First Drive : Ford Focus 1.0 EcoBoost

Keith Adams spends a week behind the wheel of Ford’s astonishing 1.0-litre Focus EcoBoost – and wonders if this UK designed three-pot really does represent the beginning of the end of the diesel in Blighty…

Ford Focus 1.0-litre EcoBoost

Twenty twelve – is it the beginning of the end of the popular diesel in the UK? It certainly seems that way, with a number of pro-petrol media stories recently telling us that buying a car fuelled from the black pump is actually a false economy. But despite the difference in the pump price and running costs, diesel still makes a compelling case for itself when it comes to fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Certainly Ford, with its new EcoBoost family of engines, is doing its best to turn the anti-diesel screw just a little more – and if our experiences with the delightful one-litre thee-pot are anything to go by, it could well be justified.

As car enthusiasts, we’re all getting used to the concept of smaller engines to power our cars. We’ve yet to try the Fiat Twin-Air, but hear it’s a delight, but sales have been brisk – and, thanks to VAG’s sterling work in this department, the idea of driving a 1.4-litre Skoda Superb or Volkswagen Scirocco no longer seems daft. So, when Ford announced that the boys in Dunton had devised a fiendishly clever 1.0-litre for use in the Focus, it no longer seemed silly at all. In fact, we’ve been itching to have a go – and see whether the addition of some very clever turbo tech to a 999cc three-pot could be enough to drag around the Focus’ family sized with any level of urgency. And more to the point, still be economical.

The 999cc engine comes in two guises: with 99bhp and 123bhp, but it’s the more powerful version we’re driving – and, typically for a press car, it’s loaded to the max, featuring sat/nav, lane guidance, cruise control, and even some wonderfully clever little door protectors (gadget of the year as far as we’re concerned), to run up to a sticker price of £22,000. Seems a lot for a 999cc car, doesn’t it? Well, actually not, because with 125lb ft to play with from 1400rpm, and an overboost function, which ups this to 148lb ft for overtaking, it goes like a 1.6- to 1.8-litre naturally aspirated car.

Government fuel figures suggest it’s no rival to an economy focused diesel such as the Golf Bluemotion, but with 58.8mpg and 109g/km CO2, and 56.5mpg and 114g/km for the 123bhp car, it’s a good performance. That engine, though, is a work of art, with sequential turbocharging, direct injection, and twin variable camshaft timing for starters. It’s also ultra compact, which has tremendous frictional benefits, and simply represents a case of less is more – less coolant, fewer parts, and a cylinder volume that nears the hypothetical sweet point of 350cc. We’d have liked to have seen an aluminium block, but it’s still a lightweight power unit, something you’re quickly aware of when you get the Focus on to the open road.

Let’s just say right now that the 1.0-litre engine capacity is quickly forgotten. The drivetrain is smooth and creamy from idle to the red-line, and power is delivered in a linear slightly languid fashion – feeling like a long-stroker with a heavy flywheel – with usable grunt from around 2000rpm. Quite simply, the EcoBoost feels like a larger engine and delivers a pleasing V6-style soundtrack that encourages you to drive quickly – while delivering 40mpg-plus, no matter how hard you push.

For diesel users, it will be a revelation in terms of smoothness and the sheer size of its powerband – but equally, they’ll miss the hearty shove a good TDI gives as its boost swells. Horse for courses, really, but we can’t help but conclude that it’s a fun little power unit that takes the misery out of fuel saving.

Forget our £22k press-fleet special – the 1.0 EcoBoost starts at £16,245 for the five-speed 99bhp version, and £17,745 for the 123bhp six-speeder. We’d go with the more powerful car in a heartbeat, simply because of that additional gear ratio, and added overtaking brio. And at this price, the 1.0 EcoBoost is more than worthy of a punt – yes, you might lose the 70mpg potential of a more conventional diesel, but in return, you get a car that’s powered by an engine that’s quirky, innovative, and actually quite sexy-sounding. More than that, it lacks convention and me-too thinking that has blighted mainstream cars for far too long.

