When Proton announced its new engine family, a total of six engines were listed, including VVT, GDI and TGDI mills. Some have questioned why there is a need for so many engine variants to be introduced, especially when they share close capacities. According to Proton chief technical officer Abdul Rashid Musa, this is to allow for variable vehicle packaging for different market needs.
As a brief refresher, these are the six different engine variants that are currently in Proton’s pipeline:
- 1.0 litre three-cylinder VVT
- 1.2 litre three-cylinder VVT
- 1.3 litre four-cylinder GDI
- 1.5 litre four-cylinder GDI
- 1.3 litre four-cylinder TGDI (turbo)
- 1.5 litre four-cylinder TGDI (turbo)
Rashid stated the new engines utilise a modular design, whereby the 1.3 and 1.5 litre four-cylinder units use the same bore of 75 mm, but with different strokes to achieve the desired capacities. The 1.0 litre and 1.2 litre mills meanwhile, are a result of one cylinder being cut off from the above-mentioned engines. The new engines also uses Petronas patents obtained earlier, ensuring lower development costs. By comparison, all six engines cost RM600 million to engineer, compared to the two CamPro engines that cost RM450 million to develop.
“The engine will be for small cars, even though it’s a 1.3 litre four-cylinder, the engine is too big to be inserted into the engine room for an A-segment car, for example. That’s why we need the 1.0 or 1.2 litre three-cylinder, which is smaller to be packaged into the car. So, it’s not just about the size of the engine but the packaging consideration, that’s why they are so close in proximity in terms of capacity (1.2 and 1.3 litre) but differ in purpose,” Rashid said.
“In fact, I ask this question about other OEMs as well. Why they have 1.4 and then 1.5 litre engines. I think one of the considerations by other OEMs is related to packaging as well. So, in Proton’s case, it was meant and intended for smaller car. To achieve better fuel efficiency, it’s not just about the engine, we need to make the car lighter, more aerodynamic for better fuel economy,” he added.
When the Proton Saga was brought up, Rashid mentioned, “the current Saga can fit a four-cylinder engine. The future Saga may not fit the four-cylinder engine. This means that the three-cylinder engines will only be introduced beyond the new Saga that will be introduced this year, because the new engines will only be ready by 2017.”
When asked if the next Saga will be smaller to make room for the Persona, Rashid replied saying it depends on market needs. As these engines are modular in design, it provides Proton with options to produce the appropriate engines without excessive cost. It’s also allows the flexibility to package the required powertrain. “Looking at Malaysia’s TIV, Perodua’s Axia 1.0 litre car is commanding nearly 10,000 units per month, so there is a big opportunity for Proton to participate in this area,” he added.
Rashid also touched upon Proton involvement in the total value chain of automotive business, which includes operating its own casting, engine machining and assembly plants, as well as mould and die-making (via Miyazu). These early investments stretch back many years and have a role to play in Proton’s future.
“Because we are a small volume player, we have to find a means on how to produce these small numbers economically. The only way to do that is by having modular engine design, so we can communalise maximum possible part and components, be it three- or four-cylinder engines,” he said.
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
where the 2.0..
Heavily modified from E01 to conform with current & future emission stds
That would be nice, assuming if it could still produce 200+ bhp, 8000rpms and a torque delivery flat as a table top.
If you want that sort of numbers, then don’t complain your car drinks.
There are a few reasons why high revving engines have gone near extinct.
Oh gosh, end of 2012 announce that a total cost of RM63 million for the deal that encompasses 7 petronas engine technologies as well as 117 technology patents.
Now already claimed RM600 million over 6 engines, almost 10X higher than initial cost!!!
Is this cost really pump into the R&D or someone pocket?
Ask AP system owners and Proton CEO he may able to answer you.
In land w/o P1, mana lagi 4AGE, B16A, RB26DETT, 4G63T?
To Every1canTalk.. Best is to see the company account notes. The price tag of MYR63mil may not have included related debt or cash that comes with the purchase. These amount has to be added upon purchase as you’re transferring the ownership of the debt/cash to the new owner.
Axia commands best selling model not because it is 3 cylinder, it is because it is cheap and reliable. Reliability is never a proton term. Swallow the truth!
With current emission stds, no way. Best target is 170~180 HP.
