## Ford launches production of 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine; could reach 1.3M units per year worldwide in future

##### 10 November 2011
 Cutaway of the 1.0L EcoBoost. Click to enlarge.

Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally launched volume production of Ford’s smallest gasoline engine—the 1.0-liter, turbocharged, direct injection EcoBoost engine (earlier post)—at Ford’s Cologne (Germany) Engine Plant. The 1.0L EcoBoost will debut in Europe in early 2012 and ultimately be available worldwide.

Ford announced that when the three-cylinder EcoBoost engine debuts in the European Ford Focus, it will produce 125 PS (124 hp, 92 kW) with fuel consumption of 5.0 L/100 km (47 mpg US), and CO2 emissions performance of 114 g/km. A 100 PS (99 hp, 74 kW) version of the same engine will deliver best-in-class gasoline CO2 emissions of 109 g/km.

The engine also will feature in the Ford C-MAX, and in the new Ford B-MAX, which enters production in 2012. Further global applications for both the 125PS and 100PS variants will be announced by Ford later.

Mulally was joined by Hannelore Kraft, prime minister of Nordrhein Westfalen, Germany, and Elfi Scho-Antwerpes, mayor of Cologne, for the event. Ford said it invested €134 million (US$182 million) to develop a special high-tech line at the Cologne Engine Plant to build the engine. The plant’s 870 employees will build up to 350,000 units a year of the new engine. European production capacity could increase to up to 700,000 units per year as production of the new small EcoBoost engine at Cologne is joined by Ford’s new engine plant in Craiova, Romania, in manufacturing the new 1.0-litre EcoBoost engine in early 2012. In the years ahead, Ford anticipates production to expand outside of Europe to deliver availability for customers around the world and global production of up to 1.3 million 1.0-liter EcoBoost engines per year. This new EcoBoost engine delivers performance to rival a traditional 1.6-liter engine and with significantly improved fuel efficiency and lower CO2 emissions. The 1.0-liter EcoBoost cylinder block can fit onto a sheet of A4 paper (11.7 x 8.3 inches) but delivers up to 125 PS and 170 N·m (125 lb-ft) peak torque (with 200 N·m (148 lb-ft) overboost), giving it the highest power density of any Ford production engine to date. The 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine was developed by Ford experts across Europe, including engineers at Ford’s European Research and Advanced Engineering Centre in Aachen, Germany, and the Dunton Technical Centre, UK. The advanced EcoBoost production facility at Ford’s Cologne Engine Plant was designed by Ford’s Manufacturing Engineering team, Dunton, UK, using Ford’s Virtual Manufacturing laboratory, to offer maximum flexibility and efficiency. Nearly 100 new machining units and a 580-meter purpose-built assembly line have been installed. Fifty-five automated and 14 semi-automated processes are used, alongside 90 work stations for skilled employees. The technology is capable of machining to an accuracy of 10 microns, 10 to 20% the width of a human hair. Ford has introduced new manufacturing techniques that reduce the volume of coolant required when machining aluminium engine parts to just four or five milliliters per component from a previous requirement of up to two liters, a reduction of more than 99% that contributes to a reduced environmental footprint from manufacturing. New “cold testing” technology allows completed engines to be tested without being started—reducing fuel usage and CO2 emissions from the process by 66%—while 100% of the remaining energy required to run the plant comes from renewable sources. Total electricity demands have been reduced by 66% compared with production of Ford’s 4.0-liter V6 engine, which ended at Cologne Engine Plant. ### Comments A hand to Ford for doing the right thing again. A 66% reduction in energy required to manufacture these small ICE versus older models is a step in the right direction. Using renewable energy is another plus. A good example of doing more with less. Ford is really making some amazing vehicles. As the last of the American companies not owned by the government they get 100% of my business. I am so glad they are continually working on new technologies. Go Ford. The hyboost project was based on this engine. I wonder if we will see something in between the two such as this engine with mild hybrid (integrated or belt assisted) When you engines get smaller you can mount them in better places and have much smaller frontal areas Good things come in small packages. This engine really needs to be put into vehicles like the Fusion hybrid. It has more than enough power, and the lightness and efficiency would improve the vehicle in all respects. I hope the engine sounds as good as the spec looks. It is very impressive to have a car as large (well, as "medium") as the Focus with < 115 gms Co2 in a petrol engine. Much less local pollution than a diesel. So well done Ford. Slightly aside, but I wondered what GCC readers thought of this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2011/11/08/tiny-car-beats-multinationals-in-energy-derby-with-350-mpg/ The results link is excellent. The Murray Istream assembly process seems like a way to skip$billion dollar manufacturing, sort of like 3rd world countries skipped $billion dollar land lines with cell phones. I don't understand what would be skipped that would save billions of dollars in manufacturing yet provide hundreds of thousands of affordable cars. Kit cars have been built in$10,000 home garages for decades.

