Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big thing.

This is for non-Subaru related topics. Keep it realistic please.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
kimokalihi
Fifth Gear
Posts: 8360
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:41 am
Location: Tenino, WA

Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big thing.

Post by kimokalihi »

LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/l ... k=lat-pick

Image

Imagine a car that gets more than 40 miles per gallon in everyday traffic and 50 on the highway — and it isn't an expensive hybrid and it doesn't require special fuel.

Get ready for a new generation of cars equipped with surprisingly powerful three-cylinder engines that, according to early reviews out of Europe, have both the zip and zoom Americans expect in the four-cylinder compact sedans they buy today.

"This engine is a game-changer," Steve Cropley of Autocar magazine, a British publication, said of the three-cylinder Ford Focus that just went on sale in Europe. "You barely hear the thing start, and it idles so smoothly you'd swear it had stalled."

Better yet for power enthusiasts, "this lean upstart makes some bigger engines look puny," wrote Phil McNamara of Car, another British magazine.

Automakers are starting to test the waters for how such vehicles will sell in the U.S. market. Ford Motor Co. said it will have a three-cylinder Focus or Fiesta for sale here by the middle of next year. Mitsubishi plans to launch a compact car with a three-cylinder engine sometime in 2013.

BMW, known for its full-throttle, throaty engines, is developing a three-cylinder power plant that could show up in its U.S. offerings in three to five years. Volkswagen and Nissan also are working with three-cylinder engines, but there's no word on whether or when they will hit the U.S. market.

Automakers are proceeding cautiously because previous efforts to pack tiny engines in cars for the U.S. market mostly sputtered.

In the 1990s, Suzuki sold the Swift, and General Motors Corp. sold its version of the same vehicle under the Chevrolet Metro and Geo Metro names. While the cars' fuel economy was among the best in the industry, drivers complained that they were noisy and struggled going uphill.

The Smart Fortwo is the only three-cylinder car still being sold in the U.S., but it's not a popular model. It is a tiny two-seater without much power. And because it requires premium gas, its fuel economy, at least as measured by how much money is spent on gas annually, is only slightly better than that of much larger vehicles with far stronger four-cylinder engines, such as the Honda Civic and Hyundai Elantra.

To be attractive to today's drivers, any vehicles with such small engines must be sure "not to compromise performance or fuel economy," said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with IHS Automotive.

That's why automakers are packing more power — as measured by horsepower and torque — into these new engines.

The car companies are encouraged by how quickly Americans have downsized from larger engines to four-cylinder power plants. Almost half, or 47%, of the cars sold last year had four cylinders, according to auto information company Edmunds.com. That's up from 34% in 2007. Many small sport utilities, and even some larger ones such as the Ford Explorer, also come in four-cylinder models.

"Three cylinders shouldn't be much of a stretch," said Dave Sullivan, manager of product analysis for automotive consulting firm AutoPacific Inc.

Downsizing engines is part of an auto industry strategy to meet federal fuel economy standards that require the combined industrywide fleet to average 34.1 mpg by the 2016 model year, and a proposed 54.5 mpg by 2025.

Because of the way the Environmental Protection Agency calculates fuel economy for the window stickers on new vehicles, any vehicle that has a fuel economy of more than 37 mpg in combined driving probably will meet the 2025 standard.

"Everything is on the table right now with the new fuel economy standards," said Monty Roberts, a BMW spokesman.

Ford's tiny gas-sipper has the footprint of a laptop computer.

The new 1.0-liter EcoBoost three-cylinder — the smallest engine Ford has ever built — is turbocharged and patterned on the same technology used in much bigger vehicles, including Ford's F-150 pickup truck. The engine will pack 100 to 125 horsepower, depending on the configuration. British drivers will pay about $400 extra for the engine over the base five-door Focus.

Its horsepower and torque outputs are equivalent to or better than many 1.6-liter, four-cylinder engines now on the market, said Derrick Kuzak, Ford group vice president of global product development.

Both Ford and BMW are said to be developing even more powerful three-cylinders — engines that could pack upward of 150 ponies, making them stronger than many of the four-cylinders that come in cars today.

Ford is shipping two of the three-cylinder Focus models to its Dearborn headquarters, where next month the North American marketing team will start to evaluate how U.S. drivers might view the car. Engineers will review technical aspects, looking to see what modifications might need to be made.

