|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Today, 06:43 PM | #181 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Perth, Northern Suburbs
Posts: 4,981
|
I've never quite understood why the minimum size for a modern 4 cylinder, seems to be around 1.2L?
With the latest tread towards smaller engines with turbos, there's a lot of manufacturers coming out with 3-cylinder jobbies. It seems to me that's a big sacrifice, considering the loss of balance. Don't get me wrong, most of them are doing a great job to overcome the inherent problems. I'm just not sure I understand the need? In something like a Puma, it's not a question of space. And I'm not sure the cost savings would be worth it. It would be lighter, but it seems like there's a technological resistance. Perhaps beyond a certain point, making a 4-cyliner smaller just doesn't deliver the fuel savings??
__________________
2024
I can hear the Hippies crying from here. |
||
Today, 08:38 PM | #182 | |||
Donating Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,356
|
Quote:
Think of it like this - - Smaller block, less material - Smaller head, less material - Smaller crank, less material - Smaller oil pan, less material - Smaller valve cover, less material - Smaller intake and exhaust manifolds, less material - One less piston, rod and associated hardware - Four less valves, valve springs, followers. - Smaller gaskets, seals ect. Then, assembling all of that is quicker on the line. Overall, the cost per engine is lower, which adds up over the course of the engine's lifespan. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars in savings here. In theory, servicing costs will be lower for the customer as well. So, I guess the question becomes, why carry around that extra cylinder when its absence for the most part wont be noticed by the customer. For the record, I don't want to own a 3-cylinder vehicle, but I don't hate the format either because the Ford versions are really nice to drive and sound good too.
__________________
PX MK II Ranger FG XR6 FG X XR8 Mustang GT T3 TS50 - gone but not forgotten |
|||
Today, 08:44 PM | #183 | ||
Thailand Specials
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Centrefold Lounge
Posts: 49,217
|
I got no problem with the three cylinder turbo job, would rather see naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engines discontinued and replaced with turbo 3 cylinder engines.
You can make the same amount of torque but bring it in from 1500-2000 RPM on the turbo 3, instead of at 4000 RPM on a naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine. Makes for a way nicer car to live with on a daily basis with the turbo 3. With what the Fiesta ST is like to drive with its peak torque coming in from 1500 RPM and maintaining it all the way out to 5000 RPM, makes for a very nice manual car to drive. |
||
This user likes this post: |
Today, 09:00 PM | #184 | |||
Donating Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,356
|
Quote:
__________________
PX MK II Ranger FG XR6 FG X XR8 Mustang GT T3 TS50 - gone but not forgotten |
|||
This user likes this post: |
Today, 09:02 PM | #185 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,527
|
I have had two different Vw service guys tell me that the Vw 1 litre three cyl petrol ( which comes in at least three times of ke/torque) is the best motor Vw make.
The top tune is 85 kw and 200 nm torque at 2000 rpm Whereas in my Puma The Ford three cyl is 92 kw and 170 nm torque at 1400 or 1500 rpm I haven’t driven the 85 kw tune But my wife’s Polo is 70 kw and 175nm and is really laggy from take off while the Puma leaps out of the blocks Maybe auto gearbox issues |
||
Today, 09:03 PM | #186 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,527
|
Three tunes of kw/torque
|
||
Today, 09:13 PM | #187 | |||
Thailand Specials
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Centrefold Lounge
Posts: 49,217
|
Quote:
That 92KW/170NM is the same figures as the WZ Fiesta Sport, same engine I guess |
|||
Today, 09:17 PM | #188 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,527
|
Yeah they are nice
Although hills dull the Puma the extra suv pork ( body weight) slows it up |
||