But by hook or by crook, the legislators are forcing manufacturers into thinking outside of the box and, if the quirky, appealing Focus is an indication of the direction we’re heading, then crisis is something to be embraced.


Keith Adams


  1. Exactly Francis. BANG BANG BANG goes the engine when it puts a leg out of bed due to it being massively overstressed. Yet another car to avoid on the 2nd hand market once it hits the end of its warranty

  2. @3 its a salient question,already ive had to carry out software patch updates on these on our hire fleet,hardly whinging unless its a chinese MG eh?

  3. Certainly agree avoid uesd with a high mileage! It may however be cheaper and easier to fix than some of these modern diesels if/when it goes wrong.
    @ No2 I doubt if the major componente will be overstressed. Im sure they will be engineered from the start to take the power. Its not like they are “tuning” an existing small unit to get the “quart out of pint pot” Personaly I would be mopre worried about the peripheral ancillaries, like turbo’s various valves, ECU’s giving problems

  4. Realy exciting bit of technology, it’s also bizarre to have a UK Ford designed engine at the cutting edge 🙂

    Being a lot lighter than the equivalent diesel, also improves the handling.

  5. my personal oppinion is that is all a bit commercial issue about those engines. the difference between 2 (4, 8) and 3 (6,12) cylinder is that on one turn of the main shaft on for example 4 cyl aou have 2 detonation, on a 6 you have 3 detonation…..but a L6 is ognited by two cyl together so the outher two together (1 and6) , the inner two together (no 3 and4) and the middle two (2 and5) what makes a L6 a very ballanced engine a L3 a very unballaced engine with on my oppinion a counter balaced shaft in…
    so the mechanics are stressed in this configuration, much depends on the grade of cooling and libricating of components….but only time and carless owners will show who is right
    in any case i will put your attention on a book David Vizzard: Tuning the A series engine 8i have the third edition 1999- (Haynes Publishingh) where the venerable 998 with some correct modification can reach in atmosferic form 100 hp (pg.467-470)but with no turbo….
    there is more than 60 years between the engines and i agree that the emisions are diferent , but the figures in my oppinion are not so impressive of the new engine

  6. Having seen a few reviews for this engine. The impressive performance however was not matched by the on road to the official Ford MPG figures, which makes you wonder why are manufacturers making cars like this? The engine is so heavily stressed it will either need to be made out of large lumps of PIG Iron, negating the weight advantage, or was designed to be a throw away engine.
    I can’t understand why manufacturers make these and electric cars. They should combine a small petrol engine with batteries and electric motors. The Engine would be just a generator for the electric. It is a simple solution but for some reason has not been released yet – I know that Lotus Engineering were working with JLR on this technology in a skin of the XJ, and that Renault Nissan have had prototypes running.

  7. Having read Keith’s report, this new Ecoboost 1 Litre sounds better than I imagined. Found it hard to get my head around a 1.0 litre producing up to 123bhp! Still, if I did buy a MK3 Focus, I feel I would opt for the 1.6 Ecoboost 150ps version.

    Never mind, time will tell how trustworthy this engine is, but at least Ford are being innovative.

  8. Normally aspirated Jap bike engines make far more power without a turbo from 1 litre – and they’re bulletproof. There’s no reason why this engine shouldn’t last as long is it’s designed properly. The old late 80s early 90s 100bhp 1 litre Daihatsu turbo triple (as fitted to the Charade Gtti) racked up the miles reliably – they tended to only go bang when boy racers fiddled with them to make more power. The engines usually outlasted the rusty bodies comfortably.

  9. @steve lee put those engines in a car and see how long they last,i know ford are not stupid and just bung an engine in,but real world motoring and maintainence will show through on this engine-smooth enough due to a counterweighted flywheel.