Engine sound will be one of the things engineers will be sure to consider as they ready the new three-cylinder engines for the U.S. market, said Sullivan of AutoPacific. Small engines can sound tiny and cheap to some American consumers. BMW and Ford's Lincoln division are both using the internal audio systems of vehicles to enhance engine sound in larger vehicles.

"This could be used on a three-cylinder engine to make it sound like an inline four-cylinder engine or a V-6 via the speakers in the car," Sullivan said. "If you could offer a 175 HP inline three that sounds like a V-6, would you buy it?"
98 Metro Hatch Daily Driver :)
91 SS EJ20G Engine/Tranny/Diff Swap Build Thread Here
"Your testes are close to your bottom but you still play with them all the time." Jeremy Clarkson
kimokalihi
Fifth Gear
Posts: 8360
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:41 am
Location: Tenino, WA

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by kimokalihi »

150 hp 3 cylinder turbo, sign me up. Bout time they pull their heads out of their asses and stop making huge engines.
98 Metro Hatch Daily Driver :)
91 SS EJ20G Engine/Tranny/Diff Swap Build Thread Here
"Your testes are close to your bottom but you still play with them all the time." Jeremy Clarkson
concretelegacy
In Neutral
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:01 am
Location: Missoula, MT
Contact:

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by concretelegacy »

Agreed. I had a 93 Metro 1.0L 3cyl and I loved that car. And this Focus is better looking, safer, more comfortable, has almost 3x the hp as the Metro and gets the same milege? :shock: Awesome.
-Brian
2002 Forester
2009 WRX
kimokalihi
Fifth Gear
Posts: 8360
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:41 am
Location: Tenino, WA

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by kimokalihi »

Exactly. I like my metro, somewhat but it needs improvement in all the areas that focus has improved on.
98 Metro Hatch Daily Driver :)
91 SS EJ20G Engine/Tranny/Diff Swap Build Thread Here
"Your testes are close to your bottom but you still play with them all the time." Jeremy Clarkson
dafrompa
First Gear
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:20 pm
Location: York,Pa

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by dafrompa »

I guess subaru guys are gonna start looking for justy's in their local junkyards now. Anybody want one I've seen three in my area a little work and a turbo their you go three cyilders of raw power. haha
evolutionmovement
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 9809
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:20 pm
Location: Beverly, MA

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by evolutionmovement »

CLIFF NOTES: without reductions in aero drag (highway penalty) and weight (city penalty), the real world gains in downsizing past a certain lower limit (beyond ~2.0L N/A as that seems to be right about there) are minimal, resulting in greater compromises for lower return. END

I'm highly skeptical. There are limits to downsizing that technology can only improve on so much. Unless these engines are used as generators in hybrids, cars are just too damn heavy for these torqueless wonders and for most of the population to accept (even if they don't use any more power than these engines could provide). These are the kind of technologies that shine in testing, but disappoint in the real world. Small engines make less power at a lower rpm than a similar larger engine or, usually, even an engine with less technology and that's taking a theoretical example with the same HP rating. This means the engine has to work much harder to accelerate the vehicle mass, which means short gearing and more time at WOT. WOT (and this is something I've gotten into a lot of arguments with people too dumb to realize they're wrong) might be more efficient in terms of gasoline unit of energy converted into power instead of heat, but the unit gasoline requirements per cycle (which there would be more of than our reasonably larger and similar engine) are much higher than a more relaxed throttle. More cycles per distance travelled cancels out the potential mileage advantage of the smaller displacement and then the greater units of fuel burned due to the higher load negates it entirely and the lack of torque will STILL be noticed when trying to punch gaps on the highway or traffic or get off the line in a hurry and that's not even counting the higher fuel use of a turbo when at WOT (the theoretical fuel advantage of forced induction comes from the ability to have power the few times you need it with the turbo, allowing the engine to be downsized and use less fuel when relaxed, the problem is the amount of time the engine gets to operate under a low load is too infrequent with stop & go traffic and high speed highway with the present aerodynamics and weight conspiring against these engines). Of course, I'm not arguing a 6.0 V8 is going to be more fuel efficient than a 1.0 I3 (though the Corvette can get some amazing highway mileages with the right driver)—this is more comparing 2.0 I4 to 1.0 I3. On the highway, the short gearing puts the engine at a higher rpm at a given load (as we're comparing these powerplants in identical cars, so the aero drag is the same) to keep the car moving and have some surplus power for hills and headwinds. Automatics can only fit so many gears to cover reasonable steps from short to tall ratios and too big a jump will result in more fuel use when the engine constantly has to downshift for hills or headwinds if it's running a tall top or it will have to run more rpms than needed to run a shorter ratio in order to have the surplus power required. The tiring affect of this on the driver can be minimized with more sound deadening, but that means more weight, which exacerbates the problem. CVT's could cover a broad spread of ratios, but aside being horrible to drive, tend to suck away more power than a manual/dual clutch set up. There's also the issue of longevity, but cars are made to be disposable today so maybe the manufacturers and customers don't consider that an issue.

