Ford Ecoboost

[Draigflag]

For a few years I've been waiting for a car that offers good performance, excellent economy, low emissions etc etc. It's hard trying to find a car that ticks all the boxes. Plenty of cars available now that do 60, 70, 80 even 90 MPG, but most of them are slow diesels and a bit dull.

But Ford has invented the Ecoboost engine, it offers the handling and performance of a hot hatch, but the economy of a diesel, and the emissions of a hybrid.

Despite it's tiny 1.0 litre size, and the fact that the engine block can fit on an A4 piece of paper, the Ecoboost in the Fiesta does 0-60 in 9.4 seconds, with 125 BHP, and will do up to 76 MPG too (claimed figures) With a little tweaking, you should be able to get it up to 145 BHP and knock a second off the 0-60 time too. Amazing performance for such a small engine. With emissions of just 99g/km it's free road tax in the UK too. Ford, i'm impressed!

Just waiting for my local dealer to get one in so I can test drive! What are your thoughts? Bigger is not always better!

[Deefordog]

Heh, my first post...........

We've got the 100bhp version and like many others out there with this engine, we're miles away from getting even close to what Ford claim for the mpg. We've now done 3k miles and the best mpg we've seen on a motorway after 150 miles at 65mph, is 46mpg.

Many, many dissatisfied customers on Piston Heads and TalkFord forums, all relating to the Ecoboost engine in the Fiesta and Focus.

Apart from the mpg expectations, it's a cracking motor. The three cylinders give a real growl when accelerating, it handles like it's on rails (Zetec spec) and looks uberly kool in white.

[Jay2TheRescue]

I always thought you weren't supposed to really measure mileage until the engine had at least 5,000 miles on it. Needs to be broken in first.

[trollbait]

Second what Jay said.

Another thing with these small turbo engines is that it takes discipline to get the better fuel economy. Drive it like you would expect a small displace engine to perform and get good economy. Dip into the boost too far or too much, and you won't.

The official tests are the main reason for customer dissatisfaction with turbo for fuel economy engines. The NEDC, Japanese test, and, lesser extent, EPA tests have a very easy acceleration profile. The turbo isn't seeing much, if any, use during the test. The majority of people don't drive that way, and will do worse.

[Draigflag]

There are lots of these small turbocharched engines now, and it does seem to be the case that they use a lot of fuel. I think the main reason is that the majority, Ecoboost aside, are quite low in power, so people tend to drive harder and this sacrifice any attempts to save fuel. I myself have a 1.4 turbo with 170 BHP, and once you know how to use the revs and gears properly, they can be very fuel efficient. When I first had the car, I averaged low 30's, but now I tend to average closer to, and sometimes over 40 MPG, which still isnt great, but my car was never intended for economy.

[Charon]

The only reason for turbocharged small engines in the first place is an attempt to blend the relative fuel economy of a small low-powered engine with a turbocharger to let it make higher power on demand. There is no free lunch. Power requires fuel. You want more power, you burn more fuel. You want to travel at motorway speeds, you need either good streamlining for low air drag, or high power to overcome the drag. You want to accelerate to motorway speeds more rapidly than a heavy truck, you get into what the old Knight Rider used to call "turbo boost" and you burn more fuel.

As a side note, it is typical for supercharged gasoline engines (including turbocharged ones) to have a lower engine compression ratio than a naturally-aspirated engine. The lower compression ratio actually lowers the efficiency of the basic engine. But it is necessary so when the boost comes up the cylinder pressures don't get so high as to cause pre-ignition or detonation. It is also typical for engine makers to call for premium (higher octane) fuel to help counteract the pre-ignition and detonation.

[Draigflag]

Small turbocharged petrol engines have been very popular in Japan in years gone by, where engine size is limited to 0.6 litres (600cc) in certain areas. Whilst the engine size is limited, power is not, so some Manufactures designed tiny Sports cars with Turbo's like the Daihatsu Mira, Midget, Copen and Suzuki cappuccino.

Seems to be a trend of small turbo charged petrol engines in Europe at the minute, although small turbocharged diesel engines have consistently been popular for the past 20 years or more, and do at least offer excellent economy.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Charon

As a side note, it is typical for supercharged gasoline engines (including turbocharged ones) to have a lower engine compression ratio than a naturally-aspirated engine. The lower compression ratio actually lowers the efficiency of the basic engine. But it is necessary so when the boost comes up the cylinder pressures don't get so high as to cause pre-ignition or detonation. It is also typical for engine makers to call for premium (higher octane) fuel to help counteract the pre-ignition and detonation.

A new way to counteract pre-ignition is direct injection. Fuel is injected exactly when it is ready to be ignited, no sooner, so it can't burn early. Does anyone know if they are using compression ratios typical of normally aspirated engines on forced induction engines with direct injection?

[trollbait]

Ecoboosts have a lower compression than a NA direct injected engine. It's 10:1 where the plain DI will be 12:1 or higher.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

I always thought you weren't supposed to really measure mileage until the engine had at least 5,000 miles on it. Needs to be broken in first.

Originally Posted by trollbait

Second what Jay said.

My last 4 new cars & one motorcycle, always got best mpg from the beginning. I've driven my cars well above EPA ratings, two beyond 50mpg.