By on December 20, 2012

Those mysterious gas engines of course are gasoline-fed “three-cylinder engines, designed to comply with Euro VII emissions standards entering force around 2019,” says Reuters.  The wire heard from Peugeot that the engines “will bring big savings for both partners.”  Further details were not given.

PSA started production of the three cylinder “EB” engine in December 2011. The mills did not surprise with power.  The EB0, a one liter engine, produced 62 hp. A slightly larger 1.2 liter variant, the EB2, made 82 horsepower. Thank CAFE when some of these engines make their way stateside.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

26 Comments on “About Those New Gas Engines …...”


  • avatar
    blowfish

    these engines will make cars go not even as fast as the 2CVs.
    since modern day cars are lots heavier with all the bells & whistles.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    “Thank CAFE when some of these engines make their way stateside.”

    I have no problem with that, but will it be able to move your average 3,200-3,800 lb. American car?

    Just kidding, but I want to see how a three-cylinder motor would hold up here, regardless of what body it is put in.

    I’m interested.

    • 0 avatar
      notapreppie

      Maybe if you were to put two of these tri-cylinder engines in a car. Maybe in a sort of “V” formation where you interleave the pistons along a common crank shaft. In larger cars where you have the space under the hood, you could even just connect the engines end-to-end.

      Yah, that’s it! That’s how we could make it work!

    • 0 avatar
      sitting@home

      “will it be able to move your average 3,200-3,800 lb. American car?”

      By 2019 it may need to be able to move your average 3,200-3,800 lb. American family too.

      • 0 avatar

        I support a move toward 3 bang-ers……in vehicles that basically propel one commuter to and from work. But…..the average American car (or American family car)…..I dunno. It’s not just the 3,200-3,800 lbs. It’s the type of roads and driving unique to the American landscape: On ramps, interstate driving, head winds combined with 70 MPH driving, heavy stop and go, Air Conditioning, power steering, heavy alternator drain due to lots of electronics and electronic devices….

  • avatar
    rnc

    To make CAFE cars will get lighter using Boron Steel and Aluminum alloys as well as other lighter engineered replacements (sound proofing materials, etc). In terms of small engines, if the EPA would just require 93 octane as the minimum with say 105 as the highest, you could get an amazing amount of power out of those engines (compression determines HP and torque as much as size, octane is measure of stability in relation to pressure and temperature, with pressure being primary, 87 can’t handle very much).

    I think 87 octane was just a benefit to the oil/farming industry because they can just add 10% ethanol to crappy formulated petrol to achieve it. As well as making sure that Americans could have thier god given cheap gas for as long as possible, since MEL couldn’t be used anymore.

    Perhaps Fords dual injection system using ethanol to cool the cyl. inbetween cycles will catch on for trucks when they have to hit the sky high CAFE levels (deisel torque and MPG with Gas HP and emmisions) if they can figure out a way to seperate the ethanol from the gas, because you know no one would want to have to add a few gallons of alcohol a month.

  • avatar
    JaySeis

    Let’s see, my ’62 1200cc Type II flat four made all of 28 hp (and 30+ mpg cruising at a stately 50 mph). 62 from 1.0 liters seems good… Light engine, light car. The whole 0-60 time crap has convinced consumers that they need to get away from that stoplight and up to legal speed in 6 seconds or they are going to rear ended by a concrete truck or a meth head driving a clapped out civic. I’d love a 60mpg econobox.

    • 0 avatar
      slance66

      Merging on highways here in metro Boston, you will be killed/rear ended by a truck or something else if you can’t get up to speed quickly. Entering the highway at less than 55 is more dangerous than juggling chainsaws.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Funny, I never had a bit of trouble driving in Boston traffic in my 62hp Peugeot 504d. Which was not a particularly light car. And somehow trucks and busses manage to merge safely.

        The need for speed is entirely between your legs.

      • 0 avatar
        rwb

        Trucks and buses around here maintain their speed to merge, and you get out of their way if you know what’s good for you.

        Killed or rear-ended might have been hyperbole, but if you aren’t going the speed of traffic upon entering traffic, you will be honked at, gestured at, considered an idiot, and the person behind you will be very, very angry, which we all know facilitates safe driving situations, or not.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The key in Boston is the astronomical insurance rates. Use it to your advantage to stick a fender into a six foot opening, and the other car will back off rather than get into an insurance rate increasing accident. I once drove two elderly couples to the airport in a ’63 Rambler with a 198 cid engine and blew a tire in the left lane. I expertly forced my way three lanes to the right to the break down lane, even cutting off a semi to get there. Of course, they let traffic use the breakdown lane now during rush hour…

    • 0 avatar
      nikita

      In Los Angeles, its more like accelerate up the ramp only to come almost to a stop in order to merge.