  10. When you think how much weight this engine has to pull too. The Focus isn’t exactly suffering from bulimia here. The old Charade only had to pull a body that weighed as much as a house fly remember. Manufacturers MPG figures are always flights of fantasy too, it’s just sales bull, and to be honest, those sorts of figures can only be done with the engine at a computer controlled constant speed on a dyno rig!

  11. The i30 derv still beats the focus in MPG and CO2,my eyebrows would be raised if it was a sarich orbital engine made to work or a clean two stroke with onventional valves that toyota was working on many years ago,setting that aside,it is an interesting engine given some of its features.

  12. It all sounds very impressive but doubts about longevity are not stupid they are entirely reasonable. Only time will tell…..

  13. Excellent review of an smashing car with a great little engine. And this is only the beginning.

    Apart from the teething problems I’m convinced that Ford and Fiat have done their research on this new exciting era of engines combining superior petrol performance and refinement with better economy and emission technology.

    But perhaps 1000cc is too small, will be over-stressed, and we’ll settle for 1300cc? It would interesting to put a timer on this thread so it re-appears in 18 months time to see who is right.

    Hopefully this is the first stage in getting rid of diesel cars for good. Leave it for lorries, buses and tractors.

  14. @ Francis Brett – you keep banging on and on about a software update on these cars, but isn’t that a symptom/ benefit of modern electrics? A way to quickly apply changes to improve efficiency or apply the latest upgrades?

    My iPhone had a software update available as soon as I bought it. Is it broken and should I throw it away?

  15. @6 More unfounded criticism.

    At least they’re leading the way with technology, and the Ford engine is a British design we can be proud of.

    I’m not aware that Ford or Fiat are any less reliable than comparable manufacturers. 20 years ago perhaps, but times and technology have changed. Take a look around.

  16. @16, Marty B,

    Having owned more Fords than any other brand, I don’t perceive Ford to be an unreliable brand (ok I think we can draw a veil over my experiences of a knackered CVH engined Mk3 Escort, and Mk1 Fiesta). Never had a head gasket fail on any of my cars, and my oldest Fords were scrapped due to rust or in one case, a snapped timing belt.

    Whilst turbos do eventually fail (but can last a long time)I wouldn’t worry too much for the longevity of this power unit- engine technology has come on in leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades. Not to mention more sophisticated manufacturing keeping tolerances to a minimum. Worth noting that the Mercedes Sprinter is mostly supplied with a smallish 2.2 diesel, yet can rack up interstellar milages regardless of load, and van engines have to work far harder than car engines.

    And of course you have a lovely off-beat three cylinder warble to listen to- much more engaging than the typical inline four, which all sound the same these days.

  17. Never mind the engine Keith, tell us more about the “wonderfully clever little door protectors”. You’ve got me intrigued…

  18. @11 My point about bike engines is the Ecoboost’s state of tune isn’t extreme in the big scheme of things, the Honda Civic Type R makes nearly 100bhp per litre NA with total reliability. All I’m saying is there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be reliable if it’s designed properly. Being a triple, the block is quite short helping torsional rigidity as long as the torsional stresses on the block are within spec then we won’t see another fiasco due to overstressed light engines – something familiar to the Rover group thanks to BMW’s lack of investment in the K series. I’m pleased to see a little triple get the development budget the engine configuration deserves, with Toyota, VAG and now Ford getting in on the act shows how ahead of the game Daihatsu were.

    @17 Correct, it’s totally normal, new models tend to leave the factory with ignition and fuel maps that work well on government tests – to be replaced with ones that suit actual real world driving conditions over time.

  19. Being a fan of concept of lightweight (sub-900kg) Supermini/City Car-class Hot Hatches (like the Charade GTti), I would love to see 100+ bhp sub-1.0/4-cylinder engines such as the Ford 1.0 Ecoboost and Fiat’s 875cc Twinair be used to power a new generation lightweight ultra-efficient (sub-100g/km CO2 / 55mpg+) old-school fun-driving Hot Hatches.

