Ecoboost / Ecoflex engines

[VaderDSL]

I've had a 1.0 ecoboost (99) for 2 years so far, has been pretty decent.

I get on average about 50MPG, that's on 65 miles a days and 90% motorway sat at 65/70

I do on average 400 miles and usually fill up 36 litres of petrol every 6 days. I'm fortunate ate enough to go to work outside of rush hour though, so it's very rarely busy on the motorways.

 

[Richie]

39mpg from a 1 litre petrol, doesn't sound all that impressive to me for mostly motorway. My old 1.6 focus averages 45mpg, 49 on a longer run.

My wife's focus st mk 3 gets 35 on the motorway, it's not that much of a saving for so much less power.

He did say an M25 commute so I wonder if its stop/start traffic as opposed to a nice flowing 60MPH commute as you are obviously both comparing it to with your figures... As an example - see the post above this one

 

[cuke2u]

More than likely, we get 38mpg urban from our 100ps 1.0l fiesta, but 58+ on a longer run...

 

[robj20]

I just don't get the love for these small turbo petrols. 100bhp 58mpg. Rather stick to my diesel 180bhp 60mpg and that's in a much bigger car as well. Fair enough if your not interested in extra power. But what's wrong with a plain 1.4 that puts out 100bhp.

 

[wesley]

I just don't get the love for these small turbo petrols. 100bhp 58mpg. Rather stick to my diesel 180bhp 60mpg and that's in a much bigger car as well. Fair enough if your not interested in extra power. But what's wrong with a plain 1.4 that puts out 100bhp.

You realise there are people out there that doesn't want or need a large diesel car?

1.0 turbo is much more fun and more economical to drive than 1.4 NA

 

[Ryan-3]

People who do short journeys and 5/6K a year really don't want a two litre modern diesel.

 

[robj20]

People who do short journeys and 5/6K a year really don't want a two litre modern diesel.

I didn't suggest they did, I suggested a 1.4 na petrol.

 

[NightShadow]

39mpg from a 1 litre petrol, doesn't sound all that impressive to me for mostly motorway. My old 1.6 focus averages 45mpg, 49 on a longer run.

49 seems very high/impressive for a standard 1.6 petrol! Is that driving at 50 behind a lorry with a tailwind and downhill?

He did say an M25 commute so I wonder if its stop/start traffic as opposed to a nice flowing 60MPH commute as you are obviously both comparing it to with your figures... As an example - see the post above this one

I'd say around 1/2 of the commute is in stop/start traffic, sometimes worse. We didn't want a diesel as there is never really a long enough stretch to regen the DPF from what I understand, would be nice to get it out on a nice long trip to see what it can manage tbh.

 

[Phreaky]

My old Focus 1.6 petrol would barely nudge 40mpg driving like a pensioner on a motorway run, not sure what black magic you did to get 50mpg?

EDIT: The 'official' (lol) top end fuel consumption band on that engine is 41mpg, so I'm calling bovine excrement here.

 

[TheVoice]

I just don't get the love for these small turbo petrols. 100bhp 58mpg. Rather stick to my diesel 180bhp 60mpg and that's in a much bigger car as well. Fair enough if your not interested in extra power. But what's wrong with a plain 1.4 that puts out 100bhp.

Why use a 1.4 when a smaller engine can do it more efficiently?

Also find it slightly ironic that your diesel is turbocharged yet you seem to have a gripe with turbocharged petrols.

 

[robj20]

Why use a 1.4 when a smaller engine can do it more efficiently?

Also find it slightly ironic that your diesel is turbocharged yet you seem to have a gripe with turbocharged petrols.

I don't have a gripe with turbocharged petrols, I have a gripe with Small turbocharged petrols.

My mum has a 1.4 mk2 focus that averages 52mpg mostly around town driving, seems to be about the same as these new 1.0 turbo petrols so what's the point.
My opinion is its mostly about reducing the emissions. Yet the owner is left with a car slightly more expensive to maintain due to the turbo.

 

[Ryan-3]

I get your point completely, especially about complexity and cost, but the major benefit of these small turbo'd engines is the low down torque making them more flexible than the naturally aspirated engines they're meant to replace. This also goes with the figures they achieve in the lab for CO2 and MPG, making everyone who doesn't understand engines think they're saving the planet.

 

[TheVoice]

I don't have a gripe with turbocharged petrols, I have a gripe with Small turbocharged petrols.

My mum has a 1.4 mk2 focus that averages 52mpg mostly around town driving, seems to be about the same as these new 1.0 turbo petrols so what's the point.
My opinion is its mostly about reducing the emissions. Yet the owner is left with a car slightly more expensive to maintain due to the turbo.

The 1.4 was 80hp, the 1.0 EcoBoost is 100hp. MPG is better and 0-60 is a 1.6 seconds quicker.

Those seem like compelling reasons for small turbo'd engines to me. My 1.4 turbo produces nearly twice as much power as that NA 1.4 and MPG isn't too far off what you've said either.

 

[MissChief]

To get 180HP that matches my 1.6 Ecoboost would likely need a 2.2 or even 2.5 litre NA engine. Even purely looking at the same RPM you're still having to fill a significant extra volume in swept capacity alone. Not to mention the better drive ability and torque I get compared to an NA engine. I don't need to rev the nuts off the car to get a move on compared to an older NA 16v where typically all the power is in the last 1k RPM at the top of the Rev range.

 

[Nasher]

But didn't the 5 cyl Volvo engines in the ford mk2 focus ST suffer from cracked cylinder liners ?

Only in the ST, the RS's ones were reinforced. There are a few places that will mod the ST ones for about £6-700.

 

[Spikey]

Just thought I would mention that I'm now a victim of the Focus MK3 1.0T Eco (12 plate) coolant hose failure. I took mine in for the recall two years ago and jennings assured me the hose didn't need swapping. Mrs nips out to shop yesterday, pulls up and 5 mins later I notice some steam from the bonnet, open it up and find the coolant hose which was part of the recall has a massive crack running down the pipe and is completely snapped off at the end. It's now going to Jenning's Ford. I've told them on numerous occasions that my coolant would drop small amounts but they weren't interested. As far as I'm concerned it's their problem to sort. Here are some pics:

 

[Haggisman]

The Mrs has a 2012 1.0 Ecoboost Focus on 101,000 miles now, have only owned for 7000 miles/6months. Been serviced every 6months from new and is still running strong, not a single issue with the engine so far. Average 39.7MPG doing 30miles each way on M25 commute plus the odd short trip to the shops. Very impressed with it, hopefully it stays reliable!

My 11 year old 1.8 petrol civic gets more than that on a 25 mile commute of 50/50 motorway and urban driving and is in the low 50s on a longer motorway run...

 

[Nasher]

I'd just replace it with a silicone one. Those won't break.

There was something similar on the earlier mk7 Fiesta ST where an aircon hose would rub against a cable and eventually wear through :/

 

[Armageus]

My 11 year old 1.8 petrol civic gets more than that on a 25 mile commute of 50/50 motorway and urban driving and is in the low 50s on a longer motorway run...

It produces quite a lot more emissions though

 

[Spikey]

I'd just replace it with a silicone one. Those won't break.

There was something similar on the earlier mk7 Fiesta ST where an aircon hose would rub against a cable and eventually wear through :/

Assuming it is the newer version of the pipe it's extremely poor that this has happened when it was supposed to fix this problem with the original hose, I'll be lucky if it's not knackered anything else.

After doing some digging on the ford forums it appears the pipe was never swapped, so Jennings have a lot to answer for on monday morning.