FORD REVEALS 125HP ENGINE - OF JUST 1000CC

I'm not sure what's so impressive? 125bhp/ltr is not particularly massive for a FI motor? Infact quite a large amount of production cars over recent years have produced over that, some by quite a way.

E.g Most things relatively fast and Japanese.
 
milgo said:
In testing they were having problems with pre det. Not sure what power they were trying to get out of it initially though.
Click to expand...

ubersonic said:
"114g/km and 56.5mpg"
Click to expand...

The top question is answered by ubersonic's post.

They were not trying to get big power, the way to get these kind of emissions figures is by going as lean as posible hence det etc... Most "performance" turbo cars run rich for safety on boost hence most untuned turbo cars kick out a bit of black smoke under full boost, running rich is great when you are chucking loads of boost in an engine to get high outputs but is rather crap on emissions, to get an economical engine you lean out as much as posible which can cause det if you go too far.
 
Strap this to an 80bhp KERS powered electric motor and you are on to a stonker!

Providing the niche's of high powered performance cars remain, I am all for the mass market 'a car' users having tiny economic engines to trundle to the shops with.
 
All I keep thinking is that this was done in 1987 - The Charade GTTI was an inline 3 pot with a turbo strapped to it and from factory would produce 100bhp - more if you fiddled with the boost.

What makes this so special? An improvement of 25% power in 24 years doesn't seem all that impressive. Some stats for the gtti below:

How heavy?: 808 kg
What size engine?: 993 cc
How many cylinders?: Inline 3
How powerful?: 100.4 PS / 99 bhp / 73.8 kW @ 6500 rpm
How much torque?: 126.0 Nm / 93 ft.lb / 12.8 kgm @ 3500 rpm
How quick? (Imperial): 0-60 mph in 7.70 seconds
How fast?: 185 km/h / 115 mph
 
200 Nm during oveboost vs. 126 Nm, and 56.5 MPG vs. whatever that was. The day-to-day driveability will be massively different, as in you couldn't use that Charade engine in a Focus whereas you could the Ecoboost (it has the same torque as a typical 2.0 petrol).
 
Last edited:
PMKeates said:
126 Nm vs. 200 Nm during oveboost, and 56.5 MPG vs. whatever that was. The day-to-day driveability will be massively different, as in you couldn't use that Charade engine in a Focus whereas you could the Ecoboost (it has the same torque as a typical 2.0 petrol).
Click to expand...

The fiesta probably uses a tiny turbo running massive boost compared to the gtii hence the torque figure, 25bhp from better ecu and injector technology is not that massive tbh. The real difference is the strength of internals these days being able to take massive boost from tiny turbos which equate to high torque and low lag.

Old school turbos were larger (better for more power with less psi but less psi effects torque and low rev emissions regs) and as a result of being larger, laggy.

Edit: Before someone says it, boost pressure does not equal horse power. The ammount out of air at pressure equals horsepower. For an easy example WRC cars have an inlet restrictor to limit horsepower but not boost pressure. Take a look at the torque a WRC car produces.
 
Last edited:
PMKeates said:
200 Nm during oveboost vs. 126 Nm, and 56.5 MPG vs. whatever that was. The day-to-day driveability will be massively different, as in you couldn't use that Charade engine in a Focus whereas you could the Ecoboost (it has the same torque as a typical 2.0 petrol).
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that matey but this is 24 years ago. I would hope that there are several improvements. What are peoples thoughts on such a small power plant pulling the weight it will be pulling (i.e. mid size cars and mpv's)... Can they really be that reliable or will they suffer from being worked a bit much?
 
VinceB1 said:
I don't doubt that matey but this is 24 years ago. I would hope that there are several improvements. What are peoples thoughts on such a small power plant pulling the weight it will be pulling (i.e. mid size cars and mpv's)... Can they really be that reliable or will they suffer from being worked a bit much?
Click to expand...
True, but the Charade GTti was a warm/hot hatch. This is going to just be a 'normal' engine. Modern engines are basically invulnerable as long as they don't have design flaws that mean certain things pop after a while. The block itself etc. will last forever!
 