    Apparently Ford is also preparing a 177 bhp version of the 1.0 Ecoboost engine…

  20. Ref the reliability comments, time to take lessons from the Honest John sister site. Unlike a modern diesel that so many readers are praising there is no particulate filter to gum up or dual mass flywheel to break so the Ecoboost should be more reliable.

    And responding to the overstressed comments – stress has a strong linkage to forces and in turn this is related to torque (schoolboy physics). The lower the torque, the less the forces and stress. (OK there is heat to consider too and I’m ignoring that for now). The ecoboost develops a lot less torque than a modern diesel so it should be less stressed and more reliable.

  21. @24 the K-Series was hardly a torque monster but fitting a lightweight stretched engine to large heavy cars certainly decreased reliability markedly. Don’t overlook the fact that gearboxes are torque-multipliers, the necessity to fit a short first gear to pull a heavy body will see torsional stresses on the block increase substantially – A good example being the Freelander, okay later beefing up of the “cradle” in the bottom end seems to have helped matters, but the superb K-Series ended up being fitted to cars which pushed torsional stress way beyond the design criteria for the engine. Excessive torsional loads on the engine have as much to do with the weight of the car, the gearing and how it’s fitted as it does with the torque output of the engine.

  22. @17 software patches so soon after launch? without customer knowing? in any case i shant elaborate why and what for,but this car is no iphone.Let me bang on about Range Rover as well,software patches for disabling oil fired heater,a customer option so as to prevent fire risk after shutdown,should i be worried?no because i would not get told that the option i paid for no longer works.Incidently,i have reams and reams of Ford TSB’s that the general public are not aware of not even vosa knows of the global campaign,loose steering knuckleto strut on your new focus anyone?

  23. I was always a person who reckoned that there was no substitute for cubic inches when it comes to engine designs.

    After an extended road thrape in Keith’s EcoBoost Focus, I was left impressed…. deeply impressed!

  24. @28 I agree,i have even drove a volvo S60 with fords 1.6 ecoboost and it went well enough,if this engine remains bombroof then bravo -lets wait and see when it gets into the second hand market,which is still important.

  25. Oh for goodness sake, any piece of innovation or novel design and the bearded naysayers pop up whinging that it will never work, or about longevity. Dont you for a minute think that an organisation like Ford (well British Leyland/Rover maybe) wont have developed this thing to within an inch of its life before risking putting into volume production? If I was looking for a new car in this sector of the market I would buy one in “heart beat” (hey how cool am I saying that)

  26. £22,000 is way too much to spend on a family hack. Wake up, people. £22,000 is not even a nurses annual salary.

  27. @27 I used to work for Ford I’m fully aware of how things work, the same TSB regarding pre-heaters and fire risks applied to some Jags too – it’s the same with any manufacturer you happen to read the Ford TSBs, a guy working for another brand will be reading similar horror stories. Mercedes specifying standard ESP and rock hard tyres to stop A-classes tipping over rather than redesigning a flawed car. Mercedes knowing the “Blue Efficiency” injectors were not fully developed and will fail – possibly taking engines with them, but bet on the injector issues being fixed before they started failing on customer cars – replacing “Mk1” injectors during routine services. (They lost that bet!) This is the real world and there’s no such thing as a perfect car. Development is always compromised to meet time-scales.

  28. @32 agreed,maybe im cynical about cars these days,indeed the siemens injectors on MB cars and vans are are failing in significant numbers and the thin cast 2.1 CDI are failing due to this.

  29. This is the first I read of the new Ford Ecoboost, so can’t say if good or bad.
    I run a first generation down sized Fiat Bravo II 120 HP TJet. It now 4 years old and done 47k miles and have never put a food wrong.
    I’m quite active on the various Fiat and Alfa forums and have never heard any thing bad about Fiat/Alfa’s small 1,4 L turbo engines in any of the 120-170 HP versions; except that they don’t reach the official fuel consumption figures, but no cars does that now a days. I average 40 MPG and have on long runs seen 44 MPG.

