Honda boosts performance and fuel economy on 2013 CR-Z Sport Hybrid Coupe using new Li-ion pack
Audi introducing four new TDI diesel models to the US market

Ford to offer 1L EcoBoost in 2014 Fiesta in North America

1.0L EcoBoost. Click to enlarge.

The new 2014 Ford Fiesta on sale next year will be the first vehicle available in the United States with Ford’s 3-cylinder 1.0-liter EcoBoost (direct injection plus turbocharging) engine. (Earlier post.) Though the car has not yet undergone EPA testing, Ford says it expects the Fiesta to be certified as the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid car available in the United States.

The 1.0-liter EcoBoost is a quiet, smooth-running engine that develops roughly the same output as a 1.6-liter four-cylinder with about 25% fewer moving parts. The smallest engine available in its class, Ford’s 1.0-liter EcoBoost is projected to produce 123 hp (92 kW) and peak torque of 148 lb-ft (201 N·m). In a quick preview prior to the Los Angeles Auto Show next week, Bob Fascetti, Ford director of Global Engine Engineering, outlined 10 features of the engine enabling its performance and refinement:

  1. A split cooling system sends coolant separately to the block and to the cylinder head on separate thermostats. This is an efficient method to manage engine temperature, Fascetti said, and enables faster warm-up, with reduced emissions.

  2. A computer-controlled variable oil pump.

  3. A crankshaft offset by 8mm reduces friction by 3-5% on the power stroke.

  4. A timing belt-in-oil for the primary cam drive system produces less noise (being sealed), and is maintenance-free.

  5. Rather than use a balance shaft (which add friction and weight) as most 3-cylinder engines do, Ford unbalanced both the flywheel and the crank pulley to offset the inherent imbalance of the engine.The result, said Fascetti, is one of Ford’s smoothest engines at idle.

  6. An integrated exhaust manifold on the engine supports a wider rpm range with the optimum fuel to air ratio. The exhaust gas is cooler, and the integrated head and exhaust manifold reduces weight.

  7. An optimized engine mountain system tuned to handle the imbalance that it left. There are a number of patents on the mounting system, Fascetti said.

  8. A fast-acting, compact turbocharger developed with Continental runs at a maximum of 248,000 rpm.

  9. Ultra-low friction design leverages optimized bearing sizes and coated pistons.

  10. Scavenging
    Scavenging. Click to enlarge.

    A scavenging effect flushes residual gases from the cylinder, increasing the mass of the following charge and cooling gas to reduce the tendency to knock. It also increases turbo mass flow, helping to spool-up the turbo.

The 1.0L EcoBoost delivers more torque per liter than any other gasoline engine in North America, according to Fascetti.

Many customers would like the fuel efficiency of a modern diesel or a hybrid, but can’t stretch their budgets to cover the cost premium. That’s where the EcoBoost Fiesta fits in. It will offer a highly fuel-efficient alternative at a lower cost.

—Joe Bakaj, Ford vice president of Powertrain Engineering

Since being launched in the spring in the Ford Focus in Europe, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine has established itself as one of the most noteworthy engines of 2012. In April it was voted International Engine of the Year by a jury of 76 journalists from 36 countries. In June it set 16 land speed records at a racetrack in France. In October the 1.0-liter EcoBoost was given a Breakthrough Award from Popular Mechanics magazine, and this month the engine won the prestigious DeWar Trophy in Great Britain.

In Europe, where the diesel engine reins, the 1.0-liter engine now accounts for about 30% of sales in the Focus. (The Fiesta weighs about 450 lbs less than the Focus, Fascetti noted.) The 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine is just now launching in the B-MAX and C-MAX, and will also be offered in the all-new Mondeo.

The 1.0-liter engine is the fourth member of Ford’s global EcoBoost engine family. Since launch in 2009, Ford has sold more than 520,000 EcoBoost-equipped vehicles globally and expects volume to grow to 1.6 million in 2013.



Pretty impressive. I am just waiting for Ford to come to the realization that this needs to be the engine used in their new hybrid setup, replacing the 2.0 Atkinson engine. Not only would it be more efficient, it would weigh about 100 lbs less. Pretty amazing that an engine that is half the size could produce more torque (and not just peak torque either) and just sacrifice a few peak HP, which wouldn't even matter since the 1.0 would still have more power through most of the RPM range anyway, where an ICE would spend most of it's time in a hybrid setup. I don't see any way this change would not get them over the 50mpg hump (from 47).


Turbos have been around for ever. So, I don't totally understand why this is even news. Maybe, it's because for the first time car companies are applying the technology for the purposes of efficiency rather than giving guys with size and performance issues a way to compensate. But really, it suggests they could have been doing this decades ago if they had ever tried for more efficiency. This further suggesting that they never really tried for efficiency and are largely responsible for our stupid addiction to oil and ICEs. Not picking on ford specifically, because this tech is actually good. And, as mentioned in the previous coment, it would a good engine for a hybrid or PHEV vehicle.


