A 67.5 mpg Focus... and it's a petrol!

Leonard Hofstadter

Now I don't believe for a second that in the real world it will do 67.5 mpg, but still, it is amazing progress. This 1.0 Econetic Focus petrol has 99 bhp, which is a lot more than the poverty spec rubbish 1.4 Focuses of only a few years ago that Paddy used to buy in their droves. Not too long ago the 1.6 petrol Focus had this level of power and did a claimed 41 mpg. It even qualifies for one of the lowest motor tax and VRT brackets. So this just shows how far petrol engines have come in only a few years - at least on paper anyway.

No doubt if Ford Ireland bring this engine then Paddy will still buy the diesel with its DPF and DMF to go expensively wrong:rolleyes:, then again I have heard that the 1.0 Ecoboost engine does have problems too.

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/new-99g-km-petrol-engine-for-ford-focus/266463

166man

A lot of strain on a 1.0 engine, will probably do mid forties in the real world when driven with actual people on board.

Sure a mid nineties Corolla 1.3 would do 40mpg+ and still has circa 90 bhp?:D

Bpmull

I'd say mid 40's too. Thats all it will probably do in the real world. I got this out of my focus yesterday on a 70km trip. If only it would do that all the time :pac:

Leonard Hofstadter

How economical is 3.9 l/100 km in mpg?

Bpmull

captainspeed wrote: »

How economical is 3.9 l/100 km in mpg?

72.5mpg.

ardmacha

How economical is 3.9 l/100 km in mpg?

Do you not have a computer or phone to post this question? You'd have calculated it in less time than posting the question.

72.5mpg.

Summer must be here!

RealExpert

Dont be fooled by the figures the trip computer spits out.If you really want to know what your car is doing to the gallon fill the tank to the brim reset your clock and do a couple of hundred kms.Go back to the same petrol stn and refill it to the brim again.Note the mileage and the liters required to fill it now do your calculations and you will see how accurate the trip comp is.

Supergurrier

Lol i wish

johndaman66

captainspeed wrote: »

How economical is 3.9 l/100 km in mpg?

Bpmull wrote: »

72.5mpg.

I've found them on board calculators to be woefully inaccurate. I think the best if not the only way of finding your true MPG figure is to brim it and reset your trip computer. Ideally let the tank go as low as possible, brim it again and pay heed to the litres used to fill and also the distance covered...work out your litres per 100km from there or work back to MPG if your an imperial man like myself:)

I'd wonder what kind of torque figures them 1.0 litre focus are turning out

johndaman66

^^^RealExpert pipped me at the post....apt user name!

Bpmull

I know the trip computers aren't that accurate. The only reason I looked was when I filled the car with diesel I reset it and when I was almost home I flicked through and seen the figure. In the real world with about 50/ 50 long trips/ town driving the car does 53mpg and that's checking it accurately calculating it using the brimming method. Its funny because even 53mpg is a good figure and yet it feels like I constantly buy diesel the small tank doesn't help either.

Mycroft H

FifthGear did a real world test of a TwinAir Panda not so long ago. Same idea as the Focus, a buzzy little turbo petrol engine. Advertised to have round 70mpg and it only returned 40 odd mpg with a car full of people in their tests as far as I remember.

Time will tell how reliable they are. I'm skeptical nonetheless, it's going to be a stressed engine and with the Irish attitude to car maintenance? Good luck...

Jesus.

RealExpert wrote: »

Dont be fooled by the figures the trip computer spits out.If you really want to know what your car is doing to the gallon fill the tank to the brim reset your clock and do a couple of hundred kms.Go back to the same petrol stn and refill it to the brim again.Note the mileage and the liters required to fill it now do your calculations and you will see how accurate the trip comp is.

Totally this. Those trip computers are never accurate. Which renders them pretty useless actually considering their very existence is to give an accurate reading.

As for the 1.0 liter Focus. I know engines have come a long way and can produce more power via less displacement but I still wouldn't be getting a Focus with a one liter engine. Our roads have also improved and more power is actually necessary these days with the decent Motorway network we now have.