      The Toyota Corona ads way back touted “Zero to sixty in sixteen seconds”. My current Honda Fit (117hp) at 2500lbs could get by on 82hp as an option, especially if the transmissions were upgraded to six speeds.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      Where I live, many people do not know how to enter busy interstates where traffic is moving at 65 to 70 mph. Instead of accelerating briskly up to traffic speed, they try to merge at 45 or 50. Usually, people move over or slow down for them. Sometimes, no one will do either and they end up trapped at the end of the merge lane or forced onto the shoulder. While not condoning road rage, I have no sympathy for them. I think of it as an encounter between two jerks.

      My first two cars were VW beetles. They were dangerous, not because of their construction, but because of their miserably inadequate performance.

  • avatar
    GusTurbo

    My first car was a ’93 Toyota Tercel with a 1.5L 83hp motor. It was slow, but never felt dangerously so. I want to say it got to 60 in 12 seconds or so. When it comes to merging onto the interstate, how often do have to accelerate from a complete stop? 30-60 seems to be the more relevant measure

  • avatar
    niky

    The power outputs are a bit disappointing, because that’s what the competition is already making from their own motors. A next-generation 1.0 or 1.2 ought to make a little more. It’s not unreasonable to ask for 70 and 90 hp. Of course, small motors aren’t quite compatible with direct injection, but if you use big twin cylinders (instead of the more common three…) or oversquare construction, it’s possible to put everything needed.

    In cars that use these motors, merging is never a problem. They usually have ultra-tight gearing that help you get up to 50 mph very quickly. It’s only over 50 that tight gearing can’t make up for the lack of power. A 1.2 super-mini will almost keep pace with a 1.6 liter Ford Fiesta up to 50, only to fall behind once aerodynamics start becoming more important than weight. As short and tall cars have terrible aerodynamics, top speed is usually limited to 80-90 mph.

    Of course, actually overtaking anyone at highway speeds is pretty difficult, but if you can’t beat them…

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    Ahhh! But how efficient are these engines? HP aside we don’t have the torque figures or any comparative data about efficiency to make any meaningful judgments.

  • avatar
    Caboose

    I honestly don’t mind cars being powered by motorcycle engines. But for Goodness’ sake, power them with real motorcycle engines. Every liter-sized Japanese sportbike makes at least 150bhp these days. Triumph sells a 1050cc triple that sounds glorious, makes almost that much power, and quite a lot of torque. The only substantive change would need to be the tranny and its gearing to make some of those engines car-compatible.

    C’mon, Honda! Give us a Fit Sport+ that runs the CB-1000-RR motor. What you’d save in weight you could put into sound-deadening. Or, as with your current cars, not.

    • 0 avatar
      blowfish

      aren’t those bike engines revs ranges up to 12k RPM?

    • 0 avatar
      SunnyvaleCA

      Motorcycle engines wouldn’t comply with car pollution regulations. And a catalytic converter and other emissions controls to a motorcycle engine and see how that affects the power.

      That said, 62 hp from a liter seems downright whimpy in the 21st century.

    • 0 avatar
      Caboose

      Quite a few bike engines have catalytic converters from the factory these days, including (now that I think more about it) a lot of 1.0 – 1.5 liter twins that rev slower and build their torque from lower rpm, including all BMWs and most Harley Big Twins, even some Ducatis. For example, a BMW R 1200 RT (a sport-touring bike) has an air/oil-cooled 1157cc boxer twin that makes 100+ bhp and 85-ish lbs/ft. of torque, all while having great packaging (no rad or H2O pump) and can be really well placed for cg purposes.

      Those Beemer R-bikes are really robust, too. My 2003 R1150 went 100k of being ridden with a shameful lack of self-preservation as my only vehicle before Alton Brown bought and wrecked it while producing a tee vee show.
      Such an engine in a MINI or even a budget 1-series would make for a somewhat slower, much lighter, much funner roadster.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        That sounds interesting, but by the time a high revving 1.0 liter sport bike engine’d sub-compact can be ready for market, it’ll likely return the same mpg as a normal/modern 1.8 liter 4 cylinder gas engine. Possibly worse.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      How many crotch rockets regularly go 100,000+ (or even half that) miles without the need for major maintenance?

      As enticing as a motorcycle engine might appear in a car application, they are entirely unsuited for it (well except that badass hyabusa mid-engine Mini conversion)

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    An engine can’t be too small/under powered for a given application. Returns start to diminish the more you have to keep the engine revving/floored to get the car moving. You end up with a tiny engine that get worse mpg that a bigger one that needs much less rpms.

    A current/classic example of this is the 4.3 V6 Silverado 1500 extended cab 2wd vs. its 5.3 V8 option.

    http://autos.yahoo.com/chevrolet-truck/silverado-1500-extended-cab-2wd/2013/

    Incidentally, when I bought my 2.3 4cyl SVO, it had seen a lot of hard use and its turbo wasn’t building boost. It was, however, getting an average of 51 mpg!!. I had to keep recalculating it as it was too amazing. Its previous owner was a tranny builder and when the SVO’s rear end blew, he installed what ever gears he found laying around the shop. They were way overdriven and 5th gear was unusable. The car still had OK acceleration because of its manual trans at approx. 2,500 lbs.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India