra electrical motor(s), and batteries cost.
I wonder what the possibilities would be for this engine being used in a hybrid to charge batteries? You could place the engine anywhere (say under the floor) and put electric motors in the back wheels. As a battery charger, you could run the engine at optimum rev\'s for maximum efficiency.
So what do we have here? A 1 liter engine that is supposed to be better than the last versions. The only way for me to tell is in comparison of other similar engines. Is this one lighter? Does it generate hp higher? Will it get better gas mileage? Is it cheaper? Is it more dependable? Without answering these questions isn\'t it just making a press release for Ford?
1-liter engines with three cylinders are nothing new - used by Toyota in some of its smaller cars, like the Yaris and AyGo, but adding a turbo on top, that\'s a novelity! Yes I\'ve driven both Morris Minors, Minis and Yaris with 1-liter engines, and VW has a two cylinder diesel in their most energy-efficient cars. So while Ford in the US never have produced such a little engine, it is no news anywhere else, not even for Ford!
I used to drive a 1991 Geo Metro which featured a 3-cylinder, 1 liter engine made by Suzuki. It got close to 50 mpg and was still running nicely when I traded the car at 144,000 miles. That had two valves per cylinder, single point fuel injection, and fixed valve timing.
I\'ve often wondered where that technology has been during the past 10 years while people have been crying for efficient cars. The tooling is still out there--Suzuki is still putting a version of the same engine on their motorcycles.
With multi-point fuel injection, variable valve timing, four valves per cylinder, and turbo, it will be interesting to see what Ford\'s new engine will do. The Metro delivered 53 horsepower (same as my 1968 Volkswagen Beetle) and could be a bit sluggish at times. But with just a bit more pep, and still greater efficiency....this could be interesting indeed. I\'m betting it will outperform the Prius in both performance and fuel efficiency.
Edgar Walkowsky - June 7, 2011 @ 09:54 am PDT--- For an electric car with an onboard combustion powered generator, a sterling cycle engine would be the preferred engine, do to its greater inherent efficiency, and non production of NOx.
In 2000 I bought a brand new Chevy Metro (Suzuki) 4 cylinder, manual transmission. I slowed down and drove the right lane at the SOCAL freeway speed limit (65) instead of the 75 my Jeep liked. My mileage went from 20MPG to 49 in the Metro. Granted there were trade-offs but upon reflection I always felt good about telling people I get 49 MPG and the Jeep.... well just another Jeep.
12 years later car companies are excited to promote 40MPG, and this impresses who?
I am curious how you could TurboCharge a two cycle engine. If the two states are down load/exhaust and up compress/wouldn't the inlet press fire how are you going to manage to pull exhaust gases only when the turbo force creates back pressure on the exhaust? Would not the inlet fuel pressure be lower than the leaving exhaust gas with the pressure drop across the turbo?