Best engine of the year (again)

Additional: 1975 Honda Goldwing's had a 999cc (1L 4 cyl engine). Listed weight wet for a Glodwing is 908 lbs wet per wikipedia and you can check it. Now add 2 adult passengers and the weight was usually well over 1200 lbs. It would simply plant you and your passenger back so hard on the sissy bar that you couldn't move as we know. Got 50-60 mpg on the highway as we know. By 2001 the Goldwing had 1832cc (1.83L) and is a rocket with 400+ lbs of passengers/gear and a loaded camping trailer hooked on behind (total of usually well over 1700 lbs) and still gets 50 mpg on the highway at 60-65mph, about 30-35 city. Honda engines are far from high revving and low revving at highway speed.

Why then should the 40 year later Ford 1.0L engine impress me as the numbers don't support it?

Very impressive

"The company even boasts that it packs more torque per litre than a Corvette ZR1."

travelnutz wrote:
Does a Prius with passengers climbing a 6% long grade holding a long line of traffic behind come to mind?

We actually have long (10-15 mile) 6% climbs out here. I assure its not the Prius holding up traffic, but rather the person inside the Prius. Granted, the Pruis may not be able to pass a line of slow cars going up a 6% grade, but it can hold its own just fine.

I REALLY hope they sell the 1.0 EcoBoost as a crate motor. Oregon allows both home-built and tube-frame open-wheel "Race Activity Vehicles" to be registered and driven. I would love to stick one of those motors in an ultra-light open-wheel car.

smart car engine ?

Seems MB is interested in it,wants to share tech with Ford ..........hummm...

Wonder if the Chrysler guys have any words of caution.:W

45Ricochet wrote:
Heres another opinion
Amazing advances over the last few decades.

Much more believable than the first one that Ford appears to have paid for......

Yup! All of the engines in Rico's post are 2.0L or larger! Not one smaller and certainly not a 1.0L. That's a whopping mind blowing 1000cc's!

Nope, not a shovelhead either as it's the same as today's engines. Not at anywhere near 10,000 rpms either. Seems you two don't know much about motorcycle and snowmobile modern engine offerings for these items.

BTW, a 1.0 liter engine would not likely to be the engine in a 3,000 lb auto frame. More like a 2000 to 2400 lb curb weight vehicle and then put 4 humans and full fuel in that vehicle and tell me all about the tremendous power you'll experience. An overpriced priced little thin metal etc unitized body grocery getter perhaps marginally OK! Does a Prius with passengers climbing a 6% long grade holding a long line of traffic behind come to mind?

I've driven several cars/vehicles in Europe with their 1.6L and even their monsterous 2.2L engines and with 4 people crammed inside they can hardly get out of their own way. God forbid if you'd have anything heavy in the trunk or even a little utility trailer behind with 4 humans inside the vehicle! Europe and the rest of the world uses vehicles very differently than here on the USA and Canada. Most people on this side of the oceans haven't experienced what driving is like in most of the rest of the world but seem to post comments about their opinions only.

Heres another opinion
Amazing advances over the last few decades.

travelnutz wrote:
About as much HP and Torque as my motorcycle engine had 20+ years ago, as it was a 4 cycle 4 cylinder and got roughly 65 MPG. OR My long and very heavy 4 cycle touring snowmobile engine about 10 years ago but never measured the MPG closely but it was easy on fuel. I don't see a rubberband 1.0 liter engine being any good for anything but a very small and light commuter vehicle for a couple people in the USA or a family of 2 adults and 2 small kids crammed inside in Europe as they drive such little distances and the fuel is outrageously priced there. Yes, we've been there and know as our son owned an automotive components manufacturing business in the Midlands of England which he has sold and moved back to Michigan.

I'm not impressed in the least with this engine!

Take your bike engine out of it's 600 lb. motorcycle frame and put in on a 3,000 lb. auto frame and see which one you like. If the bike engine was a shovel head then factor in the 35,000 mile overhaul necessary (factory specs) against well over 150,000 miles also.

travelnutz wrote:
About as much HP and Torque as my motorcycle engine had 20+ years ago, as it was a 4 cycle 4 cylinder and got roughly 65 MPG. OR My long and very heavy 4 cycle touring snowmobile engine about 10 years ago but never measured the MPG closely but it was easy on fuel. I don't see a rubberband 1.0 liter engine being any good for anything but a very small and light commuter vehicle for a couple people in the USA or a family of 2 adults and 2 small kids crammed inside in Europe as they drive such little distances and the fuel is outrageously priced there. Yes, we've been there and know as our son owned an automotive components manufacturing business in the Midlands of England which he has sold and moved back to Michigan.

I'm not impressed in the least with this engine!

Did you read the specs? Your motorcycle engine may have had 123 hp but I doubt it put out 148 ft./lbs of torque at 1400 or any other rpm. Probably had peak power output at 10,000 rpm which translates into only about 60 ft./lbs of torque. Anyway, this motor has more hp and torque than my 2 liter engine in my Jetta, which may not impress some guys but certainly impresses me!