@kelly,
Oh yeah? 350 mpge ain't nuthin' for an electric car. The latest VW "one-liter" car, the XL1, can achieve 260 mpg in diesel fuel. Since the tiny 800-cc diesel engine drive train has a peak efficiency of under 40% instead of over 80% efficiency of a BEV drive train from tank to wheel, one should multiply the 260 mpg by 2 = 520 mpge capability of the VW XL1, for a fair comparison.

How can the VW XL1 be so efficient?
According to Volkswagen, the XL1 can achieve a combined fuel consumption of 0.9 litres per 100 kilometres (310 mpg-imp; 260 mpg-US) and CO2 emissions of 24 g/km. Like the L1, the XL1 uses a two-cylinder turbo-diesel. Displacing 800 cc, it is rated at 35 kW (47 hp) and 121 Nm (89 lb-ft) of torque and transmits power to the rear wheels through a seven-speed DSG transmission. The electric motor pitches in with 20 kW (27 hp) and 100 Nm (74 lb-ft) of torque, and can work in parallel with the diesel or drive the car independent of it. Fully charged, the XL1 can travel up to 35 km (22 mi) on electric power.

The XL1 has a curb weight of 795 kg (1,750 lb), and a drag coefficient of 0.186 (a similar drag coefficient to the General Motors EV1 electric car). In total just 23.2% of the car (184 kg (410 lb)) is made out of either steel or iron with the drivetrain weighing 227 kg (500 lb). The XL1's length and width are similar to the Volkswagen Polo, with a length of 3,970 mm (156.3 in) and width of 1,682 mm (66.2 in). However, the car is much lower with a height of only 1,184 mm (46.6 in), and has a coupe-like roofline, reducing interior volume. The design incorporates gull-wing doors,[15] with the interior seating layout using a staggered side-by-side arrangement similar to a Smart Fortwo, rather than the previous versions' tandem seating.

Performance credentials include a governed top speed of 158 km/h (99 mph), with 0–100 km/h (0-62 mph) acceleration in 11.9 secs.
Source: Wikipedia.

Talking about Green bragging right! I would definitely buy one once it will be offered for sale, unless something better will come along, though I really like the beautiful shape of the XL1. Very sport-car shaped, sure beats all the boxy designs of other econobox!

Actually, the Murray's T27 covered 57 miles on 7 kWh of electricity. That calculates out to be 268 mpge US gallons, about half the mpge of the XL1's 520 mpge US. This is quite consistent with the boxy, hence poor aerodynamic shape of the T27 in comparison to the XL1. When the car is ultra light, aerodynamic drag at highway speeds makes up a much bigger proportion of total drag in comparison to that of a conventional car.

.."But think more broadly, Murray urges. The iStream process devised by his company to produce the T.25 revolves around injection molding and software. A factory might only need 11 tool sets that cost a total of $10 million to produce car bodies. A conventional factory might need 1,500 tools that cost$500 million euros. Retooling iStream to accommodate a new engine in the car or expanding the passenger bay mostly involves clicking a mouse.

“80 percent of the tooling is writing software,” he said.

Cheaper factories mean cheaper cars: a manufacturer could sell T.25s for $10,000 and still make “a handsome profit,” he says. A T.27, an electric version of the T.25 that has been funded in part by the U.K. government, could be sold for$23,000. Because it would weigh far less than a conventional EV, a T.27 could come with a 12.5 kilowatt hour battery, about half the size of the battery in a Nissan Leaf or Mitsubishi, and still go 100 miles on a single charge."

Too bad VW didn't enter the XL1, but the Volkswagen Golf Blue-e-motion (EV) showed excellent results(~2/3 the energy needs of Tesla or Leaf).

We should give credit to Ford for what they have achieved with a production car and not compare this car to a concept car (that could be done with the HyBoost concept car instead, if you like). This is the most aggressive downsizing so far (other manufacturers will be copycats). The fuel consumption is on a level that only diesel cars and full hybrids have been able to achieve so far. Yet, the performance should be quite satisfactory. The comparison with the ECOnetic (diesel) version will be interesting. I am looking forward to that.