  30. @34 I agree about most cars not reaching their stated MPG figures. A friend has a 1.4 Giulietta, whilst he loves the car he is dissapointed with fuel consumpion. He has only once achived 40MPG. He had to nurse the car to achieve this. We have a Alfa 147 1.6 TS I have no trouble getting 40MPG on a long run.
    I think this Eco bost engine will have trouble getting anywhere near quoted MPG figuers

  31. I’m amazed that Ford have done this. They have never been at the real cutting edge of engine design. All you nay sayers, consider this: Frod are going to replace all of their petrol engines below 1.6 litres with versions of this unit so they’re going to make millions. I hope for Ford’s sake they have got the reliability sorted.

    I’m looking forward to a magazine doing a long term test.

    Two more points:

    1. I’d want an auto.
    2. The wonderful Fiat 2 clylinder does not appear to have real world economy. Apart from a low CO2 which means less RFL, what’s the point of the technology if there are not any real gains?

    Let’s face it though, this is the way things are going to go. remember when everyone was scared of fuel injection, 16V heads, OHC, etc. They are the norm now.

  32. I reckon as it is a Ford it’ll go well during it’s fleet life (3 years or so) then will become obsolete through expensive repairs.

    I had an Orion with one of the early Zeta (Zetec after Lancia complained) engines and it was an absolute lemon.

    The reason old school big diesels were so reliable was because they were rarely stressed, these small turbocharged units are the complete opposite.

    Besides, Ford are suffering an ongoing Osborne Effect scenario because they keep previewing new Focus and Mondeo with the Austin Mini style grille, but never released it!

  33. Wonder what Alec Issigonis would have thought of it? A step change in engine design and benefits in engine packaging/space requirements – possibly heralding a move to rear engined monoboxes like the Spiritual?

    Diesel seems to be getting a bad press – I suspect from vested interests in the oil industry scared of bio alternatives, etc.

  34. @ 36, agree, many Twin-Air owners say they are lucky to get half of what the official figures say, even driving with a feather foot! I test drove one and the quirkiness intrigued me, but as you say, there is little point buying one if the fuel consumption is considerably worse than the perceived old school 1.2 version of the 500 – and add to that the fact that it’s more expensive to start with then the car has no case for it. What actually matters is real world consumption and emissions, and IMO it doesnt seem to make a jot what size the engine is so this mad rush for fashionable micro-sized engines that command huge price premiums is taking the public for mugs!

  35. @40 John G,

    Interesting that the WHO used data from studying the effects on miners, railway workers, and truck drivers.

    First of all, miners are subject to all sorts of other carcinogens, such as coal and rock dust, etc.

    Railway diesels often pollute because many of those still in use are ancient designs. For example, on British railways the most prevalent diesel locomotive, the Canadian-built Class 66 has been in production since 1996. There is a new Class 70 in use with Freightliner, but there are only 20 of these in use. Other British diesels are far older, with the Class 20 and Class 37 date from 1957 and 1960 respectively- and the former especially is a notorious ‘clagger’ (ie prone to producing lots of black smoke). All other diesels date from the late 80s at the latest- so hardly up to the kind of emission standards of the modern trucking fleet for example.

    And truckers often drive long hours, and sleep in a cab heated by an auxilliary diesel heater- so their intake of dieselly fumes will be greater than most of the rest of the population. And many experienced truckers will have worked with diesel technology that pre-dated the current low-emissions drive. And would trucks be less polluting if they had to rely on petrol engines?

    So I think studies like this need to be put in their proper perspective. I’d like to know how they arrived at those figures, and did they eliminate other potential cancer causes from the equation, such as smoking?

    By far the worst polluters are commercial ships which run on ‘bunker fuel’- a fuel so thick that it can be walked on when cold- its practically bitumen. 16 large ships running on this stuff are said to cause more air pollution than every single car on the road.

  36. This reminds me of a story my father used to tell. Some bright spark, at ford of all places, decided that in the late 50s early 60s that it would be a great idea to make a slap on turbocharger kit for Fordson tractors, including the Dexta and the Major/Super Major.