It won't be long before people are telling us the 1 liter Mondeo is more than adequate. :rolleyes:

Leonard Hofstadter

Jesus. wrote: »

It won't be long before people are telling us the 1 liter Mondeo is more than adequate. :rolleyes:

Well it will have 125 PS, which is 20 more than the cheapest 1.6 diesel Passat. It's also 15 more than what was the best selling Mk4 Mondeo until the tax changes - the 1.6 petrol. It's more than the 1.4 petrol turbo Passat, and that's supposed to be not half as bad as it sounds.

I wouldn't in a million years buy a 1.0 Mondeo, but I could certainly see it being quicker than most of the 1.6 petrol family saloon rubbish that populated Irish shores before the VRT changes. I don't see it having anywhere near the reliability of an old fashion 1.6 NA petrol though, especially in something the size of a Mondeo, and the usual Irish attitude towards maintenance will exaccerbate any problems even further.

Jesus.

captainspeed wrote: »

Well it will have 125 PS, which is 20 more than the cheapest 1.6 diesel Passat. It's also 15 more than what was the best selling Mk4 Mondeo until the tax changes - the 1.6 petrol. It's more than the 1.4 petrol turbo Passat, and that's supposed to be not half as bad as it sounds.

I wouldn't in a million years buy a 1.0 Mondeo, but I could certainly see it being quicker than most of the 1.6 petrol family saloon rubbish that populated Irish shores before the VRT changes. I don't see it having anywhere near the reliability of an old fashion 1.6 NA petrol though, especially in something the size of a Mondeo, and the usual Irish attitude towards maintenance will exaccerbate any problems even further.

That's a fair post mate.

But where does it end? A 700 cc Passat? A 400 cc Insignia? Why don't we go the whole hog and get rid of the engine altogether and fit it with a sail instead?

Sorry but I don't like the way things are going in this respect. A 1 liter in a big car like a Mondeo - which is as big now as a lot of executive cars - is just ridiculous. How stressed will that tiny motor be? What torque will it have?

1 point anything in a car that size is not suitable. Call me old fashioned but I still think you should have a decent sized engine regardless of the power output.

galwaytt

Jesus. wrote: »

1 point anything in a car that size is not suitable. Call me old fashioned but I still think you should have a decent sized engine regardless of the power output.

..that's probably what they said when they went from straight 8's to 'small' 4-cylinder engines in the '30's too........

And again from big 4's to small 4's and........

...you get the idea..

Tea 1000

As I keep pointing out, but alas on deaf ears it seems, that the engine is less stressed than a modern diesel, which no one seems to worry about.
And petrol is a more refined and cleaner fuel, so less carbon and soot crap to clog the engine.
Plus Autocar actually preferred that 1 litre engine to the diesel in the Focus in an extended test. The Fiat twin air unit does have to be tip-toed to get close to official figures, but apparently this unit is easier to get close to official.

Also, why is no one complaining that the Golf R or even Mondeo 240bhp ecoboost engines are over-stressed? They're at a similar or higher level of stress than this one!!

Henry Ford III

I did a thread on these engines before.

120bhp from a 3 pot petrol engine is new ground, but some of the techological steps forward are big ones too.

I've driven one and the power and torque and the engine note are all pleasant surprises.

These engines should be reliable as they've been fully developed and tested. They've run a tuned version around the Nurburgring rather rapidly too.

Economy wise I've no idea what they'll return. Less than the claimed figures is pretty standard. Comparing it to a Fiat isn't fair, not relevant.

As always in Ireland price is a big issue. The 120bhp 1.0T was only c.€300 less than a 115bhp 1.6TDCI so I went for the diesel.

p.s. I found the old thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81545318

Zubeneschamali

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The Fiat twin air unit does have to be tip-toed to get close to official figures

The reviews I've seen say the main problem is that it's too much fun, they can't resist wringing its neck (which trashes the mpg figure).

I think it's brilliant that they can design an engine which aces the official test and gets low road tax, but is fun to drive in the real world.

The NEDC test is completely flawed, look it up.

They won't be changing it any time soon because no car manuafacturer will be able to meet emissions levels or at least they will be much higher.