Will very light weight (under 1000 Kg) PHEVs and BEVs with extra low drag, doing up to 500 mpg (equivalent), be on the market by 2020?

Whoever does it will have a winner, specially if the interior is large enough to accommodate people (40+% in a few countries) with ballooning waist lines.

This engine DOES push the state of the art - in an intellegent and exciting way that might add much to its general appeal.

@ToppaTom
I agree! In addition, it is affordable.

1.3M of these cars every year will reduce FC more than a handful of the extreme car Harvey envisions for a distant future. Furthermore, this Ford is big enough for my 65 kg and 179 cm body. Maybe I have to put on some fat to fit the car in Harvey’s dream.

Peter_XX, FYI,

By year 2000, VW-Brazil had a local offer of the high volume small car Gol (Brazillian design, market leader) with a version of their EA-111 4-cyl 1.0L 16V engine, ,with VVT at intake, turbocharged (@1,4 kg/cm2), controlled by a Bosch Motronic M3.8.3 ECU.

Was not a huge success. Was not cheap. Demanded more care taking, and finer maintenance, and so lost value quicker than a comparable 2.0L NA engine.

Was said to be economical when run lightly, but not when the car was driven as the ones with a bigger (2.0L) engine.

http://www.lunaticfringe.org/vwfox/specs/VW-Gol-1000-16v-turbo.html

translate (with google) from Portuguese (Brazilian):
http://bestcars.uol.com.br/artigos/gol-turbo-1.htm

Peter...very light weight (under 1000 Kg) long range BEVs, large enough for Peter_3X to 5X, will hit the market place sometime between 2015 and 2020, probably closer to 2020. Yes, you are too slim. Another 5 Kg to 10 Kg would not hurt. I went up from 66 Kg to 71-72 Kg when I quit smoking 33 years ago but been very stable for the last 32 years. I'm 3 cm shorter than you.

Cars with ultra light weight frames-bodies and advanced solid state batteries (or equivalent) will not be very affordable for at least another 10 years or so but they will be available. Superior technology always has a higher initial price.

Considering the above, my next car may very well be a Camry Hybrid (2012 or 2013)

The original VW bugs, Minis, Corollas, .. sold tens of millions of units at under 800 kg.

Modern technology should meet or surpass these weight savings.

HarveyD
With age, you lose muscle, so you should actually become thinner. I have more body fat than an elite athlete. If I had the body fat percentage of a long-distance runner, I should weigh 59 kg. My resting heart rate is 42 bpm. An elite athlete who is 30 years younger than me is down at 32 bpm. Maybe I could improve but I am too old to become an elite athlete. Why am I telling you this? Well, to me your cars seem as elite athletes. Only a handful persons per million will become elite athletes. The extreme cars you dream of could never be affordable and could never be manufactured in large numbers. Maybe elite athletes earn enough for buying one. The Ford Focus is for me.

Peter...I'm a strong believer of material and technology evolution. Car making will evolve and molded re-enforced plastic (composites?) frames, bodies and parts will replace many of today's heavier steels parts. Wind and rolling resistance will be further reduced to raise BEVs efficiency from 5 Km/Kwh to 10 Km/Kwh by 2030 or so.

Today's 4000 lbs mid-size ICE cars will be replaced with 2000 lbs long- variable e-range BEVs, starting slowly but progressively before the end of the current decade. The Tesla, Leafs, Volts, Prius etc are the very early models of the major change coming. Many more efficient models will be around in 10+ years. Affordability will be addressed with worldwide mass production and competition.

Peter...a friend, who is in and out of China on a regular frequent basis, has observed that all major cities have been mandated to follow an aggressive vehicle electrification and public charge points program. Many cities will offer recharges at very low cost or free. Private chargers will be subsidized at 50+%. BEV sales and registration taxes/fees will be reduced to almost zero for the next 10 years.

By the time that all azmuth program gets going at high speed, something like 250,000 to 500,000 new BEVs a year will be sold in the selected cities. Ten years down the road, those number will be multiplied as the Km of high speed e-trains are.

Expecting automakers today, to use technology that MAY become affordable in 10 years, is utter nonsense.

@TT,
PHEV using LiFePO4 batteries is already affordable today, and result in less than 1/2 the energy cost of comparable petrol vehicle, including the amortization cost of the batteries. We haven't seen many yet, but just wait 1-2 years more!

The comments to this entry are closed.