Best engine of the year (again)

itguy08 wrote:

The Texan wrote:
Good thing it was the 1L Eco engine that won, because if the 3.5L Eco was a winner, then I would know for sure these awards were bought and paid for.......:B

Why? The 3.5 Ecoboost is a fine engine. 58k on the one in my SHO and feeding it the cheapest swill I can fine it runs awesome!

Well let's see, 3.5L involved in multiple law suits, 3.5L being investigated by the NHTSA for a possible recall. Those 2 reasons alone are enough to not let it be the engine of the year, but some can't see the forest for the trees.

rjstractor,

"On an unrelated note I did catch an error on the original specs for the Eco motor. It says it puts out 123 hp from 1400 to 4500 rpm, which is impossible unless it's peak torque was in the neighborhood of 400 ft./lbs! A torque curve can be flat or a power curve can be flat, but it's mathematically impossible for both to be flat."

You are so right and it's so obvious!

The formula for calculating the HP with/on a rotational force is RPM times Torque divided by 5252 = Horsepower. (RPM*T)/5252 = HP Both RPM and Torque are infinitely and accurately measurable values and HP is simply the result of a calculation. TORQUE is what turns the vehicle's drive wheel to the RPM it's rotating.
Any change to either one of the measured RPM or the Torque changes the HP value. Obviously the author of the article isn't too bright in math skills!

Being and engineer and having seen this formula posted constantly on the many forums for vehicles/RV's for years on end I didn't think it was even necessary to point out the foolish error in the article.

Since HP is almost always at given as a spec at the top RPM figure given the 123 HP number would be a paltry 38 HP at 1400 engine RPMs. A shade more than my Toro garden tractor's engine! What a powerhouse engine to move a perhaps 2400lb to 2800lb small car around the flat close to sea level streets of town. O'my, I forgot to add the driver and his wife and their 2 young kids! Better add the approx 600 lbs for 2 adults and 2-100 lb kids. Lets say that powerhouse engine's RPM's goes all the way up to 2000 RPM at 60 MPH in top gear on the highway. The 1.0L engine now has, due to the flat 148 pound-feet the author states from 1400 RPM to 4500 RPM, a mind boggling 56.36 HP. Of course, I suppose you could always drive is 2nd gear and let that engine scream to about 4000 RPM and then you might have around 100 HP going towards the drive wheel but there goes the fuel economy! Shucks, that's still not enough power needed to climb a 6% grade at 60 mph with 2 adult and 2 100lb kids inside.

123 HP at 4500 RPM's is a feel good value as how often would you ever opt to wind it that high?

The Texan wrote:
Good thing it was the 1L Eco engine that won, because if the 3.5L Eco was a winner, then I would know for sure these awards were bought and paid for.......:B

Why? The 3.5 Ecoboost is a fine engine. 58k on the one in my SHO and feeding it the cheapest swill I can fine it runs awesome!

travelnutz wrote:
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?

Keep in mind that the Gold Wing doesn't need to meet any crash regulations, is driveable in the snow, and is saddled with emissions equipment not even thought about for motorcycles outside Commiefornia.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Fords 2.0 Eco-boost made WardsAuto top ten engines for 2013 wonder why the 3.5 didn't? The Pentastar 3.5 has made it three years in a row.

http://wardsauto.com/2013-wards-10-best-engines

Ecoboost 3.5 won it in 2010. Also Ford has had more engines on the list than any American auto Manufacturer. They are #2 in total awards from Wards.
Ward's 10 best Engines

travelnutz wrote:
DUH! The Honda Goldwing has 118hp OEM and 125 torque!

Yes, so what? That motor is nearly twice as big as the 1.0 Eco and has less power and torque!

On an unrelated note I did catch an error on the original specs for the Eco motor. It says it puts out 123 hp from 1400 to 4500 rpm, which is impossible unless it's peak torque was in the neighborhood of 400 ft./lbs! A torque curve can be flat or a power curve can be flat, but it's mathematically impossible for both to be flat.

Fords 2.0 Eco-boost made WardsAuto top ten engines for 2013 wonder why the 3.5 didn't? The Pentastar 3.5 has made it three years in a row.

http://wardsauto.com/2013-wards-10-best-engines

Don

I don't take too much stock when someone gives someone an "engine of the year award."

Why?
Because of comments like this:

"Ford Motor Co.'s all-new Power Stroke 6L turbodiesel V-8 wins a 2003 Ward's 10 Best Engines award not because it's a diesel accessible to everyone, but because it's the best current example of how good a diesel can be when the best of current diesel technologies converge."


LMAO talk about getting something about as wrong as one can get! :R

Back in the days dad had 1947 Kieser with a flat 6 and puled a trailor
around the states with no problems

skipnchar wrote:
Second year in a row for Ford to win the award. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/the-humble-ecoboost-drives-ford-to-greatness.html/?ref=YF

Three cylinder, 1000cc turbocharged.....engine of the year ? I hope I'm not reduced to driving a vehicle with an engine smaller than many motorcycle engines.

Although the way gas prices are going...somehow it wouldn't surprise me if this type of engine was in a future car.

I'm not crazy about turbos or superchargers....would rather have more cubic capacity and more cylinders.