About Those New Gas Engines ...

Bertel Schmitt
by Bertel Schmitt
about those new gas engines

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.

Join the conversation
9 of 26 comments
  • Niky Niky on Dec 20, 2012

    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...

  • Beerboy12 Beerboy12 on Dec 20, 2012

    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.

  • Caboose Caboose on Dec 21, 2012

    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.

    • See 4 previous
    • Raph Raph on Dec 22, 2012

      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)

  • DenverMike DenverMike on Dec 22, 2012

    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.