If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   World's fastest supercar boasts most advanced engine ever built, with aluminium components, three cylinders and an engine block that could fit on a sheet of paper. And it's ... a Ford? (pics)   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 73
    More: Weird, Ford Mondeo, horsepower, city car, engineers  
•       •       •

6267 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 May 2014 at 9:11 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-04 04:16:38 PM  
"Took the liberty of artistic license" with that headline would be an understatement.

It is at least a 3-cylinder Ford, though.
 
2014-05-04 05:25:39 PM  
Not the "fastest" anything, and not a supercar. But you're right, subby; it's a Ford.
 
2014-05-04 05:34:09 PM  
And what are the chances that we'll get something similar on this side of the pond?
 
2014-05-04 05:38:42 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: And what are the chances that we'll get something similar on this side of the pond?


The US Fiesta is or soon will be made with the 3-cylinder turbo, I believe. However, I don't believe the real world mileage is going to be any better than a regular economy car - I just read a test by a US magazine of the 3-cyl Euro Focus and it got between 25 and 33 mpg.
 
2014-05-04 07:16:51 PM  
Family car will be the first to be fitted with a 1-litre engine

You mean other than the Focus, the Fiesta, C-max, B-max and the Ecosport? Or the Daihatsu Charade. Or the Nissan Pixo...
 
2014-05-04 08:23:47 PM  
What is wrong with you , subby?
 
2014-05-04 08:32:42 PM  
Paper is about 0.1mm in thickness. I don't see how they can get 1L displacement from that.

/ yes, I'm being obtuse, also, subby is a moran.
 
2014-05-04 09:20:58 PM  

fusillade762: the Daihatsu Charade


Most appropriately named vehicle ever.
 
2014-05-04 09:24:42 PM  
By the logic of the headline, subby is the world's smartest human.
 
2014-05-04 09:25:11 PM  

Boojum2k: fusillade762: the Daihatsu Charade

Most appropriately named vehicle ever.


Don't forget the Kia Remorse.
 
2014-05-04 09:25:46 PM  

reported: Paper is about 0.1mm in thickness. I don't see how they can get 1L displacement from that.

/ yes, I'm being obtuse, also, subby is a moran.


The normal unit for paper density is grams per square meter.
 
2014-05-04 09:32:26 PM  
A 1 litre supercar

Britain really is lowering its expectations
 
2014-05-04 09:39:58 PM  
But I don't foresee a day when people will be bragging about fuel economy in pub conversations.

He's hanging out in the wrong pubs is all I can say. My first econobox was a 1966 Citroën 2CV converted to camper van with the optional 604cc H2 engine making a whopping 29 hosspressure. Woot...it regularly got 45 mpg slowly touring the back roads of Europe. Top speed was about 90 kph on flat ground, and the wife and first-born and I could sleep in the back. We drove from cave to cave (say it with me...cah-vay...) and pub to pub from London to Paris to Sevilla to Barcelona to Torino to Zurich to Frankfurt to Århus to Amsterdam to London, back when having a fortified expresso for breakfast was de rigor.

upload.wikimedia.org

Then I bought a new 1980 VW Rabbit 1.5L normally-asthmatic diesel that got about the same MPG as the Deux Chevaux , and now I am on my 4th VW dweezel. Hey, at least they will cruise fully loaded at the posted speed limit!

40 years later I am still boasting in pubs about my car's mpg. Being able to do zero-to-whatever a few seconds quicker is useless if all it gets one is a speeding ticket. :)
 
2014-05-04 09:47:52 PM  
The engine in my truck can fit in a sheet of paper.... E size maybe.
 
2014-05-04 09:59:58 PM  

reported: Paper is about 0.1mm in thickness. I don't see how they can get 1L displacement from that.

/ yes, I'm being obtuse, also, subby is a moran.


we're going to need at least an e size
 
2014-05-04 10:01:50 PM  

Saiga410: The engine in my truck can fit in a sheet of paper.... E size maybe.


ARCH E or ANSI?
 
2014-05-04 10:02:49 PM  

reported: Paper is about 0.1mm in thickness. I don't see how they can get 1L displacement from that.