I had a 1L Ford Fiesta once (1987-89), but it only had 45 bhp, not 123.
I suppose that is what you call progress.


It is amazing what a car company can do when they put more money into R&D than planned obsolescence, Hummers, and SUV marketing.

The original 2.4 liter 240Z had 148 lb-ft and often smoked many a V8 big block several times larger.

Now, there's a 1 liter engine with a reliable turbo.

Yes Virginia, there is a replacement for displacement.


No, until recently, the drivability of such a small turbocharged engine could not have fulfilled customer expectations. Some manufacturers tried this in their laboratories decades ago but although the power density could almost match the level of the 1L Ecoboost engine today, the responsiveness was poor. Customers would not have accepted such an engine, so this is the simple reason why we did not see any such engines on the road. It is not a trade-off between efficiency and power density either, since this engine has the highest power density of all Ford engines, yet it is very efficient.

There is a combination of various features (not a single one) that explains why this could be accomplished today. Besides advances in turbocharging; DI, VVT, integrated exhaust manifold, 6-speed transmission (instead of 5-speed) and the switch from 4 to 3 cylinders are some of the explanations. While a 3 cylinder engine is much better suited for turbocharging than a 4-cylinder engine perhaps the most impressive advance is that noise, vibration and harshness issues could be handled so nicely. Other car manufacturers will follow this path.


alpha1847, you read my thoughts exactly.  Torque is more important for driveability than peak horsepower, so that would be a substantial upgrade for the vehicle package.  If the engine gets variable valve timing, it could operate unthrottled on the Miller cycle for much of its range.  This effectively recycles exhaust energy back to the crankshaft.

BK4, direct injection allows turbocharging along with higher static compression.  That's the big change.


Engineer, I assume you mean if the engine gets an IMPROVED variable timing system (since it has dual VVT), like the electrically-actuated version used by Mazda in their Sky-Active engines? Yes, I believe that type of system allows a crazy amount of variation (around 180 degrees, if memory serves), allowing it to run in the Atkinson-cycle on demand. That probably couldn't hurt, but I'd wonder if it would be worth the cost or delay. From what I have read, the Atkinson cycle is only worth about a 3% improvement in fuel economy.


I didn't find anything on VVT in the article, so maybe it already has sufficient capability.  Heck, maybe they already do this.  One advantage is responsiveness; if you already have boost but are throttling by under-charging, changing the intake valve timing can increase the air charge about as fast as the camshaft can shift, no wait for the turbo to spool up.

The advantage of a short intake stroke with the turbo is that the charge intake pressure can be greater than the exhaust stroke pressure, without the entropy increase across the exhaust valve that turbodiesels have.  If the intake charge has greater downweard pressure on the piston than the exhaust gases do, there is a net transfer of mechanical power to the crankshaft from the exhaust gas through the turbocharger.


I saw a note about VVT in another article about this engine. I suppose it is a simple type of VVT. For optimal use of the Miller system a fully variable valve system, like the one used on BMW or Fiat engines, is preferred. Ford probably “only” use phase shifting and supposedly only on the inlet cam and not on the exhaust cam (although I have not checked this…). At the charge pressure they have available and the power and torque density this engine has, it is almost certain that they cannot use the Miller system. For retaining power density with Miller system, turbocharging becomes a crucial factor. Two-stage turbocharging (recall the Mahle concept engine in previous articles) or the electrical turbo-assist that Ricardo tried in a project on this engine could be two options. Eventually, it will last a couple of years until we see such an engine in production.

BTW, I have tested two versions (100 & 120 PS) of this engine in the Ford Focus. I was positively surprised with the responsiveness and how quiet and vibration-free the engine was. At idle, you cannot hear or feel the engine from the driver´s seat. Power, torque and responsiveness are definitely sufficient. The only negative aspect is that the 6th gear (that the more powerful version has) is limited to highway driving. Anyway, who would have expected anything else from such a small engine? In comparison, the 115 PS 1.6-liter diesel has, of course, some advantage regarding low-end torque and a 6th gear that can be used more frequently. All-in-all, this gasoline engine is definitely a fuel-efficient option for those who cannot afford the additional cost for a diesel version (as Ford has noted). I suppose we have to wait a while for a downsized 3-cylinder diesel engine to match this gasoline engine on a technology-neutral basis.

At the charge pressure they have available and the power and torque density this engine has, it is almost certain that they cannot use the Miller system.
Not at full power, no.  But the engine spends most of its time far below full power, where some kind of throttling (or extreme down-speeding) is required.  That's where VVT plus turbo might allow Miller-cycle operation.

