And whatever efficiency increases you get from the friction loss reduction that wet belts offer are minuscule to boot, and probably won’t even show up on your fuel bill, I’m pretty sure Ford went this route with the 1.0 EB just to appease bean counters and the EPA.
That said, the idea to use an unbalanced flywheel to functionally replace a balance shaft and reduce engine weight is kinda cool, ngl.
And whatever efficiency increases you get from the friction loss reduction that wet belts offer are minuscule to boot, and probably won’t even show up on your fuel bill, I’m pretty sure Ford went this route with the 1.0 EB just to appease bean counters.
That said, the idea to use an unbalanced flywheel to functionally replace a balance shaft and reduce engine weight is kinda cool, ngl.
And whatever efficiency increases you get from the friction loss reduction that wet belts offer are minuscule to boot, and probably won’t even show up on your fuel bill, I’m pretty sure Ford went this route with the 1.0 EB just to appease bean counters.
That said, the idea to use an unbalanced flywheel to replace a balance shaft and reduce engine weight is kinda cool, ngl.
And whatever efficiency increases you get from the friction loss reduction that wet belts offer are minuscule to boot, and probably won’t even show up on your fuel bill, I’m pretty sure Ford went this route with the 1.0 EB just to appease bean counters.
And whatever efficiency increases you get from the friction loss reduction that wet belts offer are minuscule to boot, and probably won’t even show up on your fuel bill.