CGI for the Next gen Ecoboost engines

[jpd80]

You want to keep exhaust temperature up pre turbo. That is one reason for integral exhaust manifolds. Fewer paths for heat loss. As the exhaust temperature (pre turbo) goes down, the energy available for the turbo to recover goes down.

The integral exhausts are there to promote quick warm up and reduce cold start emissions, GM do the same thing with their SIDI V6 engines.

Once the engine is at operating temperature, the integral manifold cools the exhaust slightly, not a lot but enough for EGR needs.

Velocity for turbo spool up is achieved by surprisingly small exhaust passage into the turbo, I saw a picture with a coin placed next to the inlet.

Edited March 7, 2012 by jpd80

[Biker16]

FOrd patent on a water cooled Fuel injector.

 

 

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=3&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=150&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=ford&OS=ford&RS=ford

 

 

 

TURBOCHARGER LAUNCH CONTROL

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=4&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=172&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=ford&OS=ford&RS=ford

[MKII]

very good read on the 1.0L EB in German, but google translate is your friend

http://www.openbroadcast.de/article/177189/ford-zuendet-mit-dem-sportlichen-10-liter-ecoboost-motor-die-naechste-technologiestufe-der-ford-focus-baureihe.html

 

Anybody hear anything about the 1.3 EB Ford is working on??

Edited March 8, 2012 by MKII

[jpd80]

very good read on the 1.0L EB in German, but google translate is your friend

http://www.openbroad...s-baureihe.html

 

Anybody hear anything about the 1.3 EB Ford is working on??

Thanks for that, the bit that interests me is this:

 

Two power levels in the range: 74 kW (100 hp) and 94 kW (125 hp). Maximum torque of 200 Nm (148 lb ft) is available from 1,400 rpm

 

A one liter Ecoboost producing 148 lb ft off the bat is no weakling...

[2b2]

...Anybody hear anything about the 1.3 EB Ford is working on??

with all the raves from Ford engineers about the 1.0

imho the 1.3 has been abandoned

(just imho)

[vision street wear 2]

Anybody hear anything about the 1.3 EB Ford is working on??

 

No 1.3L I3 EB

[jpd80]

And very interesting that Ford is changing from aluminium to iron. Due to the boosted power and a space between cylinders at 6,1 mm it seems to be CGI as you initially suspected

Hmm, I thought the I-3 had regular cast iron block to keep costs down, but a CGI block would make it even lighter..

I was just thinking how neat a baby I-4 off that architecture would be, 1.3 liters making 160 hp and 190 lb ft.

Edited March 9, 2012 by jpd80

[StevenCaylor]

Hmm, I thought the I-3 had regular cast iron block to keep costs down, but a CGI block would make it even lighter..

I was just thinking how neat a baby I-4 off that architecture would be, 1.3 liters making 160 hp and 190 lb ft.

 

Exactly. I had always thought that the 1.3 Ecoboost would be the replacement for the N/A 2.0 in the Focus.

[Biker16]

 

http://1l-ecoboost.f...stEngine_EU.pdf

 

INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING

A compact cast iron cylinder block design

features a small cylinder bore (71.9mm)

and a long stroke (82.0mm), contributing

to impressive torque figures. It’s also

extremely strong, allowing a gap of just

6.1mm between the cylinders – helping

achieve faster warm-up and improved

fuel economy.

1.0-litre EcoBoost uses an aluminium

cylinder head with a new, integrated

exhaust manifold. This helps reduce

exhaust temperatures and optimise the

fuel-to-air ratio.

 

you have to consider the only thing the I3 can do is to decrease displacement not increase displacement, due to the long stroke and narrow distance between the cylinders.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Biker16

[jpd80]

 

http://1l-ecoboost.f...stEngine_EU.pdf

 

 

 

you have to consider the only thing the I3 can do is to decrease displacement not increase displacement, due to the long stroke and narrow distance between the cylinders.

How about adding a cylinder....

Or altering the existing Euro 1.25 liter I-4

A 1.3 I-4 Ecoboost 160 hp and 190 lb ft on over boost...

[Biker16]

How about adding a cylinder....

Or altering the existing Euro 1.25 liter I-4

A 1.3 I-4 Ecoboost 160 hp and 190 lb ft on over boost...

 

This may be when we see an all new engine family to replace the Mazda based Duratec line.

 

which may include a larger I3 and I4, no rumors just speculation on my part.

 

1.4 liter I3 175hp

1.9l I4 240hp

2.2l I4 275hp

 

all engine would share the same bore Same valves and head design.

 

 

maybe.

[2b2]

This may be when we see an all new engine family to replace the Mazda based Duratec line.

 

which may include a larger I3 and I4, no rumors just speculation on my part.

 

1.4 liter I3 175hp

1.9l I4 240hp

2.2l I4 275hp

 

all engine would share the same bore Same valves and head design.

