I had a chance to drive on of these last weekend and I must say that i was seriously impressed with the engine. Not only was it extremely smooth and quiet (with no thrash or vibration whatsoever) but went in a way no 1.0 such a big car ought to. I was simply stunned by the way the engine would pull 40 mph in sixth gear and pull from idle strongly around to the 7000rpm limiter with zero lag. My only concern is the fuel economy as Ford is trying to pitch this as an economy engine. Yes I may have been tanking it a little but 36 mpg is a long way of the 50 mpg combined that Ford claim, even though I know how meaningless the EC figures are (surely that system needs to be revised).
Anyway anyone else been for a spin and what did you think if so?
|
|
Cars have either economy or performance the choice is yours. The instant fuel consumption display on my car varies between 19mpg and 99mpg and is controlled by my right foot.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 16 May 12 at 18:22
|
When I say tanking it i meant a brisk drive on B roads and some motorwayy not thrashing the nuts off of it all the time :)
I take your point but there may be some disappointed people with this like the Fiat twinair.
|
Those instant fuel consumption readouts are the best economy device i've seen, some eye watering figures when under power.
36 mpg if you've been giving it the beans isn't so bad, would probably translate to 42 or more in normal keep up with traffic motoring, and more like the 50 on a steady run, i could live with that if the car is durable over time.
Durability is what will make or break these for many.
Was it prone to stalling which i find a problem with Ford Diesels more than most others i've driven.
|
@ gordonbennet
Apparently Ford say the engine will last just as long as its current models: at least 150,000 miles before major attention.
Clutch and gearbox well both nice and progressive. My brother in law is a Ford tech and loathes Ford Diesels. He says they are nothing but trouble: including the clutches and DMFs. Both he and my sister have Fords (Focus and Modeo) but 1.6 and 2.0 petrol respectively.
|
|
well as a recent convert back to BMW's finest petrol engine, I have to say I'll eat my hat if they bring out a decent 6 cylinder diesel that comes anywhere close....Yum Yum,,,!
|
|
Some say, that's a bit of a grey area. If you are thinking of green issues that is...
|
Engine technology really has come on leaps and bounds. I can clearly remember when as a kid my dad being really worried about downsizing in the early '70s from a 3 litre 6 cylinder petrol car to a 2 litre 4 cylinder. Neither would be seen as having much power by today's standards of course but then again cars didn't weigh as much either or handle / stop as well as they do now.
I know we're talking about small petrol engines here but I am moved to praise the 2.1 diesel in my Merc ( E250 ). Just over 200 bhp, 8.1 seconds 0-62, loads of torque and easy mid 40s mpg from a really very large automatic estate would have been an unbelievable combination not so very long ago. Combine that with 15,000 mile ( average ) service intervals and the difference from even quite recent models is astounding.
If my needs were met by a Focus, I'd certainly try out the new engine. Why not? As previously mentioned, the very economical 1.6 in my wife's car is no sporty thing but it does the job in an unfussed, more than adequate and quite pleasingly smooth businesslike manner.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Wed 16 May 12 at 22:09
|
I hope this is the beginning of a virtuous spiral.
I think that the 1.0 litre engine is closer to an appropriate size and spec for an engine for a family car, and if the rest of the vehicle can be similarly slimmed down, perhaps 800cc might be enough as the vehicle/engine design is iterated?
If you look at a so-called performance map for an engine, the best brake specific fuel consumtion (~ bhp per mpg) is obtained at about 3/4 of full load, and near to the engine's maximum torque speed.
So, having an engine which is too large [i.e., a typical modern car] cruising along at light load is not particularly efficient, while a smaller engine cruising at a higher load will be more economical. Fit said engine with a turbo and allow temporary overboost to give some performance when required, and you have a good combination.
|
|
Makes my 1.1 54bhp seem like an antique, but then a cam belt is less than hour job and a head gasket is also a very easy job. I doubt I could say the same about this Focus engine.
|
@rattleandsmoke
The FIAT F.I.R.E engine may be a 30 year old design but it is a wonderful little engine. Our erstwhile leader HJ said in his old "used car buying book" that he knew of 999cc fires with 400K on them. They are so understressed that if you look after them they will go on for ever. They have a nice responsive feel and good low down torque too. My first car was a 1.0 Uno with all of 45 bhp!
|
Rattle - I remember SWMBO had a 45BHP 999cc Fire engine in an Uno which she used when at university in Liverpool (and I didn't want her to take my brand new MGF anywhere near Liverpool...).
I used to love driving the Uno, the FIRE engine was easy to work on, characterful and unburstable - the brakes on the other hand were a nightmare to work on IIRC )-:
The poor thing rusted away and was replaced by an (equally characterful but more complex) 'bubble shaped' Micra,
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Wed 17 Oct 12 at 02:45
|
>I think that the 1.0 litre engine is closer to an appropriate size and spec for an engine for a family car,
Good Glub, that's all we need! - More cars on the road with all the venom of a striking slug.
|
>>More cars on the road with all the venom of a striking slug.
