Hi,

What is the engine firing order on Citigo?

 

Also, apart from putting substatial vibration damping rubbers on the engine mounts, what engineering solutions are employed in the Citigo 3 cyl engine to negate vibration?

 

thank you

See document page numbers 8 and 9 (pdf page numbers 7 & 8) here for some technical info on the early petrol 3-pots.  No idea how much similarity there will be with the engine you're thinking of, do you know your engine code?

The firing order on the engines in that document is 1,2,3.

Contra-rotating balance shaft is the short answer to the balancing.

Edited 20 July, 20178 yr by Wino

Hi,

The engine code is: CHYBE71232

 

thanks.

Firing order is the same.

I'm not seeing any sign of a crank balance shaft in online info that I can see; so the previous link may not be very helpful.

Google search "The 1.0 l 44/55 kW MPI Engine" (jncluding the quotes) and you may be able to download some info.  I haven't tried any of the links so can't guarantee what you'll get.

Soft rubber engine mounts are the vibration management. And works great. 

Thank you for the info

No balancer shafts on the CHY engines unfortunately.

 

Ford use them on the 1.0 EcoBoost engines. On the new 1.5 3-pot as used in the new Fiesta ST they are planning to introduce cylinder deactivation on a future revision. Will be very interesting to se how that pans out.

Cylinder 'deactivation' sounds very interesting.

I can only imagine the Cylinder would have its fuel supply cut off (to save fuel) but continue to reciprocate with the rest of engine, a sort of active but redundant Piston & Conrod assembly that would 'consume' a degree of the engine output!

Surely they wouldn't design an engine where the redundant cylinder was some how mechanically detached from the rest of the working engine?

Would they?

 

1st method (although saving fuel) would create frictional drag & drain the engine of useable HP.

2nd method seems Mechanically Impractical & near Impossible to achieve.

Google   VW 1.4tsi ACT how it works youtube  or 1.4TFSI COD  and you can see exactly how the VW Active Cylinder Technology (deactivation) or

cylinder on demand operates. 

ACT is quite a complicated system with lots of fugly bits clagged onto the top of the valve train. I seem to recall it involves keeping the exhaust valves open on the dead cylinders to reduce pumping losses.

I will search out any vids on this for my own education.

But, I'm surprised that any Motor Manufacture would wish to spend development funding on evolving the Internal Combustion Engine to such a sophisticated level.

I would have thought the future lies with the Hybrid & the Electric vehicle and so the efforts would be concentrated in that area.

I guess there are some countries where they already struggle to keep the lights on without the impending burden of every man and his dog charging their car batteries. Parts of Australia being a recent example. Elon Musk (Tesla) has offered to build them a huge battery farm as an accumulator to help them through peak demand periods.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to leave my car charging on the street. There must be a fair chunk of copper in the charge cables (Teslas charging at 62A) that would be attractive to thieving scum. Got to be easier for them than ripping up railway line signal cables.

Edited 20 July, 20178 yr by ronime

I very good point, never thought of that.

12 hours ago, ronime said:

ACT is quite a complicated system with lots of fugly bits clagged onto the top of the valve train. I seem to recall it involves keeping the exhaust valves open on the dead cylinders to reduce pumping losses.

Not quite right, all valves on the deactivated cylinders remain closed so that the some energy is required to compress the cylinder contents but most of that energy is recovered after top-dead-centre as the compressed air pushes the piston down.

As you say it is more efficient than pumping losses of moving air through valves.

 

As an aside; direct injection petrol engines like diesel engines do not have throttle valves so have much lower pumping losses at low revs or at tickover than conventional carburettor or multi-point injection engines.

1 hour ago, Gerrycan said:

As an aside; direct injection petrol engines like diesel engines do not have throttle valves so have much lower pumping losses at low revs or at tickover than conventional carburettor or multi-point injection engines.

 

Are you sure? VW part no. 03F133062B sure looks like a throttle valve to me.