    It was a wonderful improvement right up to the point it blew the engines into small steaming chunks. Ford had warranty claims galore on them and the kits were soon off the market.

    The cause of the problem was fairly simple. Testing at the factory bore no relationship to how people used the machine. My father could always be found on the island by looking for a plume of diesel smoke and moving in that general direction. Pushing the engines to their limits was a daily thing, and the engines were fairly reliable. Bolting on a turbo just meant the machine went faster/pulled better with the throttle wide open, right up to the minute it didnt.. usually destroying the engine.

    The thing that should be worrying the hell out of the Ford warranty people is that the average person doesnt baby their car. They dont put in the exact type and grade of oil, their kids drive like nutters, or you get the golden oldie whose stone deaf & reverses at 4500rpm with the clutch half down… all of which are things that dont work very well with turbocharged kei car type engines.

    Ironically this type of engine would be better with an automatic, since it has low range pull, as opposed to an engine like the Douvrin 2.2 12v which has a torque max at 4500rpm – but people will probably buy the manual (which means a missed gear and subsequent overboost can mean a lunched engine).

    All in all a bad idea. It would be better to go the Chrysler Neon I route – with a schnuerle scavenged piped 2 stroke engine producing 160hp or so, just as cleanly as the then engine for the ACR model..

  37. if you look at fiat with there modern 1300cc diesel that they fit in the deablo van,,its quoted at some high mpg figers , but people who own them say they never get near them ,the engine has to be worked hard all the time ,fiat has now made a 1600cc version ,. ford will have to do the same evan if its just a 1200cc one ,it may well be good in smaller cars though ,

  38. Oh yes, and just to rub it in. My safrane 2.2vi rated at 22mpg (plus the 5.7% for 40psi tires) urban is currently averaging happily over its 23.6mpg and will sit at 35mpg at motorway speeds. With a 4 speed automatic, thats now 17 years old. With a warm air intake fitted it will even return the same during the winter, not to mention a couple of mpg more if you use the sump heater.

    I hate to be an (honorary) whinging beardy – but the saying “the right tool for the right job” is a saying for a reason, because it is usually right. Take the Renault 25 2.2 8 valve engine, with max torque @ 3500 & you will get 37mpg on the motorway, put a 2.0 12 valve @ 4500 in the same car & you are lucky to see 28mpg at the same speed. Best of all bar the head & stroke length these were identical engines, with the same driver.

    All this ecoboost and the like is just trying to reinvent the wheel while missing all the points that give good economy.

  39. I’ll have to bow to superior knowlege but bloody hell!!! A 1.0 litre in a car the size of a Focus and those power outputs! 1.0 A plus and 44hp don’t seem long ago to me.

  40. This is one band wagon that MG need to get on. We need a sino british engine to demonstrate that there is a proper K successor.

  41. @37 a bit hard on Fords – there are plenty of 2nd gen (CD162) Mondeos with starship mileages still going strong. I ran one for a while, I bought it (2 litre petrol) to sell it from a fleet who’s owner I know personally, he confirmed that it had a new clutch at 110,000 miles – other than that just standard servicing from new, but it accidentally became the family hack for a while as it drove so well and owed me nothing, bought at 180K miles for peanuts, sold at 220,000 miles for a modest profit two years later – nothing went wrong and it still returned 38-40mpg on a gentle cruise. The fleet owner loved that era Mondeo. “bullet proof” was his description – couldn’t get rid of his troublesome Passats fast enough.

  42. @45 I have the same problem with my Rover 620 TI’s (I’ve had two that have each done more than 60,000 miles under my ownership. According to the offical figures they should do about 30 mpg. I ended up with an average of over 35 mpg with both urban driving and open roads in my daily commute og 60 miles, no matter how I drive 🙂

  43. @41 Chris Baglin
    Don’t believe everything you read in the Daily Mail written by Fred Pearce. He is totally missinformed. All ships by next year will have to use Ultra low sulphur fuels. We do already and have been for 5 years. co2 Is a problem, but on moderern ships whith exhaust scrubbers anything harmfull should be a small percentage of total emmissions.