/ yes, I'm being obtuse, also, subby is a moran.


Well, in theory, you could just use the right amount of surface area to accommodate that thickness to give you a full liter of displacement?
 
2014-05-04 10:04:50 PM  
Someone at the Fail needs to get an education on what supercar means.  That is a sedan.
 
2014-05-04 10:06:43 PM  
You can get more HP than that from a normally aspirated 1 liter motorcycle engine. Not impressed.
 
2014-05-04 10:09:13 PM  

rev. dave: Someone at the Fail needs to get an education on what supercar means.  That is a sedan.


I hope this gets picked up by topgear, just to see clarkson lay into them
 
2014-05-04 10:15:08 PM  
So, apparently some dude named Paul Donnelly doesn't understand the definition of the term "supercar".
 
2014-05-04 10:15:17 PM  
There's a Mini-Cooper that's will be coming out with a turbo powered 3cylinder engine.
Apparently, the engine has more BMW tooling in it. Not sure if that's a good thing or not.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/auto-blog/mini-new-3-cylin de r-engine

/wife drives 2013 S model.
//went through original set of tire tread in under 15k miles.
///not happy
 
2014-05-04 10:22:57 PM  
That's not a Ford supercar.

THIS is a Ford supercar:
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-05-04 10:28:31 PM  
My Ford Escape just had it's 100,000 mile birthday. No problems at all. Haven't replaced the brakes yet in spite of mountain driving. Your anecdote may vary.
 
2014-05-04 10:30:30 PM  
Who killed the electric car.
Profits have been scaled to what we drive now.
 
2014-05-04 10:33:14 PM  
The draftsman side of me says the whole car will fit on an A4. The drawing checker side says use an E.
 
2014-05-04 10:35:45 PM  
Slapping a turbo on a little motor doesn't really improve mileage much. They are still usually dropping compression and overall efficiency to make it last in a production car. Better results can be had with proper application of direct injection and high compression. That way the engine is still efficient and produces ample power before needing the turbo boost. With direct injection you can get away with high compression and factory levels of boost.

As it stands many of these new little turbo cars fall into the smart car catigory for me. Small, useless, slow, and unacceptable mileage to live with the downsides. I guess they're cute and good for getting attention though.
 
2014-05-04 10:38:58 PM  

AtlanticCoast63: That's not a Ford supercar.

THIS is a Ford supercar:
[i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


isn't that the derivative of a ford supercar?


damn them for not making a factory team around the gt
 
2014-05-04 10:51:01 PM  

NBSV: Slapping a turbo on a little motor doesn't really improve mileage much. They are still usually dropping compression and overall efficiency to make it last in a production car. Better results can be had with proper application of direct injection and high compression. That way the engine is still efficient and produces ample power before needing the turbo boost. With direct injection you can get away with high compression and factory levels of boost.

As it stands many of these new little turbo cars fall into the smart car catigory for me. Small, useless, slow, and unacceptable mileage to live with the downsides. I guess they're cute and good for getting attention though.


You know how I know you don't know anything of thermal scavenging?
 
2014-05-04 10:57:03 PM  

NBSV: Slapping a turbo on a little motor doesn't really improve mileage much. They are still usually dropping compression and overall efficiency to make it last in a production car. Better results can be had with proper application of direct injection and high compression. That way the engine is still efficient and produces ample power before needing the turbo boost. With direct injection you can get away with high compression and factory levels of boost.

As it stands many of these new little turbo cars fall into the smart car catigory for me. Small, useless, slow, and unacceptable mileage to live with the downsides. I guess they're cute and good for getting attention though.


Most of Ford's Ecoboost engines also have direct injection.  I have the 3.5 liter Ecoboost in my truck, and it's turbo with direct injection.

Turbocharging is just one way to get around offering an engine with variable displacement for different loads.  If I'm cruising at 60-65mph I can get 25mpg easily.  If I'm accelerating hard and staying on the boost that number drops very quickly.  Still, I have economy when I drive with a light foot, and power when I need/want it.