If they were to change the test to reflect real driving and not simulated driving then a lot more cars would have to be electric/hybrid.

But the test is complete bull.

Jesus.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Also, why is no one complaining that the Golf R or even Mondeo 240bhp ecoboost engines are over-stressed? They're at a similar or higher level of stress than this one!!

I would say that's probably because their power outputs are far greater so you wouldn't have to work it to within an inch of its life to get the car up to speed.

A one liter in a car the size of a Mondeo would have to pushed hard all the time such is the weight of the car.

ninty9er

The grandfather has one, it's not that nippy. It's grand for him or the granny around town, but not very noticeably better than his old MKII 1.4

Jesus.

ninty9er wrote: »

The grandfather has one, it's not that nippy. It's grand for him or the granny around town, but not very noticeably better than his old MKII 1.4

No surprise really.

Instead of constantly reducing the displacement, why don't they give us the same displacement with the extra power? I know manufacturers are being stretched all the time by emission standards and fuel economy but a nice balance can be achieved surely.

Imagine what a Yank would say if he heard a one liter engine was going into a Fusion! :eek:

BMJD

Obligatory "Prius is larger, better quipped, faster and more economical" post.

Tea 1000

Jesus. wrote: »

No surprise really.

Instead of constantly reducing the displacement, why don't they give us the same displacement with the extra power? I know manufacturers are being stretched all the time by emission standards and fuel economy but a nice balance can be achieved surely.

Imagine what a Yank would say if he heard a one liter engine was going into a Fusion! :eek:

Ah who cares what the yanks think, many of their 3 litre engines are a disgrace to displacement.
You're right regarding the pushing the engine closer to it's maximum more often, but in a Focus it would be easier to manage than in a Mondeo. But if it's looked after then it should be fine anyway.
15 years ago Honda 1.6 engines with 160bhp were being thrashed daily with no regard to mechanical sympathy, and many of those that didn't hit a tree or other car are still going!

corkgsxr

Prius had to go from 1.6 to 1.8 to get better economy

ba_barabus

galwaytt wrote: »

..that's probably what they said when they went from straight 8's to 'small' 4-cylinder engines in the '30's too........

And again from big 4's to small 4's and........

...you get the idea..

I can't wait to tell my grand children I used to drive a 2L as a daily runner.

Matt Simis

Henry Ford III wrote: »

As always in Ireland price is a big issue. The 120bhp 1.0T was only c.€300 less than a 115bhp 1.6TDCI so I went for the diesel.

Um.. why? Your saying the better, more pleasant and more powerful engine was actually cheaper but you went for the justifiable questionable reliability of a diesel?

TBi

ba_barabus wrote: »

I can't wait to tell my grand children I used to drive a 2L as a daily runner.

You'll be telling them you drove a car that ran on liquid that they pumped out of the ground!

Matt Simis wrote: »

Um.. why? Your saying the better, more pleasant and more powerful engine was actually cheaper but you went for the justifiable questionable reliability of a diesel?

Eh... no... There's no proof that the 1.0L will be reliable. All we know is that it has similar power, but is more thirsty.

Diesels are reliable if you take care of them, problem is people don't.

Jesus.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Ah who cares what the yanks think, many of their 3 litre engines are a disgrace to displacement.!

That's true. They consider a 3 liter to be small!

MuppetCheck

Matt Simis wrote: »

Um.. why? Your saying the better, more pleasant and more powerful engine was actually cheaper but you went for the justifiable questionable reliability of a diesel?

If I remember correctly HF III changes his car very regularly meaning. I'd imagine it means he wont lose as much in depreciation with the diesel compared to the petrol.

Henry Ford III

Matt Simis wrote: »

Um.. why? Your saying the better, more pleasant and more powerful engine was actually cheaper but you went for the justifiable questionable reliability of a diesel?

No.

The price gap wasn't wide enough, and resale values are paramount.

p.s. The diesel has been pretty good so far.

TBi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

p.s. The diesel has been pretty good so far.

