Ford Joins the Cylinder Deactivation Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
4,452
Location
Idaho
In their 1.0L 3-cylinder turbo Ecoboost engine, that is.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/11/20161130-cylinder.html

Significant modifications were required to get a 6% fuel economy improvement:

Quote:
Ford’s single-cylinder deactivation design reduces complexity to make volume production achievable, but also presented significant challenges in maintaining the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine’s acclaimed refinement—delivered using innovations including an offset crankshaft configuration and deliberately “unbalanced” flywheel and pulley that counteract vibration.

A new dual-mass flywheel and a vibration-damping clutch disc help neutralize engine oscillations when running on two cylinders, especially at lower rpm, and enable a wider operating range. Intake and exhaust valves are closed when the system is active, trapping gasses to provide a spring effect that helps balance forces across the three cylinders for refinement, and also retain temperatures inside the cylinder that maintain fuel efficiency when reactivated.

New engine mounts, drive shafts and suspension bushes also will be specially tuned for refinement. The 1.0-liter EcoBoost will feature enhanced durability to cope with the different loading forces resulting from cylinder deactivation, including a new camshaft chain, and valve rockers formed using advanced metal injection moulding.


Will the 3.5L Ecoboost V6 be next in line for this tech?
 
I see the AFM or "cylinder de-activation," or the Displacement-on-Demand system as a carbon/soot maker.

For this system, why not just have one big honkin' cylinder moving fore and aft, like on the old steam locomotives.
grin2.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bluestream
V8,6,4 all over again...



GM sells over 40,000 half-ton trucks with this technology (cyl.deactivation) each and every month. While there were some issues early on (2007) most issues have been resolved.

If you research GM's system-you will find it's a fairly straight forward technology. It's already on 4.6 million cars/trucks.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see Ford develop a one cylinder engine with cylinder deactivation.......................
 
The new generation 2.0 Ecoboost already has this. So I was told when I bought mine this past Saturday. Maybe for 2017 models.
 
Originally Posted By: AirgunSavant
I'd like to see Ford develop a one cylinder engine with cylinder deactivation.......................


LOL, i was thinking the same. cylinder deactivation in 3-cylinder engine. really?

how about 2 cylinders, start/stop system, and more boost?

or better a hybrid?
 
Yeah.. lol
smile.gif


Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: AirgunSavant
I'd like to see Ford develop a one cylinder engine with cylinder deactivation.......................


LOL, i was thinking the same. cylinder deactivation in 3-cylinder engine. really?

how about 2 cylinders, start/stop system, and more boost?

or better a hybrid?
 
My 2013 JGC with the 5.7L Hemi has cylinder deaction. It's on/off action becomes annoying so I move it out of Drive and choose one of its 6 speeds, eliminating the constant(sometimes) on/off action.

Yes, the cylinder deaction saves some gas but not much according to my records.
 
The cylinder shutoff in my Magnum was 100% transparent...to the point I asked the dealer to make sure it was working! (It was.)
 
Originally Posted By: Bluestream
V8,6,4 all over again...

Where have you been for the last 10 years - GM, Chrysler and Honda brought it back from the dead. Modern PCMs are much faster, being based on 32-bit PowerPC(what Apple was using before the Intel switch) or MIPS/Super H processors, while the Delco ECM that drove the 1st gen V8-6-4 system was no more powerful than a TI or HP business calculator at the time.

I can commend Ford on wanting to do this - but I think we're hitting the law of diminishing returns. Ford's probably eyeing this to go behind a PHEV powertrain, not quite GM's Voltec...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
nothing like answering a question that nobody asked.


Except the EPA with their CAFE standards....
 
Drat. Now I'm crushed. I gave Ford a 4-hour presentation on cylinder deactivation for their 3-cylinder when I worked at Eaton Corporation back in 2013. They said they weren't interested. It turns out they gave the business to the competition. Oh well, I guess somebody had to educate them on the technology so they could make an informed decision. (Usually to the lowest bidder, and Eaton was never very good at that.)
 
No cylinder deactivation was one of the reasons that I bought a Mustang GT instead of the Challenger or Camaro. I drove two new 5.7 Hemi challengers back in 2013 and on both cars, you could really tell when the engine switched from 8 to 4 or 4 to 8. The car would hesitate and almost feel like it was missing. The camaro wasn't nearly as bad but I could sometimes feel it vibrate a little bit.

Wayne
 
The only cylinder deactivation scheme I feel comfortable with is when a bank on a OPOC engine is taken offline when power needs lessen. But since no auto maker has seen fit to use an OPOC engine, it is all academic. Even though it would solve a lot of their problems in several ways.
 
One might just as well ask where you've been for the past ten years.
Processing power has nothing to do with the viability of cylinder deactivation.
The electro-mechanical pieces required to make it work as well as uneven heating are the problem, just as they were with the old Cadillac.
Honda's VCM implementation is a known problem in a V-6 that was once considered a very good engine.
The sad thing is that while cylinder deactivation might play well in the gentle driving of the EPA emissions highway cycle, it'll do nothing at all to save anyone any fuel in actual 80-85 mph interstate driving.
Lots of initial cost coupled with lots of future maintenance headaches for no gain at all.
Sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top