Cylinder deactivation is the other way to go about it.  With turbocharging you're effectively starting with a smaller engine that can increase it's effective displacement through the forced induction.  With cylinder deactivation you start with a bigger engine that can reduce it's effective displacement by shutting off the flow of fuel and air to certain cylinders.  Both can give you fuel economy gains under lighters loads, but neither help with economy if you're stomping your foot down and working the engine for all it's got.
 
2014-05-04 11:04:59 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: NBSV: Slapping a turbo on a little motor doesn't really improve mileage much. They are still usually dropping compression and overall efficiency to make it last in a production car. Better results can be had with proper application of direct injection and high compression. That way the engine is still efficient and produces ample power before needing the turbo boost. With direct injection you can get away with high compression and factory levels of boost.

As it stands many of these new little turbo cars fall into the smart car catigory for me. Small, useless, slow, and unacceptable mileage to live with the downsides. I guess they're cute and good for getting attention though.

Most of Ford's Ecoboost engines also have direct injection.  I have the 3.5 liter Ecoboost in my truck, and it's turbo with direct injection.

Turbocharging is just one way to get around offering an engine with variable displacement for different loads.  If I'm cruising at 60-65mph I can get 25mpg easily.  If I'm accelerating hard and staying on the boost that number drops very quickly.  Still, I have economy when I drive with a light foot, and power when I need/want it.

Cylinder deactivation is the other way to go about it.  With turbocharging you're effectively starting with a smaller engine that can increase it's effective displacement through the forced induction.  With cylinder deactivation you start with a bigger engine that can reduce it's effective displacement by shutting off the flow of fuel and air to certain cylinders.  Both can give you fuel economy gains under lighters loads, but neither help with economy if you're stomping your foot down and working the engine for all it's got.


Even with cylinder deactivation, you don't reduce parasitic losses.  All that mass is still spinning.  The reasons we're using turbos is that they're not a parasitic loss.  Due to thermal scavenging they're actually a positive output system.  The more load you put on the turbo, the more efficient it gets.
 
2014-05-04 11:10:14 PM  

rohar: TuteTibiImperes: NBSV: Slapping a turbo on a little motor doesn't really improve mileage much. They are still usually dropping compression and overall efficiency to make it last in a production car. Better results can be had with proper application of direct injection and high compression. That way the engine is still efficient and produces ample power before needing the turbo boost. With direct injection you can get away with high compression and factory levels of boost.

As it stands many of these new little turbo cars fall into the smart car catigory for me. Small, useless, slow, and unacceptable mileage to live with the downsides. I guess they're cute and good for getting attention though.

Most of Ford's Ecoboost engines also have direct injection.  I have the 3.5 liter Ecoboost in my truck, and it's turbo with direct injection.

Turbocharging is just one way to get around offering an engine with variable displacement for different loads.  If I'm cruising at 60-65mph I can get 25mpg easily.  If I'm accelerating hard and staying on the boost that number drops very quickly.  Still, I have economy when I drive with a light foot, and power when I need/want it.

Cylinder deactivation is the other way to go about it.  With turbocharging you're effectively starting with a smaller engine that can increase it's effective displacement through the forced induction.  With cylinder deactivation you start with a bigger engine that can reduce it's effective displacement by shutting off the flow of fuel and air to certain cylinders.  Both can give you fuel economy gains under lighters loads, but neither help with economy if you're stomping your foot down and working the engine for all it's got.

Even with cylinder deactivation, you don't reduce parasitic losses.  All that mass is still spinning.  The reasons we're using turbos is that they're not a parasitic loss.  Due to thermal scavenging they're actually a positive output system.  The more load you put on the turbo, the mor ...


There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems.  As you mentioned turbos avoid the parasitic loss problem, but they add complexity to an engine and introduce more moving parts and possible points of failure.

I'm just happy that automakers are trying out many different ways to improve efficiency.  Mercedes has been working on HCCI for a while and if they can make that work it will be yet another way to go about things, and one that could possible even pair up with other techniques.

I can't think of a technical reason why an engine couldn't be a turbocharged HCCI engine with cylinder deactivation, other than prohibitive cost and complexity at this point.
 
2014-05-04 11:23:23 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I can't think of a technical reason why an engine couldn't be a turbocharged HCCI engine with cylinder deactivation, other than prohibitive cost and complexity at this point.


Well, that is the reason most of the high technology never really migrates over, or does so on a 5-20 year plan.  Remember that your average car needs to be robust enough to go 100,000 miles or more for people to consider it purchasable, with minimal/zero maintenance other than wear and tear, and even that needs to be as quick and fast as possible.

An engine that gets an extra 5-10 mpg, but requires 2 weeks to rebuild, isn't really a good deal for your average american wage slave.
 
2014-05-04 11:35:06 PM  

Hollie Maea: Not the "fastest" anything, and not a supercar. But you're right, subby; it's a Ford.


trollishous headlines are the worst headlines

plus I thought supercars

oh look, we redefined supercar to be cars that include new tech ...
ROFL
 
2014-05-04 11:40:46 PM  

rohar: NBSV: Slapping a turbo on a little motor doesn't really improve mileage much. They are still usually dropping compression and overall efficiency to make it last in a production car. Better results can be had with proper application of direct injection and high compression. That way the engine is still efficient and produces ample power before needing the turbo boost. With direct injection you can get away with high compression and factory levels of boost.

As it stands many of these new little turbo cars fall into the smart car catigory for me. Small, useless, slow, and unacceptable mileage to live with the downsides. I guess they're cute and good for getting attention though.

You know how I know you don't know anything of thermal scavenging?


Yes, when on boost a turbo increases efficiency. But, especially with factory tuning, they run a richer mix when on boost to keep the engine alive for a long time. And when off boost the engine isn't as efficient because they're normally running a lower compression ratio. So, in the end they don't really get better mileage. Which has been supported by nearly every real world mileage report I've seen from vehicles running smaller engines with turbos replacing larger engines.

With factory engines and equipment you can get similar levels of power with high compression compared to a small turbo. And the high compression motor will get better mileage.

In my opinion, and experience, higher compression and no turbo wins.
 
2014-05-05 12:09:27 AM  

loonatic112358: rev. dave: Someone at the Fail needs to get an education on what supercar means.  That is a sedan.

I hope this gets picked up by topgear, just to see clarkson lay into them


Worst headline ... in the world!
 
2014-05-05 12:14:09 AM  
Ford did stick a (highly tuned) version of that engine into a (just barely) street legal car and ended up with the 11th fastest lap ever on the Nurburgring.
 
2014-05-05 12:19:59 AM  
FTFA: Introducing the next supercar... Produces 138 brake horsepower

BAahahahAHAhAAhhhahAHAhahHAHahaHAHAHAhhaHAhAHAhhHAha
 
2014-05-05 01:14:43 AM  
i.telegraph.co.uk

2015 cars are new, 2014 are old
 
2014-05-05 02:13:53 AM  
It's ironic that just as turbo chargers have become a standard tool to boost peak power, they are rendered obsolete.

In a couple of years, the idea of getting peak power from an ICE will be considered laughable and quaint. Electric motors are the only way to go, one driving each wheel.  Then you don't have to try to figure out how to get enough oxygen to keep the power up.  Slap a 200 hp motor on each wheel, and you have an instant 800 hp that handles like nothing else.  Worried about range? Throw in a small range extender genset that only needs to keep up with the average load and that is tuned to run at a single efficient point, and only when needed.

Once one car maker does so, they'll all have to.
 
2014-05-05 02:28:44 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: And what are the chances that we'll get something similar on this side of the pond?


Well, the new Mondeo has been available here for a couple years now as the 2nd gen Fusion. The 1.0 EcoBoost is available in the Fiesta and will be in the Focus next year. The trick will be convincing your local Ford dealer that the one can fitted with the other. In the meantime, the Fusion has 1.5 and 1.6 EcoBoosts (for automatic and manual transmissions respectively).
 
2014-05-05 02:44:56 AM  

fusillade762: Family car will be the first to be fitted with a 1-litre engine

You mean other than the Focus, the Fiesta, C-max, B-max and the Ecosport? Or the Daihatsu Charade. Or the Nissan Pixo...


Geo Metro

/ No matter what
 
2014-05-05 04:35:58 AM  

Hollie Maea: It's ironic that just as turbo chargers have become a standard tool to boost peak power, they are rendered obsolete.

In a couple of years, the idea of getting peak power from an ICE will be considered laughable and quaint. Electric motors are the only way to go, one driving each wheel.  Then you don't have to try to figure out how to get enough oxygen to keep the power up.  Slap a 200 hp motor on each wheel, and you have an instant 800 hp that handles like nothing else.  Worried about range? Throw in a small range extender genset that only needs to keep up with the average load and that is tuned to run at a single efficient point, and only when needed.

Once one car maker does so, they'll all have to.


Trains have done it for many decades. I don't understand what's taking so long with cars.
 
2014-05-05 04:39:59 AM  

Hollie Maea: It's ironic that just as turbo chargers have become a standard tool to boost peak power, they are rendered obsolete.

In a couple of years, the idea of getting peak power from an ICE will be considered laughable and quaint. Electric motors are the only way to go, one driving each wheel.  Then you don't have to try to figure out how to get enough oxygen to keep the power up.  Slap a 200 hp motor on each wheel, and you have an instant 800 hp that handles like nothing else.  Worried about range? Throw in a small range extender genset that only needs to keep up with the average load and that is tuned to run at a single efficient point, and only when needed.

Once one car maker does so, they'll all have to.


But but but unsprung weight!
 
2014-05-05 05:19:04 AM  
If you put this engine in a bike you`ll get some ok performance.

But only ok...

To compare

"With a dry weight of just 159 Kg, the DB8 Oronero is one of the lightest models in its class. This light weight was achieved by giving the bike a handmade carbon fibre frame and swingarm.
At the heart of the motorcycle sits a 1198 Cc, Ducati liquid cooled, twin cylinder, 4 stroke 90°, 4 valves per cylinder, Desmodromic engine which generates a maximum power of 170 HP at 9750 Rpm"


So you can have your mondeo with 138hp, I`ll spend less money on something that weighs 159kg and puts out 170Bhp...
 
x23
2014-05-05 06:05:09 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: You can get more HP than that from a normally aspirated 1 liter motorcycle engine. Not impressed.



you also have to rev it to 12,000RPM and get less than half the torque. torque is kinda useful when moving a mid-size sedan around. 

i think it is possible you didn't think things through very well. and/or don't know what the hell you are talking about.
 
2014-05-05 06:39:27 AM  

x23: forgotmydamnusername: You can get more HP than that from a normally aspirated 1 liter motorcycle engine. Not impressed.


you also have to rev it to 12,000RPM and get less than half the torque. torque is kinda useful when moving a mid-size sedan around. 

i think it is possible you didn't think things through very well. and/or don't know what the hell you are talking about.


The 1.0L EcoBoost engine would produce a power of 125PS and 170Nm of torque. 

At the heart of the motorcycle sits a 1198 Cc, Ducati liquid cooled, twin cylinder, 4 stroke 90°, 4 valves per cylinder, Desmodromic engine which generates a maximum power of 170 HP at 9750 Rpm and 127 Nm of torque.

127 is not less than half of 170 and you are overrevving your bike...

I`ll still take the bike for half the money...
 
2014-05-05 07:58:30 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: And what are the chances that we'll get something similar on this side of the pond?


Did you notice the stick shift?
That right there means that it will probably never make it over here. The only people in the US that would drive a stick want power over economy.
 
2014-05-05 08:14:51 AM  

Rhino_man: Trains have done it for many decades. I don't understand what's taking so long with cars.


I'm guessing it's the 1700 pound weight per motor . Based on on a 200 hp hollow shaft motor that is not ideal for the job but what I am familiar with.
 
2014-05-05 08:32:38 AM  
To sell that is the USA, they will have to swap out that puny motto for at least a 6.2 Liter engine with glass packs and dual exhausts nag get the milage down to the early teens, then she will sell like hot cakes.

They can barely give aswy pickps with 6 cylinder engines, and only the poors drive four bangers.

There are a few things I find annoying about my people.  The car/penis thing is one.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report