My mechanic was quite impressed with the diesel in the newer Focus, much better than the PSA one in the older model. He's a mini mechanic so see's a lot of those PSA engines in the Cooper D.

ba_barabus

TBi wrote: »

My mechanic was quite impressed with the diesel in the newer Focus, much better than the PSA one in the older model. He's a mini mechanic so see's a lot of those PSA engines in the Cooper D.

Aren't they still a PSA engine?

TBi

ba_barabus wrote: »

Aren't they still a PSA engine?

You are right, maybe he was mistaken or maybe they've modified it for the newer generation. Must check again.

Tea 1000

Jesus. wrote: »

That's true. They consider a 3 liter to be small!

My point was that most of their 3 litres are terrible crap. Wouldn't pull the socks off ya.

jimgoose

Give it to me for a week and I guarantee it'll either explode or show an average of thirty-summat MPG.

jimgoose

Tea 1000 wrote: »

My point was that most of their 3 litres are terrible crap. Wouldn't pull the socks off ya.

Blame California. They're strangled by emissions regulations that make ours here look like Top-Fuel dragging.

Henry Ford III

TBi wrote: »

You are right, maybe he was mistaken or maybe they've modified it for the newer generation. Must check again.

Latest Focus has an 8 valve head.

corkgsxr

Tea 1000 wrote: »

My point was that most of their 3 litres are terrible crap. Wouldn't pull the socks off ya.

Floor it and .....................no still nothing. .....................wait wait........and it goes.

TBi wrote: »

You are right, maybe he was mistaken or maybe they've modified it for the newer generation. Must check again.

Minor changes. Bigger turbo oil pipe. Twin scroll turbo. Thats about it. The underlying problems are still there.

corkgsxr

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Latest Focus has an 8 valve head.

Jaysus. Latest pushrod system too?

Henry Ford III

corkgsxr wrote: »

Jaysus. Latest pushrod system too?

Sidevalve

Not sure why they dropped the earlier 16v head.

corkgsxr

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Sidevalve

Not sure why they dropped the earlier 16v head.

6-1 compression ratio. Pushing serious boundaries

Henry Ford III

corkgsxr wrote: »

6-1 compression ratio. Pushing serious boundaries

Latest 8 valve variant has a small bit more power, more torque, and is lighter on fuel.

Perhaps cost was a factor?

Timmaay

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The NEDC test is completely flawed, look it up.

They won't be changing it any time soon because no car manuafacturer will be able to meet emissions levels or at least they will be much higher.

If they were to change the test to reflect real driving and not simulated driving then a lot more cars would have to be electric/hybrid.

But the test is complete bull.

They are definitely changing away from the NEDC cycle to one more realistic of real world driving, this will make it much harder for the likes of BMW work their magic with "cycle beating" 520ds that are literally programmed to identify when the car is being tested under the NEDC cycle, and switch to a low emissions engine map! This probably won't be introduced until Euro6 b, in maybe 2016, so a while away yet.

jimgoose

corkgsxr wrote: »

6-1 compression ratio. Pushing serious boundaries

On a diesel? How does it even start??

ninty9er

The diesel is a smoother car to drive and has a six speed gearbox for fuel economy. There's also a lot more low range power. When I drove the 1l after driving a lot of 1.6 TDCI models, i found it more underpowered and struggling at all speeds, however, it's a rocket compared to GM's new 1.4 petrol.

Sam Kade

RealExpert wrote: »

Dont be fooled by the figures the trip computer spits out.If you really want to know what your car is doing to the gallon fill the tank to the brim reset your clock and do a couple of hundred kms.Go back to the same petrol stn and refill it to the brim again.Note the mileage and the liters required to fill it now do your calculations and you will see how accurate the trip comp is.

Why would you have to go back to the same petrol station?

jimgoose

Sam Kade wrote: »

Why would you have to go back to the same petrol station?

Minimize the number of variables. Whether or not it is of any actual benefit is debatable.

Sam Kade

jimgoose wrote: »

Minimize the number of variables. Whether or not it is of any actual benefit is debatable.

No benefit what so ever IMO.

Valetta

Sam Kade wrote: »

No benefit what so ever IMO.

Correct.

You could refill it with Fanta Orange and you would get the same accurate MPG.

It's the fuel used that gives the reading, not what replaces it.