2.0 VVT or GDI or TGDI
if 1.5 TGDI can produce same output as 2.0 VVT then why we need to pay more road tax?
but if proton build 2.0 TGDI and out in new satria that will be awesome
Based on Petronas Ne01 also under development but under different project.
The 1L, 1.2L 1.3L GDI, 1.5L GDI, 1.3L TGDI and 1.5L TGDI is a project carried out together with Ricardo and Lotus.
As for the 2.0L NE01 engine, now Proton is in the midst of finalizing the mass pro stage (production line setup , components sourcing, QC ).
You can confirm that is true? Ne01 sure surely going down to production line? Or it just based on rumor?
Why have 2.0 N/A when u can have 1.5 turbo with same power.
Plz shutdown already! so we can afford import car…
Proton is in Alice Wonderland.
It only sold 102k units in 2015.
By Christmas 2016,the sales would be around 80,000 units.
So by 2017,it is already bleeding heavily…bankers are waiting to seal its office/factories.
Dont you think it is too late by then?
Wake up,Mr.proton….your engines and cvt have to arrive by tomorrow,not 2017.
With this kind of low mentality, no wonder you still can’t afford an imported car
Don’t try to be clever. With so many different engines the inventory will kill you. Learn from the other established manufacturers were they use one or two engines throughout the whole range of cars but differently tuned.
just a little correction. its not “so many engines”. its just 2 engines. VVT and GDI. just different displacement and turbo or N/A. correct me if i’m wrong. i’m collecting info too.
I find this interesting. So claims parts commonality, but I count;
4 different blocks (maybe 2 if they use shorter pistons on the “stroker” (meaning they will end up with even more piston types.
2 different heads (3 if they need to to the TGDI with the integrated manifold for quick light off for the turbo’s catcon.
4 Crankshafts
4 types of pistons (of all in equal 75mm bore)
And these are all major engine components.
I would still hope they can make 3 good engines instead of 6 mediocre ones.
they did mention “modular” so i guess you’re right. maybe that’s what they mean. i honestly don’t know and would be very happy if i can be guided through.
It’s actually lesser.
Two different blocks – one for 4 cylinder, another for 3 cylinder.
Two different heads – same as the above.
Same piston – 75mm across the range
Two different lengths of conrods for long stroke and short stroke
4 different crankshafts – long stroke 3 & 4 cylinder, short stroke 3 & 4 cylinder.
It’s unfortunate that there are so many variants, since four variants of 4 cylinder engines would have been enough to cover everything for their A, B and C segment cars: long stroke NA, long stroke turbo, short stroke NA and short stroke NA.
Unfortunately, as the guy said, 3-cylinder variants are needed for a shorter block length due to packaging considerations.
Personally, I’d rather have them use 4 types of 4-cylinder engines for their B- and C-segment cars, and just use tried-and-tested Suzuki powertrains for tiny cars that are not even wide enough to fit 4-cylinder engines transversely.
Agreed. The Suzuki 1.4L inline 4 engine in the Ertiga, Swift & Ciaz is already good enough for models with smaller engine bays.
Pros: Refinement (nvh), frugal & reliable.
Cons: Non futureproof emission & mediocre torque across mid revs.
It would be great if the engineers can find ways to get it fitted in the new Saga.
Actually the con rods are the same lenght. Think about the mechanics of it.
But yes, as noted in my earlier comment, they can make do with 2 blocks by using shorter pistons to compensate for the extra throw of the crank.
No, I don’t think the con-rods will be of the same length. On the existing Campro engines, the 1.3 and 1.6 engines use different crankshafts (longer stroke) but with different length conrods due to the different stroke length.
The pistons are both 76mm in diameter for both the engines, but the 1.3 has flat-top high compression pistons.
I’m pretty sure Proton will need different length conrods for different stroke-length crankshafts.
I’m curious.
If they are using shorter con-rods then I am worried. This would lead to a greater rod angle and more stress in the components. This is also not very efficient having to deal with the high rod angles. (basically you loose out of rev-ability, torque, and unnecessary lateral loading..basically all bad things)
4G63 and 4G64 engines have identical pistons and conrods. The 2.4 4G64 has a longer throw crank and higher deck height.
