Why Ford? Why must you Deny America!

[me32]

wrong again try throwing something called a stroker kit into the car you will gain more volume from the 4 banger in the end. the 3 cylinder will never match the loss of a fourth cylinder when both stroked out to the max possible.

I would never have plans to put a stroker kit on a 4 cylinder so there is zero gain for me there. If i was gonna add more power to an ecoboost it wouldnt be a stroker/bore kit. It would be a bigger turbo.

 

[me32]

Less valve area and lower rpm potential.

I would like to know the size of the valves on the new 1.5L 3 cylinder. Compared to the 1.6L 4 cylinder. I would like to know which head flows more. Currently in stock from there isnt a RPM benifit for the 1.6.

 

[M-Sport fan]

I would never have plans to put a stroker kit on a 4 cylinder so there is zero gain for me there. If i was gonna add more power to an ecoboost it wouldnt be a stroker/bore kit. It would be a bigger turbo.

Same here, as we are already dealing with an UNDERsquare bottom end on these cars, and there is precious LITTLE room for any bore increases!

 

[ROCKYFiestta]

Same here, as we are already dealing with an UNDERsquare bottom end on these cars, and there is precious LITTLE room for any bore increases!

sorry dudes i admit i dont have intimate knowledge of the fist engine it is very new to me.
i come from evos and gsx hondas that have always had plenty of room for stroking it out evos go from 2.0 to 2.4 all day every day when doing a full rebuild so i based my knowledge on my prior experience.

either way i live in the us and we ain't getting the 3 cylinder fist so at this point the dead horse has been beat enough.

 

[Intuit]

One thing no one has commented on, was heat generation?

Less valve area and lower rpm potential.

Engineers may have realized that people don't spend much time on the top-end in a non-racing vehicle.

You're right, RPM potential generally decreases as you increase reciprocating and rotating masses.

I don't think they changed the red-line did they? They may have offset the larger pistons with design/material improvements, as well as dropping .1 liter. Much lighter crank is also something to consider.

But your point may be, if they applied similar improvements to the quad, additional performance improvements may be observed.

BUT, if you can get the same performance with lower part counts, why not?

The chief purpose until recently for even cylinders all these decades has been for balancing and smoothness. One trade off to consider with decreasing those masses, is a potential decrease in torque; valuable for "getting off the line", low-end performance and being able to cruise up highway inclines without relying "too" heavily on turbo. Though 3-cyl engines were going in mid-90s Geo Metros and some later model performance motorcycles, I'm going to guess that dual-mass flywheels are playing an important role in the decision to drop a cylinder. Unfortunately DMF may be adding another significant failure point when it comes to performance vehicles.

 

[Quisp]

Longer stroke = higher piston speed