Most consumers don't like to have to floor a car all the time nor feel it struggle with slight changes of topography or wind conditions. Bottom feeder car buyers and eco people might accept it, but most people will not, particularly when they're paying a lot for a new car. But nobody seems to want cars without all the weight adding extras and certainly, even f the NHTSA reduced safety requirements, nobody wants to buy a less safe car. So some of the issue is technical and some of it is human.

They even provide the perfect example car: that 125 HP 3-cylinder is going to be too much of a dog in the Focus for the US. The (US) base 160 HP/146 lbs./ft. 2.0 liter engine suffers a lot off the line, although it's fine once it's got a few thousand rpm. The Focus is just too heavy a car, but as it stands it just about meets the future EPA requirement in the real world, if not in testing. They 37 mpg and the Focus is rated something like 27/36 with the less efficient manual transmission, which I have. In the real world, my combined mileage over a tank is 34-37 mpg. The only big thing I do to increase mileage is coast in neutral on downhills or when coming to a stop. Get something down to the >2200 lbs. range with a cd in the low .20's and this would change, but 3000 lbs. and high .20's will result in annoying performance and disappointing mileage. Yes, I'd welcome the idea of trying such a thing in my Tigershark design, but that sits on the low side of my recommendation for improving the car the engine would go in and a radical shark-like tandem 2-seat could never be as utilitarian practical as the box footprint required of a general 5 passenger vehicle that has to sell in the $26k-25k range.

Even more perfect, not only do I have a 2012 Focus, but I happen to work with a guy who has a 2012 Fiesta. The Fiesta and the Focus, 1.6 vs. 2.0, even with the Fiesta being probably a little more aero efficient due to a likely smaller frontal area and a couple hundred lbs. less in weight only gets a couple mpgs better than the larger car with the bigger engine with a lot less useable space and a sizable hit in performance (plus a lot of the weight reduction in the Fiesta seems to come from less sound deadening and a lower quality interior). That's the brick wall. There's only so much downsizing can do to move a box of similar weight (necessitated by government requirements and consumer preference) and aerodynamics, which can only get so low because of the basic utility requirement of 4-5 seats minimum and a useable trunk/storage area.

Unrelated to efficiency arguments, I also find it funny that they think having a 3 sound like an inline 4 or V6 makes it appealing as those are the 2 least sonorous sounding engine configurations there are. If they can make it sound like anything, why not an inline 6, exotic V8, or V12, or hell, a BRM V16 or a P&W 2800 at the touch of a button?
Midnight in a Perfect World on Amazon or order anywhere. The first book in a quartet chronicling the rise of a man from angry criminal to philanthropist. Midnight... is a distopic noirish novel featuring 'Duchess', a modified 1990 Subaru Legacy wagon.
Legacy777
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 27884
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:37 am
Location: Houston, Tx
Contact:

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by Legacy777 »

I ended up seeing this yesterday I think...

I'm undecided about whether I like the trend...
Josh

surrealmirage.com/subaru
1990 Legacy (AWD, 6MT, & EJ22T Swap)
2020 Outback Limted XT

If you need to get a hold of me please email me rather then pm
James614
Fourth Gear
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:35 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by James614 »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't CAFE standards measured using just the engine? If that's the case, that alone would explain why 3's would be making a comeback.

Other than that, their biggest advantage would be allowing for a smaller, lighter chassis than a 4 banger would fit well in such as the Smart ForTwo. But the gains there are in small footprint and parking flexibility, with minimal efficiency gains and a sacrafice of all usable cargo space. A 3 in the Focus just sounds like numbers games.