I'm not impressed. Ford were getting that power out of n/a 997cc Anglia engines in the 60's :p

Joking aside, looks like an interesting motor.
 
Seems more of an evolution rather than revolution, some of the engines Fiat have been coming out with are comparable if different sizes
 
PMKeates said:
True, but the Charade GTti was a warm/hot hatch. This is going to just be a 'normal' engine. Modern engines are basically invulnerable as long as they don't have design flaws that mean certain things pop after a while. The block itself etc. will last forever!
Click to expand...

I have always thought that small stressed engines are a sign to stay away, let me elaborate. Lets talk vauxhalls for a second (bear with me here), the engines in the cosrsa C both twinport 1.2 and 1.4 units. Now the 1.2 had 80 bhp and the 1.4 a further 9bhp which is hardly any difference when you consider is a further 200cc, so the 1.2 is clearly a slightly more stressed engine and as a result were well known for snapping cam shatfs and other nasty things yet the 1.4 really has no issues.

Are we really saying that this 1 litre engine will not be stressed pulling along the weight of todays cars?
 
certainly interesting but alas no use to me for taxi purposes :(

despite all these small capacity engines with reasonable power outputs Glasgow city council still limits any private hire vehicle to a MINIMUM engine capacity of 1600cc

now if i could buy a 1l mondeo with 125bhp quick fettle to get it up to nearer 140/150 i'd be happy with that especially as its most likely to whup my 1900 cdti on economy round the town
 
VinceB1 said:
so the 1.2 is clearly a slightly more stressed engine and as a result were well known for snapping cam shatfs and other nasty things yet the 1.4 really has no issues.

Are we really saying that this 1 litre engine will not be stressed pulling along the weight of todays cars?
Click to expand...

The camshaft snapping isn't a sign of stress, just pool oil circulation / bearings on the cam?

The 1.2 replaced the 1.4, I presume that it uses a higher compression ratio to achieve a cleaner more 'full' burn - so is better on fuel, and only a tiny hit on the power.

Fuel economy is all about making best use of all the fuel that gets injected, higher compression helps this and a turbo increasing the VE helps it along even more.

These engines aren't 'stressed' - they're designed to cope with the expected loadings in the same older engines were.
 
GeX said:
The camshaft snapping isn't a sign of stress, just pool oil circulation / bearings on the cam?

The 1.2 replaced the 1.4, I presume that it uses a higher compression ratio to achieve a cleaner more 'full' burn - so is better on fuel, and only a tiny hit on the power.

Fuel economy is all about making best use of all the fuel that gets injected, higher compression helps this and a turbo increasing the VE helps it along even more.

These engines aren't 'stressed' - they're designed to cope with the expected loadings in the same older engines were.
Click to expand...

It certainly didn't replace the 1.2 they were being sold at the same time. Same engine design just different capacity. Also the 1.4 was better on Fuel 48 vs over 50 mpg.

I guess im just old school and the idea of a 1 litre engine in a focus makes me a sad panda.

 
Last edited:
VinceB1 said:
It certainly didn't replace the 1.2 they were being sold at the same time. Same engine design just different capacity. Also the 1.4 was better on Fuel 48 vs over 50 mpg.
Click to expand...

My bad, I was looking at non-twinport 1.4.
 
Is this the bit where i come in and say that my A2 is a 3 pot 1.4 litre and has been dyno'd at 125bhp with nearly 200 llbs ft torque. I know diesel but its design is over 10 years old!

So really not that amazing, can you also imagine the weight of a focus running that!
 
No doubt it represents some level of excellent engineering, otherwise it wouldn't be news worthy ...

.... but, weren't engineers getting nearly 1000bhp out of 1.5 litre, 4 cylinder F1 engines back in the eighties? I'm getting this is cause they were running massive amounts of boost and that the engines would only last a few thousand miles?

I dunno how this 125 bhp/litre thing is so impressive, considering other manufacturers are getting figures in the same range with N/A engines?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom