Just Wow!!!

[RUCRAYZE]

At least if the Germans build something they build it the best they can. If the Chinese build something they build it as cheap as they can.

Geeze, sounds slightly familiar - I remember the exact statement about Japanese products.
Korean?
Taiwanese ?
5 years from now, folks in the Dollar (substitute Chinese, Korean etc. currency) Store, will turn over their products and see made in the USA, and think, how can they make them so cheap, and what crap it is!

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Maybe I've been going at this all wrong.
I go on babbling about compromise and fail to see the obvious.

The Eco 1.0L is a 123hp engine.
The reports state that the OEM engine is almost a 100% increase in HP.
55 x 2 = 110 so many are guessing 100 hp.

A 1.0L Ford engine doesn't HAVE to be turbo'd and EcoBoost'd, and might still come close to the HP stated.

In addition, it would allow an option of a turbo charged Eco performance version AND the availability of automatic transmission if desired.
( never really like the idea of the automated manual transmission )

This line of thinking would be a win all around, from the cheap bastards (like me) to the power hungry gear heads.

The marketing kind of sells itself.

Super cheap, super reliable base model for the working class.
Super efficient model for the tree huggers
High performance model for the Red Bull crowd (I mean.... there's a sponsor RIGHT THERE!)
Hell, give them the full 123 HP and let them go hog wild!

I dunno... you guys think we can shake on this?

Hell, I might ever warm up to the little Eco's...
(no guarantees..... but I'll try..... honestly)

CE

As a token of compromise, I'll even accept the oil bathed timing belt.

 

[raptor213]

Ford's 998cc EcoBoost 3-cylinder engine has received plenty of accolades and awards since its debut in 2012. It won the International Engine of the Year Award in the sub-1.0L class for six years in a row before recently getting edged out by VW's redesigned TSI triple this year.

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...wins-international-engine-of-the-year-fo.html

What caught my attention, however, was this factoid -- Ford managed to introduce cylinder deactivation technology to their 3-cylinder EcoBoost engines, enabling cylinder #1 to deactivate during periods of low power demand. Considering the asymmetry and unequal/uneven balancing and distribution of rotational inertia inherent in a transverse three-cylinder engine layout, this is no small feat. In fact, Ford is the only auto manufacturer to offer a 3-cylinder engine option featuring cylinder deactivation technology. This feature became available on EcoBoost-equipped Ford vehicles in the 2018 model year in the European market.

References:

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...g-cylinder-deactivation-tech-for-1-0-lit.html

http://www.e-hike.net/tr/content/fo...ation-strategies-award-winning-3-cyl-ecoboost

http://e-hike.net/tr/content/ford-e...-10l-ecoboost-testing-shows-6-fuel-efficiency

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/downs...st-evolution-with-cylinder-deactivation-tech/

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/...-engine-get-fuel-saving-cylinder-deactivation

Managing NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) is the name of the game when tinkering with the imbalance, asymmetry, and uneven distribution of mass and force with these types of engines. So the holistic engineering approach to integrate cylinder deactivation goes beyond lowering a crate motor into an engine bay -- "New engine mounts, drive shafts and suspension bushes also will be specially tuned for refinement when the revised 1.0-litre Ecoboost is installed in a car." I wonder if this could be the work Roush has been summoned to perform ...

Plus, if you go online and shop the Ford UK site, for instance, you'll see not only the updated EcoBoost engines featuring cylinder deactivation, but also automatic start/stop on their Fiesta and Focus models. Combine those two technologies and it's got to amount to a 10% or greater improvement in fuel economy figures.

 

[RSchneider]

The Ford Ecoboost that's 100hp has the lowest fuel consumption of their small engines. In the Fiesta that car has 4.8l/100km as opposed to the 5.0l/100km for other small less powerful motors.

VW does better. They are at 4.2l/100km with their 90hp 1.0l TSI and then beat everything with the 1.6l TDI at 3.8l/100km. We know Elio will never choose a diesel. VW screwed that up in the US market.

 

[larryboy]

I hope they don't fail to look at a diesel option when the Elio is up and running. I would buy a diesel if one was offered.

 

[Ty]

The majority of the profits that aren't reinvested in ANY company go to the shareholders. I just checked - you can buy Honda Stock on the NYSE. If you want more of Honda's profits to stay in the US, go buy HMC Stock. Or TM stock if you think Toyota is more profitable. And, how many shareholders of Ford, or GM stock are from outside the US? Heck, first the Germans, and now the Italians, own Chrysler. What is more American than a Jeep? Or is it Italian? My wife had a Chrysler PT Cruiser. At that time Chrysler was owned by Daimler. The car was built in Mexico. What nationality car was it? All I know is that's the closest I'll ever get to owning a Mercedes.

Still, a company based in the US is more likely to invest in infrastructure in the US (new office buildings, factories, storage, etc) than a company based outside of the US.

 

[Ty]

The Ford Ecoboost that's 100hp has the lowest fuel consumption of their small engines. In the Fiesta that car has 4.8l/100km as opposed to the 5.0l/100km for other small less powerful motors.

VW does better. They are at 4.2l/100km with their 90hp 1.0l TSI and then beat everything with the 1.6l TDI at 3.8l/100km. We know Elio will never choose a diesel. VW screwed that up in the US market.

For most of us, we use miles per gallon. By most of us, I mean the ones who will actually be getting Elios when they come out since Elio won't be exporting them at first. It's odd to use the European measurement of fuel economy unless you are just trying to make a point about how it's easier to compare vehicles when you use liters per kilometers. The problem is that you don't buy gas by the liter in the US. So, 4.8l/km = 49mpg, 4.2 l/km= 56mpg, and 3.8l/km=61mpg. And, if you are keeping up, Elio is supposed to use 2.8l/km on the highway and 4.8l/km around town. Now, lets use the American standard of measure on cars/autocycles sold in the US.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

For most of us, we use miles per gallon. By most of us, I mean the ones who will actually be getting Elios when they come out since Elio won't be exporting them at first. It's odd to use the European measurement of fuel economy unless you are just trying to make a point about how it's easier to compare vehicles when you use liters per kilometers. The problem is that you don't buy gas by the liter in the US. So, 4.8l/km = 49mpg, 4.2 l/km= 56mpg, and 3.8l/km=61mpg. And, if you are keeping up, Elio is supposed to use 2.8l/km on the highway and 4.8l/km around town. Now, lets use the American standard of measure on cars/autocycles sold in the US.

" odd to use the European measurement of fuel economy unless you are just trying to make a point about how it's easier to compare vehicles when you use liters per kilometers."
So many of us think the world (not European) revolves around our silly units of measures, distance, hours (24hr clock) sizes, weights, liquids etc. It happens that only a very few countries (3-4?) on the planet are not on metric, and the case might also be made about the few countries who drive on the "wrong" side of the road
I throw this out ('cause I ain't sure) doesn't the U.S. armed forces use metric??
Seems like just a few years ago, they tried to introduce metrics in public schools- might have succeeded had the teachers known the system.

 

[RSchneider]

For most of us, we use miles per gallon. By most of us, I mean the ones who will actually be getting Elios when they come out since Elio won't be exporting them at first. It's odd to use the European measurement of fuel economy unless you are just trying to make a point about how it's easier to compare vehicles when you use liters per kilometers. The problem is that you don't buy gas by the liter in the US. So, 4.8l/km = 49mpg, 4.2 l/km= 56mpg, and 3.8l/km=61mpg. And, if you are keeping up, Elio is supposed to use 2.8l/km on the highway and 4.8l/km around town. Now, lets use the American standard of measure on cars/autocycles sold in the US.

European drive cycle for computing fuel consumption is not the same as for what we require in the US for 4 wheeled cars. 3 wheeled, has no official specifications for calculating fuel consumption so you can make up anything you want. I'm only using l/km because it's obvious that when you look up the specifications on a European Ford and VW site, you can determine which would use less fuel. That's the point I was trying to make. I don't care if it's pints/lightyear. I can tell, if the number is lower, it uses less fuel.

 

[RSchneider]

" odd to use the European measurement of fuel economy unless you are just trying to make a point about how it's easier to compare vehicles when you use liters per kilometers."
So many of us think the world (not European) revolves around our silly units of measures, distance, hours (24hr clock) sizes, weights, liquids etc. It happens that only a very few countries (3-4?) on the planet are not on metric, and the case might also be made about the few countries who drive on the "wrong" side of the road
I throw this out ('cause I ain't sure) doesn't the U.S. armed forces use metric??
Seems like just a few years ago, they tried to introduce metrics in public schools- might have succeeded had the teachers known the system.

As an Engineer I have to deal with metric, Imperial and US standard. On the other hand, when you get your Elio, it will have three non metric items on it. The speedometer (which probably will have km/h in small font anyway), the wheel diameter and wheel width. There's not a single automotive supplier (except for wheels) that uses US units. That ship sailed a long time ago.