I have also built 2.3 strokers (shorter rods) with the crank of the 2.4 on the 2.0 4G63 block and we see some long term reliability and wear issues on the con-rod, piston pins and also some issues with the piston skirts due to high piston lateral loading. None of which are present on the 4G64…which can take 400 hp on the stock block.
But then again, this is just personal experience as an ex- engine builder. I suppose proton engineers know better. Or do they?
keep it coming guys.. am happy reading these intellectual discussion/sharing.
it’s been a while, indeed in PT.
2 different crankshafts may do the job. One for 4 piston engine with 5 main bearings, the other one for 3 pistons with 4 main bearings.
The biggest advantage goes to proton as manufacturer if the piston remains a single type design as well as valves and valve springs. It will reduce the cost of production as well as reduced inventory.
The savings will be passed to customers come the time to overhaul some time 10-20/years after.
Thats the logical thing to do.
But there are 6 variants of the engine and all need bespoke components.
The pistons for each of the variants are different (VVT, GDI and TGDI), likewise the head design.
The VVT variant is solely due to a cost saving measure.
With the “strokers” they are putting even more variations, some of which may not bode well for proton.
Like I mentioned earlier, i would have prefered them to make 3 good engines instead of 6 mediocre ones.
If anything, (and if they are really serious of penetrating emerging markets – quite telling if they want to do all these small engines) is to do a 4 cyc diesel. Afterall, the design of a diesel is more closely related to the GDI than a VVT is.
4G63T, excellent point there, the difference in conrod length will indeed cause more lateral loading, especially if the piston’s wrist is lower along the height of the piston. With stronger forged pistons, they may be able to make do with a shallower depth between the piston face and the wrist location, thus minimizing the lateral force that will be experienced by the sides of the piston.
There are also Campro modders that have added additional deck on CFE engines due to the location of the wrist pin on the stock CFE pistons. Boring the cylinders to a larger diameter and using different pistons, they will end up with the piston face exceeding the height of the block, and thus they need to add an additional deck to make up for it.
On a modular engine, it won’t be practical to have different block heights for the same family of engines.. Therefore I think it will be much more economically viable for the blocks to be cast and machined with the same general dimensions, but differ in some of the assembled components.
Manufacturers have been making modular engines before the term “modular” was coined.
I suppose we are very familiar with Mitsubishi’s Sirius 4G series. The common ones are the 4G61 (1.6L), 4G67 (1.8L Hyundai), 4G63 (2.0L), 4G64 (2.4), all with somewhat interchangable parts like heads (DOHC and SOHC) , pistons, conrods, but also have different block heights.
I’ve been mixing parts from all these engines to build custom engines. A typical Turbo 4G64 2.4 would have parts from the 4G63 and 4G61 (balance shaft delete stubby shaft)
Inventory? I’m wondering how they would do with per-unit costs.
Proton only sells 100,000 cars per year. With 7 engines (yes, I included the 2.0L) that works out to only 14,000 engines of each type. Feasible ah?
Is Proton going to supply engines to other marques? maybe to power the Indonesian city car project?
I guess Proton is ambitious about ramping up production of A- and B-segment cars for developing markets? After all, they did mention that they can’t rely on the Malaysian market alone due to lack of economies of scale
Its just one engine split into 6.They need something to justify 600 mill spent. Cut off a cylinder, reduce stroke size, add a turbo, change flywheel mass a bit, u now have 5 more engines to milk the rakyat
U bodoh?
Armchair engineer spotted!
Thats like saying to make a convertable, just chop the roof and B&C pillars, nothing else. If I were ur engineering lecturer, I will gip u 2 slaps and take back ur degree.
Well…chop the roof, increase torsional by adding some struts, another 600 mills and POOF! another segment to milk the rakyat
That’s pasar malam car. For day-to-day car it’snot going to be working.
Wow, now it’s pretty much confirmed that you have zero engineering knowledge.. as in, you may not even be capable of assembling a Lego set properly
haha should hv added /s. u old guys dont know internet talk
i suggest you revert to a car’s review. this is an engine review. we are talking tech. not stone-age duct tape this and that.
Just because p2 is doing well in a certain segment it doesnt mean p1 should enter it. Theres a reason why folks buy p2 even when p1 offers a close alternative. Only p1 people are blind to the reasons.