Funny, this whole time diesels have been promising spectacular fuel economy for decades and have been consistently delivering, but this country refuses to take them seriously unless they're 800ft-lb soot-belching monsters. And the EPA refuses to acknowledge that a 2.0 diesel won't kill all our trees without an expensive and maintenance-heavy exhaust treatment system, but the 800ft-lb soot-belchers continue to get a free ride.
93 Touring Wagon (EJ20G 5spd Swap) -- Finally back and running strong as ever!

05 Outback 2.5XT 5spd -- Now the wife can have her SUV and get in on the turbo Legacy goodness at the same time.
DD50
First Gear
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by DD50 »

Rest of the world accepts diesels except us. By the way, most of the time that 'soot' you're seeing is unburned diesel fuel. Believe it or not diesels actually run cleaner than gas engines when TUNED right. Problem is those guys driving the Ford F-350s with stacks that are blowing out a ton of smoke aren't making a good case for clean diesels. Everyone assumes they're the worse engines on the planets when they aren't. Yeah sure that black smoke is ugly to the eye and environment but running normally it doesn't produce any of that. One other thing I must point out is that half the time those emissions equipment found on modern diesels do more harm than good. They haven't worked out the bugs just yet
Proud Owner of a 1992 Winestone Mica Subaru Legacy LSi non turbo with 198,000 miles. Soon to be turboed
evolutionmovement
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 9809
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:20 pm
Location: Beverly, MA

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by evolutionmovement »

No, CAFE is measured from the car, but doesn't follow the revised EPA test. Actually, now the requirements are based on some kind of calculation involving the car's footprint (the smaller the car, the higher the required mileage). But since it measures the fleet average, every 3 cylinder that does artificially well in the fuel economy test offsets the performance models and big vehicles.

Mazda's low compression Skyactiv Diesel is supposed to pass US emissions without any urea bullshit. Maybe others will follow. That black stuff you see from ancient tech is particulate emissions which are terrible for the respiratory system and known to cause cancer (but what doesn't?). It's all relative to what kind of emissions you're talking about vs. gas. There's less CO2 and HC with diesel, but they do have increased NOx (which the lower compression of the Skyactiv D is supposed to greatly reduce).
Midnight in a Perfect World on Amazon or order anywhere. The first book in a quartet chronicling the rise of a man from angry criminal to philanthropist. Midnight... is a distopic noirish novel featuring 'Duchess', a modified 1990 Subaru Legacy wagon.
James614
Fourth Gear
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:35 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by James614 »

Sounds like I read some misinformation about CAFE then, but still sounds like 3 cyl motors will improve CAFE ratings with little real-world improvement to the consumer.

When it comes to cancer, honestly, I we all should be dead now if the stuff was THAT bad. Heck, every cleaner and lubricant in my garage causes cancer, reproductive harm, or both.
93 Touring Wagon (EJ20G 5spd Swap) -- Finally back and running strong as ever!

05 Outback 2.5XT 5spd -- Now the wife can have her SUV and get in on the turbo Legacy goodness at the same time.
DD50
First Gear
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by DD50 »

evolutionmovement wrote:No, CAFE is measured from the car, but doesn't follow the revised EPA test. Actually, now the requirements are based on some kind of calculation involving the car's footprint (the smaller the car, the higher the required mileage). But since it measures the fleet average, every 3 cylinder that does artificially well in the fuel economy test offsets the performance models and big vehicles.

Mazda's low compression Skyactiv Diesel is supposed to pass US emissions without any urea bullshit. Maybe others will follow. That black stuff you see from ancient tech is particulate emissions which are terrible for the respiratory system and known to cause cancer (but what doesn't?). It's all relative to what kind of emissions you're talking about vs. gas. There's less CO2 and HC with diesel, but they do have increased NOx (which the lower compression of the Skyactiv D is supposed to greatly reduce).
True enough. Let's hope Mazda can break the barrier for diesel in the U.S so people start enjoying them again. I'm curious does anyone know one of the key ingredients for the urea crap? Pretty gross
Proud Owner of a 1992 Winestone Mica Subaru Legacy LSi non turbo with 198,000 miles. Soon to be turboed
James614
Fourth Gear
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:35 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by James614 »

I'm pretty sure erea comes from bovine urine. Big city folk and country folk are already acustomed to the smell :D
93 Touring Wagon (EJ20G 5spd Swap) -- Finally back and running strong as ever!

