Forums > General > End of Term: 1.0-litre Ecoboost

END OF TERM: 1.0-LITRE ECOBOOST
Previous | 12 | Next

I'm near the end of term with my 1.0-litre Ecoboost Focus and thought I'd do a quick review. Bearing in mind all the positive press this engine had had, including International Engine of the Year, I can't help be disappointed :( Why? Because the promise of 55mpg is completely unnatainable. Yeah yeah I know the EU figures are very hard to match in the real world, but try this: I was averaging 40 before winter on a pretty mpg-friendly no traffic / 50mph commute. My commute then changed with a lot of stop start followed by a faster motorway stretch: fuel consumption slid to 37. Now in the depths of winter I'm down to 33. I am not alone - linky.

On the plus side it's very quiet and vibration-free at idle, surprisingly smooth and makes an encouraging V6-esque growl when extended. The flywheel must weigh a tonne though as it seems to have a lot of inertia. Outright grunt is just about passable, 120bhp and 150lbft (on overboost), but I often find myself downchanging multiple times to make the most of it as the gearing is very long. The car feels very agile; how much of that is down to the engine's diminutive size and weight is hard to tell. I'd expect a diesel to feel nose-heavy, a normal 1.6 petrol less so.

Overall - interesting to try, but I would hesitate to recommend it. It seems that chasing low CO2 test figures is very counter-productive for the real world. I could see this engine working much better in a Fiesta, but in a Mondeo (it's in the pipeline)... noooo!

Interesting. My mum got a new Focus 1.0 for Xmas, and she was disappointed with the performance after having a 2.0tdci focus (similar power to weight on paper, but different delivery). I have to agree with you re the long gearing and feeling of it having a heavy flywheel- it doesn't do it any favours!

How many miles did you cover? Could you feel the engine loosen up after adding some miles?

Cheers

I'm approaching 5,500... haven't really noticed it loosening up.

Sounds like the twinair unit that Fiat and Alfa use. Costs a lot more than the regular 1.4, drinks more petrol too :roll: You can keep your free tax...

--

How about not having a sig at all?

__CA__ said...

I fuel consumption slid to 37. Now in the depths of winter I'm down to 33.

That is just awful. Wife gets our '08 S40 1.8 to nearly 39 MPG on her commute which matches your 50 MPH version pretty well.

Even creeping around London we rarely drop below 34.

--

DeskJockey
---
Now fueled by heavy oil...

That is a farce! The 95 averages early to mid 30s easily even in the winter.

Seems like all these silly wee "eco" engines are a benchmarking exercise for EU beurotwats only which is a shame.

Awful mpg. How is Ford getting away with it? What I don't understand is how the engine obtained its official figures. There are plenty of cars that can achieve their claimed mpg in real world conditions so what is different about the Ford unit? It must have a sweet spot where it runs efficiently.

--

My Flickr

Invisible Speakers

Yes, it does. It's called "off-boost" and appears to be very much in vogue for trying to get cars through emissions restrictions without even a nod to how this compares to real-world conditions.

mattcambs said...

Awful mpg. How is Ford getting away with it? What I don't understand is how the engine obtained its official figures. There are plenty of cars that can achieve their claimed mpg in real world conditions so what is different about the Ford unit? It must have a sweet spot where it runs efficiently.

Are there? Some diesels might get closer but I'm fairly sure almost all will not meet the EDC figures.

The problem is with the Euro Drive cycle test which bares no resemblance to reality. Ford have just done a good job of tuning their procedures and calibrations to the cycle.

--

Cheers,
Mike

The small petrol turbo engines seem to be the worse. What does the EDC test consist of? How long until the test is xhanged to better reflect real usage?

--

My Flickr

Invisible Speakers

Until there is sustained pressure to change the tests into something resembling actual conditions nothing will change.

The manufacturers are better off tuning/tweaking their cars to ace the tests than be honest about it. A standard is after all what all are measured against on a level playing field...

--

DeskJockey
---
Now fueled by heavy oil...

Aren't the tests just done on a rolling road? In which case these figures are useful if you live on a planet which has no atmosphere unless the computer calculates air resistance.

--

How about not having a sig at all?

mattcambs said...

The small petrol turbo engines seem to be the worse.