I believe proton is planning for overseas market. In Europe and India, a segment hatchbacks and sedan are very popular
if you service your proton once every leap year i might understand why.
Yup..agree with atilla. U already know Axia is conquering that market segment, why still want to compete? Never learn from Myvi vs Iriz market fight meh?
i dont quite catch that. how long has myvi sell vs iriz? main contributor to perodua’s 2015 sale was the Axia which means even their own myvi is cannibalized. that shows price wins over segment. basically you are comparing perodua Axia and Iriz indirectly even if you deny it. for sure Iriz will lose out because the base Iriz will buy you a better-than-basic Axia.
to round things up, my Mom will disown me if i ask for an Axia and will burry me alive in a scorpion pit if i ask for an Iriz. Price wins.
Why so many variant you asked?
This is a company that think more is better as opposed to reliability. Just look at their plan to launch 4 models this year.
The Persona has been around for over 8 years, its platform was developed since the days of the Gen-2. It’s time for a new Persona platform, there’s nothing wrong with that.
The Saga’s platform has been around for almost 8 years. It’s okay to update the same platform with better safety specs and give it a new appearance.
The Perdana has been absent for over a decade, and a rebadged version was supplied for government use. If a new low-volume model was developed to address Proton’s absence in the D-segment, why not.
Lastly, the planned A-segment model (or it could also be a rebadged Suzuki Ertiga for the compact MPV segment), is basically a gap-filler that addresses a segment in which Proton was absent.. which I think is a pretty poor choice, because anyone who would like to get a cheap and decent A-segment car would have already plonked down their money for one, while Proton plays catch-up after over 200,000 units of the Axia has been sold (by the end of 2016). They’d be lucky to get any crumbs left.
Proton,
just make sure the project run smoothly. All working together, work hard and smart. Please do not delay this project. Of course, in other developments including doing good designs of your future cars and getting all vendors to do their work. Come out with good quality products, that is very important.
Thank you. 1.5L TGDI can ready by end of 2017 with a hot hatch please…. in very early of 2018?
2017 is quite difficult. What platform they gonna use? Iriz? Satria Neo will be phased out by then.
Proton already phased out the Satria Neo.
Suprima was supposed to be a hot hatch, remember? They benchmarked it against the Golf and others. However, it’s too heavy to be nimble, unlike the Satria Neo.
Perhaps Proton should consider developing a 2-door platform for a hatch and a coupe, and relaunch the Satria GTI and Putra brandnames. The Satria GTI is still one of my favorite Protons of all time..
I consider all 4 door ‘hot hatch’ to be heresy. Only those with 2 door can challenge for that throne
There is no 4 door hatch. We call it 5 door hatch. Only sedan / saloon car known as 4 door model.
There is no 2 door hatch. We call it 3 door hatch.
Launching by end 2017 and on sale by 2018 is already much delay.
No, the engines meet the Euro 6C which only implemented in 2018. They, Proton only make announcement on 18 January about these new series of engines and their targeted date. As long as Proton doesn’t launched and fit those engines later than beginning of 2018.
So, you can not say they already much delay.
Yep that pretty much confirms no flying turbo Sagas on the road next time.
Saga BLM stands for “Boleh Letak MIVEC”. Those are screamers. I’ve even seen a Saga BLM with a K3-VET transplant.
Saga owners who want to get their high-performance fix sure seem to know where to find it..
The key here is modular engine design so it can derive variants. Good job for Proton to think ahead. I hope Proton is also start thinking further ahead for fuel cell hydrogen.
Like my comment earlier…there seems to be a lot of of uncommon components…
The only major component I can see was truly modular is the Con Rod…and maybe the front oil pump.
Otherwise, proton would have been better off just making the following variants…for parts commonality and serviceability.
1.2 GDI 3 cyl
1.2 TGDI 3 cyl
1.5 GDI 4 cyl
1.5 TGDI 4 cyl
Then you are down to 2 blocks, 2 pistons, 2 crankshafts and 2 heads.
I’m surprised they still need the old VVT (other than cost). GDI engines make excellent torque powerbands, and in these cars, they aren’t high revving engines anyway.
Better still…. Proton can just make 2 engines for all their cars. Since the bulk of all their cars are A, B and C segment.
