Focus with one litre petrol engine...

corktina

...anyone any experience with them? what are the drawbacks?

Looking to run car for ever, pretty low mileage expected....

Outkast_IRE

The reviews are generally quite good of it, those ecoboost engines are meant to be quite smooth and refined to drive.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Ford-Focus-10-Ecoboost-review/

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/focus/18601/ford-focus-10-litre-ecoboost

For city driving and low mileage, i would give it serious consideration.

Only drawback i can see is like most big cars with small engine, if you plan to be overtaking quite a bit or have an "aggressive" driving style this engine is probably not for you.

corktina

but it has a higher horsepower than the 1.6 so would this really be a problem?

Outkast_IRE

corktina wrote: »

but it has a higher horsepower than the 1.6 so would this really be a problem?

Would just be a case of needing to drop back a gear, i would say.
For me it wouldnt be a problem as i have driven a 1.4 mk1 focus for years so i understand what limited overtaking power feels like.

I suppose its something that you would pick up on with a test drive fairly quickly.

Personally i have not heard anybody complaining who has gotten a ford with the ecoboost engine since its launch, which is generally a good sign.

If i was buying a new car in the morning i would give the Focus 1.0 serious consideration.

thierry14

corktina wrote: »

but it has a higher horsepower than the 1.6 so would this really be a problem?

Plus more torque.

Engine size has been irrelevant for a long time, nearly everything decent is turbo charged now.

Focus has 125bhp and 200nm, weights less than 1300kg.

That's decent

All that matters when measuring performance is bhp per ton

This Focus has 96bhp per ton, which is good and perfectly adequate for overtaking.

Mycroft H

I didn't think Ford sold the 120bhp-ish model here? Only in the UK?

corktina

Mycroft H wrote: »

I didn't think Ford sold the 120bhp-ish model here? Only in the UK?

100 ps for the 1.0 and 95 for the 1.6 whatever that means nowadays

Alanstrainor

I'd have an eco boost in a focus. Drove 1000km or so in a ford bmax eco boost and it was great, grand for overtaking quick off the line and economical. Granted the bmax is a lighter car, but I'd have no trouble owning a focus with the same engine.

corktina

corktina wrote: »

100 ps for the 1.0 and 95 for the 1.6 whatever that means nowadays

100ps is 99 ish bhp

lifer_sean

Had one as a hire car in the UK for a few days. Engine a little harsh (3-cylinder isn't it ?) but felt about the same as a 1.6 petrol to drive. Did about 100 miles on M4 motorway with it. Wasn't the fastest thing on the road but was perfectly adequate, sitting at 80mph etc.

I wonder if they will prove to be as reliable as regular (non-turbo) petrols ? On paper it seems like a better option for the low mileage user than a diesel.

corktina

That's my feeling and my worry. We'll be doing maybe 100 miles a week maximum and expect the car to last a long time at that rate...longer than I'll last I reckon:-)

bazz26

Focus 1.0 litre Ecoboost has 125bhp on the Titanium models. The lesser spec models have 100bhp afaik. The 1.6 litre 95bhp is the old non Ecoboost engine afaik.

The engine is still fairly new and rare enough on Irish roads to judge reliability yet.

Alfagtamini

bazz26 wrote: »

Focus 1.0 litre Ecoboost has 125bhp on the Titanium models. The lesser spec models have 100bhp afaik. The 1.6 litre 95bhp is the old non Ecoboost engine afaik.

The engine is still fairly new and rare enough on Irish roads to judge reliability yet.

We have the ecoboost in a 131 fiesta . We use it as a driving school car and it now has 35k miles on the clock.
Great to drive even with 5 on board

Markcheese

How do they compare fuel efficency and co2 emissions wise with modern small diesels ? I assume they have dual mass flywheels as well ?

Seweryn

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Only drawback i can see is like most big cars with small engine, if you plan to be overtaking quite a bit or have an "aggressive" driving style this engine is probably not for you.

Still, better than the older 1.6 litre engine performance and economy wise at least...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJjoYbqYCvc

iamtony

paulryanmini wrote: »

We have the ecoboost in a 131 fiesta . We use it as a driving school car and it now has 35k miles on the clock.
Great to drive even with 5 on board

And that's without a turbo I presume?

