It's 40% bigger and runs on a different fuel, so no. This isn't the part where you come in and say that.
FORD REVEALS 125HP ENGINE - OF JUST 1000CC
- Thread starter Davefran
- Start date
It's 40% bigger and runs on a different fuel, so no. This isn't the part where you come in and say that.
Not massively impressed, Honda were getting 100+bhp per litre back in the 80's and 90's from N/A engines, and the Charade as mentioned had 100bhp from a 1.0 back in the 1980's, no doubt this Ford engine will be more efficient being a modern engine, but I reckon they should be able to do better than this, hopefully the likes of Honda will join the game.
Under very specific conditions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,950
Sorry?
Care to elaborate?
A turbo makes more efficient use of the combustion process, therefore makes an engine more efficient.
How heavy is the motor?
If its lightweight could Ford not consider maybe another Sporting KA with this engine, surely if they could keep the weight down around 900kg with this engine, they could have quite a nippy KA with epic MPG and reasonable performance figures?
If its lightweight could Ford not consider maybe another Sporting KA with this engine, surely if they could keep the weight down around 900kg with this engine, they could have quite a nippy KA with epic MPG and reasonable performance figures?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,604
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Their last ~100bhp/litre engine has just been taken out of the game due to not meeting EU5 emissions....
Considering that 125bhp is 1/2 of what Chevrolet were getting from a 5.7L V8 just 20 years ago the yanks have come a long way fast
I'm more impressed with Ford in the past, producing a 4.2 litre V8 with a huge 120bhp!
How did the Americans cope with that? That much power must have killed hundreds of them from the g-force!
[TW]Fox;20538183 said:
This.
It is going to be all down to the turbo, but that's no bad thing. Producing a lump of torque nearer the bottom of the rev range makes the drive a lot more relaxing. My car for instance is a 1.4 Turbo, that feels as though it pulls best between 2.5 - 3.5krpm. Means you don't have to thrash the thing to get anywhere.
It will be interesting to see what everyone thinks of it when it is released.
To the people saying 125bhp isn't very impressive from a 1000cc engine. They don't want it to have stupid amounts of power (they could if they wanted to). They want it to be reliable/smooth/fuel efficient too.
I've tried one of these new downsized turbo engines.
I had a new Astra 1.4T (140PS) for the last 4 months and on my commute (which is mostly motorway) I averaged 39mpg (long term average since it rolled off the line).
I've just taken delivery of one with the 2.0 diesel (165PS with S/S). I've done 200 miles so far and I've averaged 54mpg. This is likely to improve slightly as the engine wears in.
The diesel is the better drive on the motorway. In 6th it will accelerate nicely from 50 to 70 with no issues. The 1.4T would necessitate a change-down to 5th in order to do it any reasonable time.
Sure it was nice to be able to accelerate properly in the 1.4T in 1st and 2nd gear instead of having to change up immediately as you do in the diesel.
A worthy experiment I feel, and I think the 2.0 diesel wins.
I had a new Astra 1.4T (140PS) for the last 4 months and on my commute (which is mostly motorway) I averaged 39mpg (long term average since it rolled off the line).
I've just taken delivery of one with the 2.0 diesel (165PS with S/S). I've done 200 miles so far and I've averaged 54mpg. This is likely to improve slightly as the engine wears in.
The diesel is the better drive on the motorway. In 6th it will accelerate nicely from 50 to 70 with no issues. The 1.4T would necessitate a change-down to 5th in order to do it any reasonable time.
Sure it was nice to be able to accelerate properly in the 1.4T in 1st and 2nd gear instead of having to change up immediately as you do in the diesel.
A worthy experiment I feel, and I think the 2.0 diesel wins.
The F1 engines weren't running on petrol though. I've heard stories of all sorts of fuels being used, including pure acetone.
The point is, they were able to get big power, but these were race engines and, in the case of the Anglia engines, built their power at 10,000rpm and higher and drank serious amounts of fuel in the process. This engine can do the numbers but still return 56mpg when it has to.
No wonder GM were able to walk all over Ford. They managed to get 130hp out their 6.2l Detroit dieselI'm more impressed with Ford in the past, producing a 4.2 litre V8 with a huge 120bhp!
How did the Americans cope with that? That much power must have killed hundreds of them from the g-force!
The Oldsmobiles got the best deal though. A whopping 85hp from a 4.3l diesel V6. Bet that was a hoot in a 2-tonne Cutlass with a slushbox
But a 165bhp diesel will cost a fair amount more to purchase than a 1.4T 140 bhp, they aren't directly comparable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,604
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Plus an Astra is hardly a motorway focused product.
Ideal for a run around then.... and it will warm up to operating temps faster doing such journeys.
Would you care to elaborate on your hand waving "explanation"? It sounds like an advert for a fuel magnet.
Think about what a turbo actually does; it takes energy from the exhaust, and also takes some energy from the engine (in the form of pumping losses) in order to force more air (and therefore more fuel) into the engine. It's not like you are recovering waste energy and adding the energy directly to the engines output.
At WOT a turbocharged engine tends to have a worse BSFC than a normally aspirated one, since a richer than normal fuel mixture is normally required to cool the inlet charge, pistons and valves.
I saw the head of this at a Ford tuning company a few weeks ago, its AMAZING how small it was. The whole engine can sit on a A4 piece of paper. Crazy!
125bhp per litre, so a 1.4 version of this would in theory be 175bhp... Not far off that ibiza. The whole point of this engine is MPG, and low emissions, not BHP figures.
Also wow a bike engine can do 160bhp at 18000rpm with no torque. Fun fun.
although its good to see big companys ding this its hardly a massive leap, look at the ibiza range, they have a 1.4 178bhp engine thats full of win
also take into account bikes, a gsxr's 1000cc engine is 160bhp
125bhp per litre, so a 1.4 version of this would in theory be 175bhp... Not far off that ibiza. The whole point of this engine is MPG, and low emissions, not BHP figures.
Also wow a bike engine can do 160bhp at 18000rpm with no torque. Fun fun.
Last edited:
Well it only has 3 cylinders!
lol vtec no torque?
What a turbo does if you're tuning for efficiency is give you a HUGE compression ratio. Yes you can dump more fuel in to cool the charge, pistons and valves but only if you're trying to push performance over economy.