This pretty much backs up my point. Off-boost a small engine will return great economy figures, but in the real world it's probably-highly-boosted-to-make-the-bhp nature will guzzle fuel like anything else.

If you've not had a turbo'ed car (and I forget your history here Matt :) ), the amount of fuel they can suck through is really impressive. My old Fiat 20VT would return about 150kms less on a tank post-mods compared to pre-mods :lol:

Horsepower requires fuel. 2 engines making 200bhp will require roughly the same amount of fuel to do so, regardless of capacity (obviously there can be efficiency gains due to valetrain, head design, exhaust design but overall they're quite minimal).

As JL has said, a 1.0 litre engine when off-boost becomes a 1.0 litre engine (less some efficiency because some fool stuck and obstruction in the exhaust) so for a mixed use vehicle it has the potential to be fairly economical but still give decent performance. But for motorway cruising or hot-footing it everywhere, don't expect it to be any more economical than any other engine of similar power output.

--

She's built like a steakhouse but she handles like a bistro.

mattcambs said...

The small petrol turbo engines seem to be the worse. What does the EDC test consist of? How long until the test is xhanged to better reflect real usage?

Wiki Clicky

Can't see it changing quickly. New cars have a fairly long development period so it would be difficult to get everyone to agree and introduce a new cycle.

Updated January 22, 2013 at 1:40 PM

--

Cheers,
Mike

Or the manufacturers could just make up numbers - like Hyundai did in the states, they overstated one car by 6 mpg, naughty. They are paying people the difference between the original mpg claim and the revised one, based on mileage driven, plus 15% for as long as you own the car. Whoops.

Having said that, mine gets 18 to the US gallon around town and 24 on long runs which isn't bad. Computer is 15% optimistic compared to brimming the tank though.

33 for the op is pretty crap

caneswell said...

The problem is with the Euro Drive cycle test which bares no resemblance to reality. Ford have just done a good job of tuning their procedures and calibrations to the cycle.

THIS. No A/C (10% right there), inhumanly small throttle openings, "optimised" vehicle selection, no steering load, etc etc etc.

Ford just happen to have a few artisans in this area and small turbo engines with "on demand" ancillaries take full advantage of the regs. I'm sure it's all fully repeatable given test conditions but it's a long way from The Real World.

Mind you if manufacturers didn't "optimise" cars for the passby noise cycle too everyone would drive something that sounds like a Camry, wouldn't want that ;)

caneswell said...

Wiki Clicky
Can't see it changing quickly. New cars have a fairly long development period so it would be difficult to get everyone to agree and introduce a new cycle.

"the car slowly accelerates to 50 km/h in 26 s"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:lol::shock::roll:
That's how you get 50mpg;)

caneswell said...

mattcambs said...

The small petrol turbo engines seem to be the worse. What does the EDC test consist of? How long until the test is xhanged to better reflect real usage?

Wiki Clicky

Can't see it changing quickly. New cars have a fairly long development period so it would be difficult to get everyone to agree and introduce a new cycle.

If you read your own link, you'd see that the new cycle is being developed and intended to be complete in 2014.

--

She's built like a steakhouse but she handles like a bistro.

The onLy cars I have ever got the quoted figures from have been peugeots and citroens. I was averaging high 60s in the hire Picasso I had for a few months and similar from the current 308.

That 1.0 litre gets the same average as our old 1.8 mk1.

Dave!

--

I came here to drink milk and kick ass..... and i've just finished my milk!!!!

Previous | 12 | Next

Jump to forum: Go

Please contact the webmaster if you have any problems or queries relating to this forum.

MEMBER LOGIN

|
Connect
Company Website | Media Information | Contact Us | Privacy Notice | Subs Info | Affiliate Programme
Our Other Websites: The Week | Auto Express | Custom PC | IT Pro | MacUser | Men's Fitness | Micro Mart | PC Pro | bit-tech | Know Your Mobile | Octane | Expert Reviews | Channel Pro | Know Your Cell | Know Your Mobile India | Digital SLR Photography | Den of Geek | Magazines | Computer Shopper | Mobile Phone Deals | Competitions | Cyclist | Health & Fitness | CarBuyer | Cloud Pro | MagBooks | Mobile Test | Land Rover Monthly | Webuser | Computer Active | Table Pouncer | Viva Celular