Once again I have to point out that you are wrong. First, the compressor has a “pumping” limit. This is one of the limiting factors for torque at low speed. Simply by looking at the torque curve, we can conclude that they cannot use Miller system at full torque and lower speed. Second, the “simple” phase shifting VVT used on this engine cannot be used to obtain a Miller system at low load. When the cam is shifted, there is always a trade-off between gains from optimized inlet valve closure and the negative effects of shifting the valve overlap too much. Of course, the manufacturer will choose the optimum valve timing at any load and speed but this should not be confused with the “Miller effect”. Third, one essential component of the Miller system is an increase in compression ratio. This engine does not have that, which together with the two other issues mentioned proves that the Miller system is not used on this engine. We could envision that an increased compression ratio could be used if maximum power would be limited by retarded timing and reducing charge pressure to avoid knock but this has many drawbacks, such as reduced low end torque and many other problems that I will not go into now.

I have to repeat myself once again. To fully exploit the Miller system you need a FULLY-FLEXIBLE valve timing system, i.e. one with both phase shift and variable duration. If you sacrifice high-end power and maximum torque, you could use shortened but fixed cam duration (and phase shift, if you wish). This would be somewhat similar to the Toyota Atkinson engines, where you clearly can see that power density and maximum speed is low compared to naturally-aspirated engines of similar size. This “sacrifice”, manifested as a relative reduction in power density, also applies to a turbocharged engine. As you can see, the Ford engine has both high power density and a wide speed range, which proves the other facts I mentioned.

If you do not agree with me, try to explain how Ford is using the Miller effect on this engine.


Who said they needed to fully exploit the Miller system?  Just trading some of the pumping losses from late intake closure into gains from recycled exhaust energy would be a win.  If that allowed the 1-liter to beat the Atkinson's fuel consumption at cruise power, it would make a superior engine for the vehicle.


For the hybrid vehicle (CMAX, Fusion), that is.


You seem to confuse pumping losses with the Miller effect. I kind of suspected that… Please consult the literature. The Miller system is about improving the high-pressure part of the PV diagram, not the low-pressure (pumping) part!


If you want to nitpick, fine.  A supercharged engine with an expansion ratio greater than the compression ratio is close enough to the Miller cycle that people will at least know what you're talking about.  The significance in this case isn't purity of implementation, it's effectiveness in the application.  It's very likely that this engine would be effective as a substitute for the 2.0 Atkinson in the hybrid models, reducing weight if nothing else.


As I have said before, when you have driven a hybrid for a time you come to realize that the electric motor and battery is there to provide the necessary power for acceleration and passing. This permits a small(er)IC engine with better fuel economy to be used.

Since Atkinson cycle engines are low torque at low RPMs the hybrid approach lends itself nicely to this design.

The Volt is a design that has a more robust electrical system and a smaller ICE. I have advocated for some time an ICE just barely large enough to drive a generator. Unlike the Volt, there would be no mechanical drive system. In order to save production and operating costs, the gen-set would be sized to certain minimums appropriate to vehicle weight and the operating environment.

What I would really like to see would be a very small two-cylinder opposed, diesel driving a generator at the most efficient speed. I believe we are at the point today where such a car could be built that would carry four passengers safely, at freeway speeds, and get better than 100 MPG.


The series/parallel system in the Volt needs the ICE for high speed and high power (max acceleration and highway passing) - ergo the ICE must be integrated into the battery electric system which adds some design constraint - but maybe not much; the combined system seems to fit well.

Would a larger battery electric system eliminate this condition easily and allow the ICE to be downsized?

I think the ICE (1.4L DOHC I-4, dual OHC, four valves per, VVT on intake and exhaust) is sized to provide "full" performance beyond the "electric only" range and was available off the shelf, not because the EV section needs a full 1.4 liters of help.

But mostly I think the series/parallel systems in the Volt and Prius minimize the max power density and depth of charge expected of the battery compared to a pure series system - and the batteries are a BIG cost driver.

Freddy Torres

Why not build a 1.0 ecoboost Atkinson engine instead? We truly need to start moving toward an electric dominant drivetrain with a very small ICE with maximum thermal efficiency. Ecoboosting an Atkinson engine will increase its torque to levels similar to Otto cycle engines.


Well, as always, you did not provide any useful information. May I also remind you about all the previous discussions you have lost, as e.g. the one regarding the fundamentals of intercooling? It surprises me that you start to argue with me all the time although you should know by now that I know what I am talking about and that you face a considerable risk of losing the argument. A quick look in my library showed that I have numerous scientific papers on the Miller system, in total more than 1000 pages of literature. I have read every one of them, so this should be a hint about that I have some knowledge about this topic.

