NOAA-led study find ship air pollution plummets when vessels shift to low-sulfur fuels and slow down; net warming impact
Enbridge to twin southern section of its Athabasca oil sands pipeline for about $1.2B

New 3-cylinder, 1.0-liter Ford EcoBoost engine to debut in European Focus range

Ford has confirmed that the first production applications for the new 1.0-liter, 3-cylinder EcoBoost engine (earlier post) will be three models in the European product range: first the Focus, followed by C-MAX and the all-new Ford B-MAX. The new 1.0-liter engine is the latest addition to Ford’s global family of EcoBoost engines, which currently range in capacity from 1.6 to 3.5 liters globally. Downsized EcoBoost engines feature turbocharging, direct injection and other technologies and replace larger engines with no loss of performance and with lower fuel consumption.

Ford will introduce two versions of the 1.0-liter engine in the Focus in Europe in early 2012 with 100 PS (99 hp, 74 kW) and 120 PS (118 hp, 88 kW) and 5-speed and 6-speed manual transmissions respectively. Ultimately, this all-new engine will be made available in Ford models in North America, China and in other regions.

With its 1.0-liter capacity, the 3-cylinder EcoBoost engine will be the smallest engine currently produced by Ford. Yet, despite its small capacity and proportions, the design delivers power and performance to rival a traditional 1.6-liter gasoline engine while emitting less than 120g/km CO2 in the Focus.

Developed at Ford’s Dunton Technical Centre in the UK, this direct-injected EcoBoost engine features a new compact, high performance turbocharger design. The extremely fast response of the turbocharger and its ability to reach nearly 250,000 rpm results in virtually no turbo lag and peak torque of 170 N·m (125 lb-ft) from 1,300-4,500 rpm in the 120 PS variant.

The new EcoBoost engine also features an exhaust manifold cast into the cylinder head, which lowers the temperature of the exhaust gases and in turn enables the engine to run with the optimum fuel-to-air ratio across a wider rev band.

An advanced “split cooling” system reduces fuel consumption by warming the engine more quickly and—unlike the larger EcoBoost engines—cast iron has been selected for the block, reducing the amount of energy needed for warm-up by up to 50% compared with aluminum.

Intelligent ancillaries such as a variable air-conditioning compressor and oil pump also reduce parasitic loads on the engine, while special coatings for engine components and intricate development of engine geometry result in minimal frictional losses.

Ford Auto-Start-Stop, Active Grille Shutter and Ford Smart Regenerative Charging will also be available as part of the Focus and C-MAX 1.0-liter EcoBoost package.

Like its larger capacity siblings, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine will use Ti-VCT twin variable camshaft timing (earlier post) to further improve performance and economy. Ford has also employed an all-new camshaft actuator to speed up response times without sacrificing durability.

In the all-new 1.0-liter Ford EcoBoost engine, the emphasis in development has been on delivering both smooth and refined performance. Engine refinement is improved thanks to an innovative design that immerses the two main engine drive belts in oil, resulting in quieter and more efficient running but with the durability of a chain. Careful attention has also been paid to mitigating the natural vibrations of the 3-cylinder design.

Rather than employ the traditional method of adding energy-draining balancer shafts, Ford engineers have deliberately “unbalanced” the flywheel and pulley to offset the engine configuration. Ford believes these innovations combined with optimized engine mounts will deliver a refined performance feel perfected during 720,000 km of tests,including 360,000 km of durability trials and 10,000 km of environmental testing.

Further technical details of the new Ford EcoBoost 1.0-liter engine will be provided closer to market launch across Europe in early 2012.



You'd be giving credit to others, just compiling material where it's easy to find and cite.

This beats trying describe an engine map in words any day.


Well, maybe in about 10 years, when I am retired, I might consider to share more information on the Internet. It takes much time to engage in such matters and I am already spending too much time at GCC.

I looked at another important issue. A BMEP of 2 bar @2000 rpm is considered representative for “normal” driving, i.e. represents reasonably well the average load in NEDC and US FTP. Engine manufacturers use BSFC at this operating point as an indication of FC. An Atkinson engine has a more narrow speed range of operation (e.g. rated speed is 5200 rpm compared to 5800 rpm for the GM engine) than a conventional engine, in addition to the lower BMEP. If I also take this fact into consideration, the difference between the Prius and the GM engines increase. While the GM engine has a BSFC of 363 g/kWh at 2 bar BMEP, the corresponding load for the Prius engine is only 1.2 bar and the corresponding BSFC is 387 g/kWh. This shows that an Atkinson engine would be less efficient than a conventional engine with a conventional transmission. This is one of the explanations why we do not have any Atkinson engines with conventional drivetrains. I have claimed this all the time but this was actually the first time I bothered to do the direct comparison and quantify the difference.

Roger Pham

At a BMEP of 2 bar, at the end of the power stroke, the GM engine has a cylinder pressure about equivalent to atmospheric pressure or slightly under.

On the other hand in the Prius engine, at a BMEP of 1.2 bar, at the end of the power stroke, the Prius engine (1.8L) has a cylinder pressure of about <1/2 of atmospheric pressure, due to the high-expansion nature of Atkinson cycle AND at such a low BMEP of only 1.2, too low to be useful. This means that 1/2 way thru the power stroke, the Prius engine's piston must fight its way against atmospheric pressure in order to continue its downward stroke. At BDC, the exhaust valves open, allowing the exhaust-port gas at atmospheric pressure to fill in, thus does not allow for the piston to recuperate the energy invested in going against atmospheric pressure.

If I am to design an ATkinson-cycle engine to have high efficiency at very low loads, I would have the exhaust valves open much later, well past the piston's return from BDC, in order to recuperate the energy expended against atmpspheric pressure on the downward stroke. But, that is quite complicated, since I will need to change to another cam profile with later and shorter exhaust valve opening, for use at low load. Toyota never intended for the Prius engine to operate in such low-load regime, hence, did not provide for such a degree of variable exhaust valve event.

A better comparison would be the older Prius 1.5L 1NZ-FXE engine to the GeoMetro 1.0L engine. At 40 NM of torque, the best BSFC of the 1.0L Otto engine is 283 g/kWh, while at 45 NM of torque, the Prius 1.5L Atkinson engine can achieve 270g/kWh, even though it's a lot bigger and should be compared to an 1.2L Otto engine. See:

At any lower BMEP, you would risk running into expanding below and hence against atmospheric pressure, hence incurring unnecessarily higher pumping loss that can totally be avoided in an HEV.


If someone would design an Atkinson engine the way you suggest, it would definitely have higher fuel consumption than the Prius engine. You could convince yourself about that by suggesting your ideas to Toyota. I do not want to humiliate you any more by pointing out all the errors and misconceptions in your latest contribution. As you might have noted, I did not bother to do that about your last comments either. However, I hope that you also respect my position by not commenting on my contributions in the future.

Roger Pham


The comments to this entry are closed.