A narrow angle V4 engine (er…VR4?) 1.2L GDI and TGDI. Anyone remember Lancia? At least Proton would have done something different and innovative. It is narrow enough to fit a narrow body A segment yet, provide the refinement of a 4 pot. The turbo units would be powerful enough to power its larger B and C segment cars.
Nearly impossible to make a narrow-V engine modular (in terms of cylinders).. I guess that’s why they decided to go for 4- and 3-cylinder blocks.
The old VVT engines will still be retained for developing markets that do not need Euro-6 compliance, and whose fuel quality are not suitable for direct injection.
Why impossible to do narrow angle engines modular ? It’s no different than an online 4.
VW has been making the excellent VR6 for ages. They even made a W12 and W16 out of it. How’s that for modular?
V4 will fit in a space that you need a 3cyc to fit. And let’s be honest…u can’t really enjoy that 3 cyc racket.
That’s because the cylinder bores overlap along the same axis, making it a bit harder to add or remove cylinders as needed for the same design. Same goes for the engine head.
Lop off 1 cyl, and you get a V3. Lop off 2, and you get a V-Twin. Bike manufacturers do those. In this case, to save cost and parts, you do a narrow angle V so you only need one head.
After all, you are going to need a new block and engine design anyway. So there is no difference there.
But I digress , the point is not having to need a 3 cyl, where a 4 could fit.
Well, if they had started with a V-design, I guess they would have ended up with a one-size-fits-all 4-cylinder engine without needing to lop off any cylinders. Your point has merits, if only the Proton guys have open forums to receive actual constructive suggestions from people who are not brainless bashers.. cheers
The vintage Ford Capri also had a V4 engined variant, but twin heads (true V4). The V4 engine found in the Lancia has a single head.
Who cares.. People still buy toyota! Proton bad RV!
Proton on target to sell 10 million cars and beating BMW, Toyota in its own backyard market.
Apadah? Those are not pics of the new engines.
this engine lah, that engine lah……but last-last all engine taboleh pakai. Just like all the current Proton engines.
No power, easily breakdown and high fuel consumption.
Clearly you never drive one.
kalau ricardo pun tak boleh convince you then dont use McLaren MP4 12C, Ferrari 458 Italia lah. no power, easily breakdown and high fuel consumption.
oh, its a sports car, of course.
My Proton car can use RM40 go 420km, ur car can do so? Everyday i potong Axia, Myvi n Vios…hehe AND I saw many breakdowm car from Perodua, Proton car also hv but less.
Do u know why so many variants? Then oni can use ppl money for own use…
Many variants provide chances to Proton Engineer proton to study as Proton is a training Centre.Seems they dont bother about making money.
As usual Proton always syok sendiri.
Good luck Powertrain Guys
So we send our child to auto mobile school was wrong?
I have to say, I am not against Proton.
But I just don’t understand, why does Proton need so many models? Saga, Iriz, Persona, Preve, Suprima S, Perdana…
Proton is just like an ambitious child that has no guardian, without a direction. Why don’t they just focus. Focus on a few models, make them work, build up the reputation, and then, we talk about the market.
That seems to be the problem. And history has a really mean way of repeating itself.
I laude Proton for being ambitious. But being ambitious is one thing, being good at it is another.
So far we see lots of examples of half baked products coming out of Proton, carrying the burden of overzealous promises. The Preve, didn’t prove much. The Suprima was a dud, the Iriz handicapped by its gearbox. (Not to mentioned someone said they benched marked the interior on Ford and VW. Begs the question, benchmarked what exactly?)
I drove all 3 of its latest, and came out having the feeling the cars are unfinished.
If they can’t even make a single good engine, i really fear for Proton thinking they can do 6.
i swear i saw a campro head and block on the picture…..sor hai proton!!
Beside reliability issues, I hope all of these engines able to deliver 75% of maximum hp and torque before reaching 3100 rpm… Only then it will be translated to fuel ⛽ efficiency…
We already seen 1.0L TGDI, 1.4TSI, 1.5 V-tec Turbo, 1.6 GDI etc. that has been on the road for a long time already. By the time of 2017, all this kind of engine already “lapuk” by other car manufacturer and proton baru nak pakai??