  44. Oooohhh a diesel you can desist in 60seconds! So economy with petrol benefits (cabin heat, hands that smell nice, school children without cancer, NOISE pollution) is the idea?

    But if you could still by the original Focus (@citigolf) would you choose this melted corolla homage?

  45. @54 Big H,

    The matter of bunker fuel has been raised by various journalists. I don’t read the Daily Mail (or any other tabloid) so what Fred Whassisname thinks is neither here nor there.

    I think the points raised about the nature of diesel exposure stand. To illustrate how polluting an old diesel railway engine can be watch this Class 37 struggling into life on a cold morning. All the white smoke is unburned diesel, and the black smoke is from when the various cylinders are actually firing (and it takes a long time to get an enourmous English Electric 12 cylinder engine to fire on all cylinders).

  46. Diesel locos are actually very rarely switched off. I used to live quite near a Freightliner depot, and throught the night you could hear the familiar yingyingyingying sound of a load of class 66’s ticking over

  47. #2 Why should a small capacity high output engine be overstressed? The cubic capacity of the combustion chamber doesn’t directly dictate the depth or diameter of the main-end bearing or the diameter of the little end bearing. If it were overstressed, it wouldn’t have passed Ford’s sign-off testing.

    #58 IC 125s were switched off all the time in Paddington, pretty much as soon as they entered the stations.

  48. @60 correct,but the overall size of the crankcase will,dont forget A4 size footprint on this engine.Of course its been tested time and time again,but these things age,we dont all throw our cars away year in year out,the second hand market is colossal compared to new,who picks up the pieces when or indeed if they go bang?

  49. It has a shocking lack of torque for having a turbo charger (1.6 figures look proportionately even worse) and you can really feel it on the road and its needs to be worked hard to make progress.

    A LOT of people on Ford Forums I go to talk of having shocking fuel economy some below 30 MPG if you put the weight of the whole family in it ect.

    PS As for the people quoting the old “link baiting” articles of dirty cancer causing diesel. Go have a bath in (gasoline) Benzene the most life giving substance know to man LOL

  50. @63 – LOL, Steve, you’re such a card. LOL!

    Brilliant – we can disregard the comprehensive review above praising the torque and smooth delivery of power on the back on your one sentence.

    You hang in there champ – that letter of recruitment from the editor of Car magazine will doubtless be there shortly. LOL.

    I don’t think that 30mpg is bad for a car of this size fully laden, with a 1.0 petrol engine (were the conditions ‘around town’ or at 70mph on the M1?), but now you’ve emphasised the number of complaints as being ‘A LOT’, it’s probably worth consideration. LOL.

    On a serious note, surely Keith’s quoted figure of ’40mpg-plus, no matter how hard you push’ is very respectable? Or do you not believe the road test to be true?

    There are lots of manufacturers who seem to be reporting massive MPG figures which simply aren’t achievable in the real world. Weren’t BMW recently in spot of bother where drivers were struggling to get half the claimed figure?

    As for “link baiting”, I’ll be happy to take a bath in petrol as long you treat yourself to a nice long drink of diesel. LOL.

  51. As I stated before these small petrol turbos that are supposed to be taking over as soon as you start taking them out of their ideal operating conditions their efficiency goes to hell.

    On the “Talk Ford forum” there are a gaggle of unhappy punters having rows with their dealers and of course being told the EU figures are a guide and we don’t pretend they are close to the truth blah blah blah

    @65 John no offence taken you and Jez Clarkson can buy what you want and I will buy what I want 🙂

  52. @66 Fair play 🙂

    I realised after confirming that what was typed in a harmless way could have been interpreted as aggressive, which it wasn’t meant to be.