 

 

maybe.

imho it's fairly certain the EB will fulfill the 140 hp per liter rumors

 

I thinking

1.0 140hp

1.6 225hp

2.3 upto 325hp

Edited March 10, 2012 by 2b2

[Biker16]

found some interesting info on the EB10

 

And it really excites your inner engineer. It was an absolutely clean-sheet design, not a bigger one with a cylinder amputated, so everything is optimised for the size. The block length is the same as a sheet of A4 paper, and the powertrain weighs 40kg less than the old 1.6 (or a staggering 150kg less than a 2.0 diesel). It's got direct injection and dual variable camshafts, and an absolutely diddy jewel of a turbine that spins up to 248,000rpm.

 

The exhaust manifold is cast into the cylinder head, which means water cools the exhaust gas, and also the narrow-bore design of the engine means it doesn't have much tendency to knock, which in turn means it seldom needs much ignition retardation, which again means lower exhaust-gas temperatures. Finally, the turbo itself can accept gas at 1,030°C. What does all this mean for the price of fish? Most turbo engines squirt extra fuel at high power, simply to evaporate and cool the turbo. What a waste that is. This little engine is carefully designed seldom to need that overfuelling, so, even if you use wide throttle occasionally, you won't diverge too much from the official fuel figures. Unlike a Fiat TwinAir. I saw 40mpg on a particularly swift drive through some hilly Spanish countryside.

 

[2b2]

TY, CGIron

[Harley Lover]

Could Ford be planning this for the rumored larger (1.5L) Ecoboost I3?

Edited November 5, 2012 by Harley Lover

[Deanh]

 

 

380 hp why is it not in production? I know you don't think Ecoboost is stuck at 250 hp for no reason.

 

I don't see ANY limit to downsizing, believe it or not we have been downsizing engines for the last 40 years. The technology will contiue to improve, don't let the performance of the EB20 in the Explorer affect your opinion of the technology. Ecoboost is still very new, and its performance and economy will improve. There are design compromises that make the 2.0 in particular burn more fuel, a new head with an integrated exhaust manifold like the head on the EB1.0 can cool the exhaust by 180 degrees, greatly improving economy by using the heat to warm the motor faster as well. remember downsizing works becuase at Crusing speeds the Vehicle only need a fraction of the power it requires to accelerate. Ecoboost is akin to displacement on demand, it can be very efficient at cursing speeds while being powerful when needed to accelerate. even with the naoturally Aspirated enginesthe 1.9l engine in the 1990 Escort only made 88hp today the Engine in the focus makes160hp, although it doesn't help that the focus weighs about 800lbs more than the Escort did.

 

 

Moving to a more robust engine block could also improve power and increase economy. It would allow ford to move the power peak higher and develop more top end power than the current engine. by using a more robust block and head, higher boost could be maintained above the current peak horsepower at 5500 rpm. If we had a Ecoboost 2.0 that could produce a solid 300hp at 6500 Rpm while maintaining the 250-270ft/lbs at lower RPMs you would have the engine to replace the 3.5 and even the 3.7.....I would also add that theres a reason the 2.0 in the edge and the like is stronger in the bottom end for a reason, low end oooomph is necessary to get large lumps moving respectively....

 

After Reading the review of the Ecoboost Edge, brings home the point that the engine is stronger on the low end than the 3.5 V6 but Weak on high end because peak Horsepower comes on sooner than the 3.5, combine the lack of top end power and the Tall final drive ratio and you will have some performance issue. In the Explorer its worse because the Transmission is downshifting for more HPs but the engine lacks the power to reward the down shift.

 

If the engine block, and bottom end were stronger you could produce more power by increasing boost at higher RPM. This problem is most acute with the 2.0 because it's less robust than the 3.5 or the 1.6.

 

1.6

hp 175@ 5700 RPM

Torque 177ft/lbs @ 1600-5000 rpm.

Compression Ratio 10.0:1

 

2.0

Horsepower (SAE net @ rpm) 240 @ 5,500 Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 270 @ 3,000 Compression ratio 9.3:1

3.5

horsepower 365 @ 5550 rpm Torque (lb.-ft. SAE net @ rpm) 350 @ 1500-5250 rpm

In the future if ford wanted to Use HCCI [/url ] on future Ecoboost engines or even Throttleless engines, they may need Stronger engine blocks.

I thought the 2.0 here had integrated exaust manifols as well....hmm, research time...The 2.0-liter EcoBoost is a modified version of the naturally aspirated 2.0-liter Duratec found in the 2012 Focus, and it carries over that engine’s direct injection, twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT), and balance shaft. To ensure the turbo version could handle the max boost of 16 psi, Ford strengthened the aluminum block and crankshaft and added forged connecting rods and piston-cooling jets. The EcoBoost’s unique cylinder head integrates the exhaust manifold to save weight. Edited November 5, 2012 by Deanh

[Biker16]

I thought the 2.0 here had integrated exaust manifols as well....hmm, research time...The 2.0-liter EcoBoost is a modified version of the naturally aspirated 2.0-liter Duratec found in the 2012 Focus, and it carries over that engine’s direct injection, twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT), and balance shaft. To ensure the turbo version could handle the max boost of 16 psi, Ford strengthened the aluminum block and crankshaft and added forged connecting rods and piston-cooling jets. The EcoBoost’s unique cylinder head integrates the exhaust manifold to save weight.