In short, a Miller engine should have the following features:
• Turbocharging (or any other kind of supercharging)
• Increased expansion ratio via higher-than-normal geometric compression ratio
• Reduction of the effective compression ratio by changing the inlet valve closure (or using a rotary valve before the conventional poppet valve)

The Miller effect cannot be utilized if one of these features is missing. In the Ford case, it is easy to conclude that the compression ratio is not raised. If the Ford engine would have a fully-variable valve timing (which it has not, since it is only a phase shift VVT), pumping losses could be reduced at low load by either late inlet valve closure (LIVC) or early inlet valve closure (EIVC). This is exactly what BMW does (EIVC) on their new gasoline engines to reduce pumping losses. Yet, these engines are no Miller engines. The low-pressure loop of the PV diagram is reduced, thus also reducing the pumping work. However, the high-pressure loop is basically unaffected. In contrast, an engine with Miller system has a greater expansion ratio than a conventional engine but reduces the effective compression ratio via the shift of inlet valve closure. Thus, the high-pressure loop of the PV diagram is improved. It should be obvious that the two mentioned effects are very different and should not be mixed up.

The Miller system could be used with fixed valve timing (and a simple phase shift for some optimization). However, this is best suited for heavy-duty engines that have a very small effective speed range. The Toyota Atkinson engines also “suffers” from this problem for the same reasons. The reason why I suggest fully-variable valve timing to fully utilize the Miller system is that fixed valve timing works different at high speed due to the gas dynamics and since a wide speed range (as on gasoline engines) aggravates this problem. Therefore, it would be advantageous if the inlet valve closure is not fixed but can be shifted, depending on engine speed. A simple phase shift can provide some of this potential but it is also a compromise due to negative impacts from the changed valve overlap. The additional benefit of fully-variable valve timing would be reduced pumping losses at low loads.

Ford could implement two different strategies to further improve this engine: 1) Use a fully-variable valve system to decrease pumping losses. Apparently, they do not have such a system readily developed and available for the moment (as BMW and Fiat has); at least, they do not have such a system in production on any other engine. 2) Implement the Miller system on the engine. This would increase the requirements on the turbocharging system and for the moment, there are few such options readily available. Well, maybe with the exception of the twin turbo system that should be sufficient for at least a “mild” Miller effect. Such turbocharging was introduced already a couple of years ago by diesel engine manufacturers, so it is readily available. The Mahle 3-cylinder concept engine has demonstrated such an application, however, without using the Miller system. Instead, they have utilized the turbocharging system to maximize the power density.


@Freddy Torres
I saw your contribution just after I posted mine. A “ecoboost Atkinson engine” is, in fact, a “Miller engine”. I prefer not to use the denotation “Miller cycle” but prefer “Miller system” instead. The Atkinson cycle was invented long before Ralph Miller made his contribution to mankind. A Miller system uses an Atkinson cycle. The original Atkinson cycle engine used a complicated crank mechanism to obtain greater expansion ratio than compression ratio, while the Miller system does this in a more “elegant” and simple way, just as you could also say about Toyota´s engines. Besides these comments, I think my previous comments answers your question.


Goodness, Peter XX, are you still so butt-hurt over that time I caught you in an error that you're trying to get back at me at every opportunity?  How childish; grow up already!

It's a fact that turbodiesels can operate with their intake manifold pressure greater than their exhaust MP.  The work done on the piston during intake can be greater than the work done by the piston during exhaust, creating a pumping gain.  I opined that a boosted GDI engine might be able to do the same.  The exact details of the cycle involved are irrelevant, as is its name (if it has one yet).  It's also a fact that this 1-liter Ecoboost engine is sufficiently similar in specifications to the Ford 2.0 Atkinson that it appears to be an attractive alternative for the hybrid vehicles which currently get the Atkinson.

If you really wanted to be helpful, you'd use your connections to get the BSFC maps for the 1L Ecoboost and the 2L Atkinson so they could be compared at typical operating points for the C-MAX and Fusion to see if the substitution would increase efficiency.  If you wrote this up, I'd be happy to run it as a guest post at The Ergosphere.


Going back to the VVT discussion, all Ecoboost models have had VVT at least on the intake valves. I believe every version since the first-gen 3.5 V6 has actually had dual-independent VVT. My understanding was that all dual VVT versions were using Borg Warner's cam torque actuated system, since it is much more effective at low RPMs, has a wider range of phasing and does not require an oversized, power-robbing oil pump. Has anyone seen any confirmation of this for the 1.0?


I looked through my explanations once more. If you don´t understand or do not accept my explanations, there is not much I can do to help you. Regarding other issues, I simply do not want any comments from you in the future, as I have already mentioned in the past. If you ever again claim that I am wrong, you will be on thin ice.



You are such a jerk, GO AWAY!


Ah, SJC, are you now willing to answer one of the questions I asked you 8 months ago?

The comments to this entry are closed.