05 Outback 2.5XT 5spd -- Now the wife can have her SUV and get in on the turbo Legacy goodness at the same time.
DD50
First Gear
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by DD50 »

James614 wrote:I'm pretty sure erea comes from bovine urine. Big city folk and country folk are already acustomed to the smell :D
Close! Actually Pig urine. Regardless its still gross but I guess if that's the way to clean up emissions than so be it
Proud Owner of a 1992 Winestone Mica Subaru Legacy LSi non turbo with 198,000 miles. Soon to be turboed
Legacy777
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 27884
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:37 am
Location: Houston, Tx
Contact:

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by Legacy777 »

James614 wrote:Other than that, their biggest advantage would be allowing for a smaller, lighter chassis than a 4 banger would fit well in such as the Smart ForTwo. But the gains there are in small footprint and parking flexibility, with minimal efficiency gains and a sacrafice of all usable cargo space. A 3 in the Focus just sounds like numbers games.
The problem is this country just doesn't want small cars. It may be catching on, but we still have the majority of the driver's driving big cars. Before smaller footprint cars catch on like they have in other parts of the world, there will have to be a change in public opinion, and honestly since our entire country is built upon the vast interstate network and freedom to drive whereever, whenever you want.....that's going to be a very steep up-hill battle to overcome.
Josh

surrealmirage.com/subaru
1990 Legacy (AWD, 6MT, & EJ22T Swap)
2020 Outback Limted XT

If you need to get a hold of me please email me rather then pm
Legacy777
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 27884
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:37 am
Location: Houston, Tx
Contact:

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by Legacy777 »

DD50 wrote:I'm curious does anyone know one of the key ingredients for the urea crap? Pretty gross
As mentioned, urea is from animal urine, however the key active ingredient in it that helps reduce NOx is ammonia. The process is called Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). It's used on industrial stationary gas-fired engines/turbines to help reduce NOx. The systems are ok for base load type applications where you don't have large changes in load. The technology has gotten better over the years, but it's still very expensive to purchase, operate, and maintain. The other issue is that you need more filters/catalysts to clean up the ammonia emissions. It's called ammonia slip. So depending on how much NOx you're actually producing, what the engine load, and exhaust temperatures are at, ammonia slip emissions could be worse than the NOx.

I'm not extremely familar with how they've adapted SCR technology to over the road engines, but I'm sure it's very similar.
Josh

surrealmirage.com/subaru
1990 Legacy (AWD, 6MT, & EJ22T Swap)
2020 Outback Limted XT

If you need to get a hold of me please email me rather then pm
evolutionmovement
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Posts: 9809
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:20 pm
Location: Beverly, MA

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by evolutionmovement »

I'm not sure how it was resolved, but the EPA was fighting it out with Mercedes over what they would do to make sure customers refilled the urea. I THINK they give you a warning that it's low and it gives you a set number of times you can restart the car with the system empty before it locks you out.

Another thing that doesn't help is the friggin' NHTSA. Not only do they mandate all this ridiculous safety bullshit, but they have repeatedly stated that small cars are less safe, which reinforces the whole attitude of most people. The truth is that if so many assholes didn't drive 4000+ lbs. vehicles, then there'd be nothing wrong with 2000 lbs. vehicles. The other thing is that it's relative, again. A lighter car, along with generally being able to respond to emergencies better, is potentially safer when hitting a solid object due t having less energy for a given speed to dissipate while the heavier vehicle is safer in an asymmetrically weighted vehicle-to-vehicle collision (essentially using the lighter vehicle as a pillow for the heavy vehicle's fist).
Midnight in a Perfect World on Amazon or order anywhere. The first book in a quartet chronicling the rise of a man from angry criminal to philanthropist. Midnight... is a distopic noirish novel featuring 'Duchess', a modified 1990 Subaru Legacy wagon.
James614
Fourth Gear
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:35 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Automakers see three-cylinder engines as the next big th

Post by James614 »

Velocity can make up for the lack of force provided by mass in a collision. So the NHTSA should mandate that smaller/lighter cars drive faster on the highway to help even the playing field.
93 Touring Wagon (EJ20G 5spd Swap) -- Finally back and running strong as ever!

05 Outback 2.5XT 5spd -- Now the wife can have her SUV and get in on the turbo Legacy goodness at the same time.
Post Reply