 

If you look at the date I posted this 12/2011, Ford had not confirmed the use of the integrated Manifold ye

[Deanh]

 

 

If you look at the date I posted this 12/2011, Ford had not confirmed the use of the integrated Manifold ye

I cant remember how long the engine has been out, but all our "trining" indicated from the get go this was how the engine was to be built from day one.....the ONLY deviation I recall was a test engine for the ST Focus on which they mounted actuall headers that was pulling 270 plus stock.... Edited November 5, 2012 by Deanh

[Edstock]

The EcoBoost’s unique cylinder head integrates the exhaust manifold to save weight.

 

IIRC, it's for enhanced cooling of the exhaust, to lower thermal stress on the turbo.

[Deanh]

 

 

IIRC, it's for enhanced cooling of the exhaust, to lower thermal stress on the turbo.

eggs zachary, the coolant, due to the placement of the turbo, continues through thermal and gravitational forces to circulate through the turbo thus negating potential "coking" issue s AND subsequently extending the life of the components..........BAM!....wow, that came from deep in the archives of uninteresting training sessions.... Edited November 6, 2012 by Deanh

[Biker16]

I cant remember how long the engine has been out, but all our "trining" indicated from the get go this was how the engine was to be built from day one.....the ONLY deviation I recall was a test engine for the ST Focus on which they mounted actuall headers that was pulling 270 plus stock....

 

the EU versions originally had a tradtional exhuast manifold the later NA may had had integrated manifolds from the start, but..... all the media pictures of the engine showed an attached manifold.

[theoldwizard]

I am still very skeptical of CGI moving to "mainstream" gasoline engines. Simply adding more head bolts and more external ribbing will go a long way to containing power within an aluminum block and at a fraction of the cost and weight of CGI.

 

Now you want something high tech, how about plasma transferred wire arc (PTWA) thermal spraying

[Biker16]

I am still very skeptical of CGI moving to "mainstream" gasoline engines. Simply adding more head bolts and more external ribbing will go a long way to containing power within an aluminum block and at a fraction of the cost and weight of CGI.

 

Now you want something high tech, how about plasma transferred wire arc (PTWA) thermal spraying

 

HCCI require a stronger engine, but it can offer Diesel efficiency in a gas engine.

 

Right now with Direct injection and TiVCT you have multiple modes of operation

 

You have Stoicometric operation (Traditional Air/fuel mix)

Atkinson cycle mode where the intake valve delays closing to effectively reduce Displacement (power density)

Lean burn mode using inert EGR gas to reduce oxygen in the combustion chamber and direct injection to concentrate fuel near the spark plug.

 

Using these modes increases efficiency. but the use of these modes is determined by engine load and ability to manage emissions.

 

The sound concept that modern engines are going for a Displacement on demand using turbos and the the Three modes I listed above.

 

the issues of combustion chamber temperatures causing pre-detonation which effects engine reliability, on these engines Designs that are derived from non Turbo charged, non Direct injection engine designs.

 

more importantly the Fear of Detonation destroying weak engines is limiting how high Compression ratio can be.

 

with HCCI mode the advent of Electro-actuated Valve timing, cooled EGR, and directed Direct injection system. add in more powerful engine computers. you could have compression Ratios Above 15:1 for non Turbo Charged engines.

 

but first you need an engine that can reliably handle the pressure and heat of HCCI CGI offers the ability to do this.

[jpvbs]

It´s coming even if you are doubtful

 

 

"This development includes SinterCast’s first high volume CGI petrol engine, which remains on schedule for the start of series production during 2013."

 

 

http://www.sintercas...tember-2012.pdf

 

hmmm.

 

the Tupy foundry in Saltillo, Mexico, ordered a System 3000 Plus after receiving the largest ever CGI series production order with a mature volume of more than 300,000 passenger vehicle cylinder blocks per year, with series production starting in 2013.

 

The 2015 F150 will probably show up early in 2014. Who else might place an order that large and it is going to come from a facility in North America?

Edited November 7, 2012 by jpvbs

[theoldwizard]

HCCI require a stronger engine, but it can offer Diesel efficiency in a gas engine.

Actually, with recent and future emissions standards in both the US and EU, diesel efficiencies (hp/cc or hp/lb) have and will continue to drop.

 

Lean burn mode ...

Those words should never be spoken inside of Ford Powertrain Engineering, at least for US applications ! Ford has been caught by the EPA 2 times in the past 40 years using that "defeat device" (EPAs terminology). Last time is was very expensive !

 

...with HCCI mode the advent of Electro-actuated Valve timing, cooled EGR, and directed Direct injection system. add in more powerful engine computers. you could have compression Ratios Above 15:1 for non Turbo Charged engines.

I still contend that for small, light duty engines/vehicles aluminum blocks can achieve those compression levels and are more cost effective than CGI. Tooling is less expensive and the weight savings leads directly to better fuel economy.