MuppetCheck

Had a rental C-Max 125 and with 4 plus luggage it was fine. Not madly economical but never felt like it struggled and it was doing high speed across Europe at the time.

It was a little noisy though and not a particularly nice noise either. You'd never think it was a 1 litre, in the smaller focus and not worked it would be a very decent all rounder I'd imagine.

Alfagtamini

iamtony wrote: »

And that's without a turbo I presume?

With turbo

Leonard Hofstadter

This Ecoboost engine seems to have gotten plenty of praise for its performance, and not driving like you might expect a one litre engine to do so. However, any review I've come across states that while the engine is a hoot to use, it is, if anything, less economical than the naturally aspirated 1.6 litre four cylinder engine it replaced. This seems to be a common complaint with these new downsized engines (both petrol and diesel), they're great on paper and for getting the VRT and motor tax down, but they're SFA good when driven like a normal person for actually saving fuel. Added to that is the fact that it is a very complicated engine so it is far more likely to go expensively wrong than the venerable Duratec 1.6 as the miles pile on. The 1.6 is also a four cylinder rather than a three cylinder engine, so in theory anyway it's going to be smoother and more refined and just a nicer thing to use than a three cylinder unit. Mind you, three cylinder engines do sound pretty sweet under load, like a mini six pot, which is preferable to four cylinder drone to my ears.

I would love to drive one (or indeed, any small capacity turbo petrol) at some point and to see if they really do offer low down shove like a diesel (not that this matters to anyone who knows how to use a gearbox, or has an automatic, but anyway), and are as good as a naturally aspirated larger capacity petrol unit for refinement and all the things that matter in driving, like throttle response and a decent noise, and so on.

For the low mileage motorist, it's still a smarter choice than the diesel with no DPF or DMF to worry about, but I can't help but feel that the only reason all these downsized engines are all the rage these days is because the EU tests are so hopelessly irrelevant in the real world. If the tests were reflective of real world driving, we'd probably all still be using larger capacity, less complex and far more reliable engines, with more cylinders and thus refinement, to boot.

BMJD

My Dad went from a 2012 1.6 petrol to a 141 1.0 ecoboost (presume it's the 100PS version). I've only had a short go in the 1.0, it feels responsive and reasonably powerful, it sounded a bit rough, like an older diesel but it was cold when I took it out for a spin. He only does low mileage and generally short trips so I've no idea what the economy is like, no reliability issues so far anyway.

The 1.6 petrol was a gutless piece of crap

unkel

Things are only moving one way: smaller engines with fewer cylinders and turbo (and / or super) chargers. The only reason for this is emissions / fuel consumption

Nothing much wrong with that for your average owner of small economy cars, but what none of the reviews / tests ever seem to mention is that the torque avaliable at idle is terrible compared to a more conventional normally breathing engine. The 0-100km/h times might be similar between a 1l ecoboost and a 1.6l N/A, but the only reason for that is that the turbo more than makes up for the lack of displacement once it is actively contributing

The problem is the very, very low torque at idle. And this is where you need torque most imho

MetzgerMeister

Augeo wrote: »

100ps is 99 ish bhp

PS = Pferde stärke which is German for horse power so it's the exact same thing.

unkel

Much of a muchness but not quite. PS is metric horsepower and a little lower in power than a brake horsepower

barney 20v

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

PS = Pferde stärke which is German for horse power so it's the exact same thing.

Not correct ...

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090713081140AAJiiPL

MetzgerMeister

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

PS = Pferde stärke which is German for horse power so it's the exact same thing.

It's most definitely not.

Mycroft H

Ahh lads, it's 2bhp... Not going to make a blind bit of difference.

corktina

unkel wrote: »

Things are only moving one way: smaller engines with fewer cylinders and turbo (and / or super) chargers. The only reason for this is emissions / fuel consumption

Nothing much wrong with that for your average owner of small economy cars, but what none of the reviews / tests ever seem to mention is that the torque avaliable at idle is terrible compared to a more conventional normally breathing engine. The 0-100km/h times might be similar between a 1l ecoboost and a 1.6l N/A, but the only reason for that is that the turbo more than makes up for the lack of displacement once it is actively contributing

The problem is the very, very low torque at idle. And this is where you need torque most imho

..or slightly after that I assume :-)