    Reading back through the comments here it is quite unusual that Ford has chosen to release this new engine in the Focus and C-Max which are heavy motors. Clearly a point to prove trying to demonstrate that it can cope with the load.

    I can’t help but think, costing aside, it would have been fantastic to give it an outing in the Fiesta or Ka perhaps digging out an old sporty badge (XR maybe?).

    In this guise presumably it wouldn’t be near the thresholds people are concerned about here, and the cars would be excellent test mules to consider other applications.

    Even in its 99hp tune, it would surely breathe new life into the KA and be quite a tempting proposition for many…

  53. It will never match the efficiency of a diesel, a diesel is inherentley more efficient due to its compression ignition nature. It allows very high compression ratios, which a petrol can’t match. Higher the compression, the more theorectically efficient the engine. Of course if it is nicer to drive, the mpg is something you might not car about.

    If you really want low running costs, buy a second hand diesel from the 90’s. Simple robust engines with no electronics to go wrong, easy to maintain and will run forever. Low mpg is easily offset by zero depreciation.

  54. Very interesting article, stepsister has just taken one on as a replacement for her ageing 206. Shes leasing it and its over £100 a month cheaper than an MG6, she has no complaints about MPG as she is a. a realist b.its better than her 206 was.

    @68 I wouldn’t even go back as far as the 90s, just buy my 45 TD, old tech engine in a car less than 8 years old!

  55. @68, What makes diesel engines more efficient is quite simply there’s more energy in diesel fuel volume for volume, you have to “waste” some of the inherent efficiency because diesel engines must be turbocharged to make them acceptably powerful and refined for passenger car use.

    On the other side of the coin, petrol engines could be massively more efficient, there’s nothing to stop manufacturers developing compression ignition petrols given the pin-point accuracy of modern FI systems dispensing with the throttle which hurts petrol engine efficiency – however as petrol cars MUST be fitted with a cat, running ultra lean-burn mixtures which would be required to make such an engine work is impossible.

    The emissions regulations have killed off advanced petrol engine designs – madness I know. But that’s the case. We should be running around in 100mpg lean-burn CI petrols but the catalytic converter regulations makes this engine configuration impossible to develop for road use. Rover were amongst the world leaders in ultra-lean-burn engine design until the mandatory adoption of the catalytic converter killed them off – an own goal for the greenies, the greedy motor manufacturers could carry on making the same old inefficient engines with a box of heavy metals and toxic waste bolted to the exhaust.

  56. Keith:

    We are going to get this car in the U.S. sometime this year, and I had a brief drive at the Dearborn test track where I fell in love with this motor. Lots of fun.

    Here’s my review of Ford’s U.S. lineup for 2013, including the three-pot Focus:

    As for the flaps on the door, this may help:

  57. @68 petrol has always had more energy yield than diesel,engines are always in the region of 60-70 % inefficient due to heat loss-most of the energy is wasted in heat,friction and pumping losses.Making a clean two stroke with needle bearing crank with enclosed lube system would have me excited.

  58. High revving four stroke technology is not new even turbo charged. My kawasaki ZX10r bike has 1000cc pumps out 180 bhp and many of these have done 100,000 plus miles with no problems. Rest assured this Ford engine will rev and last. Good engineering.

  59. And the bike is non turbo……….180 bhp per litre. Cars and high miles, bought a Vectra 2.0 td few years ago with 170k. did another 40k mostly on recycled veg oil with no problems apart from fuel filter changes. Bosch pump.

  60. The ecoboost engine isnt in a bike though andy,but i know what you are saying,setting that aside,12000 rpm in a bike engine with a few kilos carry will be fairly unstressed-try that engine in a tonne and a bit car!

  61. it seems today on msn ,the ecoboost engined car is taking 3 in 10 sales . but what will it be like in 5 years time when i can afford on ,?

  62. Good engineering. Will be reliable. Extensive testing up to 300000km’s has proven that.And it will still be around in 5 years time unlike Rover, Austin, Riley, Morris….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.