 

BMW Valvetronic engines don't need a throttle body for normal running as the engine is throttled by the intake valve lift mechanism but still have a throttle body to introduce vacuum into the inlet manifold to purge blow-by gases when off-boost.

You are right there is a throttle body mechanism (probably for the reasons you mention) but its operation is not directly linked to accelerator movement in a DI engine. In most normal operating use it is wide open.

Probably not relevant to the Citigo anyway because looking up the specs (Citigo is not sold in Australia unfortunately) aren't both power versions  multi-point injection anyway? I think I got confused that DI is  fitted to the turbo versions of the engine.

Yeah, the 90PS TSi lump is DI (as are all TSI engines - this is essentially what VW mean by "stratified injection") but the original 60 and 70 PS CHY variants are MFI as you correctly summoned.

 

I suspect the throttle body is also needed for engine brakng on the TSI engines and maybe also as a failsafe device to kill the engine in the event that the injectors are leaking and would otherwise cause the engine to run on (dieselling). Brake servo vacuum is generated by a pump as it is on a soot-chucker.

Edited 21 July, 20178 yr by ronime

I reckon for now the "EagleEyeHammerThrust" / Fisker is the best real world balance, but its not being worked on at scale (that ive seen, could be wrong)

Small efficient engine like the ACT/COD or ecoboost running a generator to power a battery bank and electric motors at the wheels. Better than hybrid that spend more time on full petrol than battery and pure ev that have range/charge time issues. 

On ‎22‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 03:37, ronime said:

Yeah, the 90PS TSi lump is DI (as are all TSI engines - this is essentially what VW mean by "stratified injection") but the original 60 and 70 PS CHY variants are MFI as you correctly summoned.

 

I suspect the throttle body is also needed for engine brakng on the TSI engines and maybe also as a failsafe device to kill the engine in the event that the injectors are leaking and would otherwise cause the engine to run on (dieselling). Brake servo vacuum is generated by a pump as it is on a soot-chucker.

Had the car for just over three years and never new it meant "stratified injection" - never done learning

The 1.4tsi in the Octavia provides virtually no engine braking. Great for economy with all that fuel free in-gear coasting on the flat but a bit of a nuisance on a long speed-restricted downhill where even 2nd gear and revving its ar$e off you still have to apply the brakes to stay below 80kph. Never had to do that on any other car.

What really Hacks me off with people like VW is:

The Turbo version of the 1litre 3 pot is available, because they put it in a version of the 'Up'.

But, can you get it in a version of its sister, the Citigo?

Oh NO, You Damn Well CAN'T!!!

Why?

Because VW like to 'meter out' the Goodies to the Non Flagship Brands they Own!!

Just pure SPITE on VW's part!!!

In Fact VW have been very slow & dragged their feet bringing out a Turbo version of the Ilitre 3 pot engine!

There competitors, Ford, Vauxhall, etc: did it with their 3 pot Engine some time ago in their City Car offerings.

There's a Big appetite for Turbos in Cars, particularly the smaller engined cars because it lifts the performance with little or no penalty in fuel consumption.

But, Manufacturers have ALWAYS been Slow & Reluctant to offer them to the Motoring Public.

54 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

Had the car for just over three years and never new it meant "stratified injection" - never done learning

The 1.4tsi in the Octavia provides virtually no engine braking. Great for economy with all that fuel free in-gear coasting on the flat but a bit of a nuisance on a long speed-restricted downhill where even 2nd gear and revving its ar$e off you still have to apply the brakes to stay below 80kph. Never had to do that on any other car.

 

We had a 1.8TSI SEAT Leon for a while. Engine braking seemed acceptable on that one. Except in Coasting mode where the DSG would decouple the engine when you lift off. As you say, very disconcerting when you lift off at the speed limit on the motorway and continue to hurtle towards the perceived hazard ahead.

 

It's a similar deal with our BMW. Plenty of engine braking from the Valvetronic engine but in Economy Pro mode the auto tranny goes into neutral and despite weighing the best part of two tonnes and having permanent 4WD it just carries on at pretty much the same speed.

Edited 23 July, 20178 yr by ronime