Have you read the post at the top of this thread?
If I understand correctly, this 1.0 litre engine is also going in the Mondeo, which implies it is actually over-sized for the Focus!
|
>Have you read the post at the top of this thread?
Yes.
>If I understand correctly, this 1.0 litre engine is also going in the Mondeo, which
>implies it is actually over-sized for the Focus!
No. It implies that a Mondeo with this engine will be an arthritic slug.
|
@kevin
I can't convince you here so go drive one. It is far from a slug. It goes like a 2.0 to be honest. You have to drive it to believe it. You just would not think the performance possible. And it feels as smooth as a six. Steve Cropley of Autocar was in raptures over it and he has just got one on long term test.
|
>>Good Glub, that's all we need! - More cars on the road with all the venom of a striking slug
Honda were pushing 1300+bhp qualifying from a 1.5 litre V6 over 20 years ago, with a very reliable 675bhp during races.
Maybe not so good for cruising at 70 tho ;-)
|
>> well as a recent convert back to BMW's finest petrol engine, I have to say
>> I'll eat my hat if they bring out a decent 6 cylinder diesel that comes
>> anywhere close....Yum Yum,,,!
>>
I have to disagree (albeit as a fan of the N52 engine), I would contend that the N57 might make you reach for your edible hat even if it doesn't rev quite as freely (having the compressed rev range of a diesel). It delivers so much power and torque linearly whilst remaining sonorous across the rev range unlike 4 cylinder diesels (or petrols for that matter).
I have to admit that my opinion of small turbo-charged petrols changed with SWMBO's Golf 1.4TSi, it drove like a good 2.0L naturally aspirated engine. However I'm not sure that the economy was significantly better and I am still convinced that lightly stressed larger capacity (and powerful) engines deliver better real world economy than tax-dodgers. 1.6 TD large Volvos (or Fords or VWs) simply appal me.
So, this 1.0L Ford might be fine, fun even, however I expect that the real world economy will be more like that of the 1.6 normally aspirated engine it supplants, similarly I know that N52 engined BMWs are surprisingly economical (as well as pleasant) in everyday use.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 17 May 12 at 07:01
|
>> I have to admit that my opinion of small turbo-charged petrols changed with SWMBO's Golf
>> 1.4TSi, it drove like a good 2.0L naturally aspirated engine. However I'm not sure that
>> the economy was significantly better and I am still convinced that lightly stressed larger capacity
>> (and powerful) engines deliver better real world economy than tax-dodgers. 1.6 TD large Volvos (or
>> Fords or VWs) simply appal me.
>>
>> So, this 1.0L Ford might be fine, fun even, however I expect that the real
>> world economy will be more like that of the 1.6 normally aspirated engine it supplants,
>> similarly I know that N52 engined BMWs are surprisingly economical (as well as pleasant) in
>> everyday use.
>>
Have driven the original 1.4 TSI in a Golf (the one with both turbocharger and supercharger) and it was fun but not economical, I imagine it could be if driven carefully.
Have driven the 1.6 Diesel Passat - No torque and constand gearchanges without the claimed economy. I currently have a 1.9 Diesel Octavia with 105HP which is way better than the Passat.
They are tax dodgers and are designed to get low figures on the test but are unlikely to achieve these figures in real life.
Perhaps it is time for the EU to re-define the test and give the manufacturers a new challenge, afgter all if you can have a 700+ BHP Porche which achieves 70g CO2 on the EU test there must be something wrong with the test. Yes I know it is a hybrid but there is still something wrong with the test if it can achieve 70mpg.
|
>> The instant fuel consumption display
>> on my car varies between 19mpg and 99mpg and is controlled by my right foot.
I bet you only get 99 mpg on the overrun.
|
I still think the engine needs to proof itself before I would consider one though. If they do turn out to be reliable then it is brilliant really.
As proven by the FIAT multiair engines these stupidly small engines are not always great for MPG but are very smooth and light weight and of course emissions. I have to be a whopping to tax my antique 8v engine and to be honest it hurts a lot. I had to sleep rough to be able to afford this years car tax. * sarcasm over*.
But if the engine does turn out to be much cheaper to run than say the old 1.6 then this new Focus is going to seriously hurt sales of the Astra etc.
|
We've currently got a 3cyl 1.1 Mitsubishi Colt in the family and it's a lovely little engine - likes to be revved; the MIVEC variable valve system doesn't come in until about 3250RPM. I guess due to the gearing, it seems more economical in urban use than on the motorway. It suffers a bit from piston-slap in very cold weather.
We also had VAG's 3cyl 1.2 in a SEAT Ibiza - that wasn't as nice an engine but I think it was the installation that was poor, it was very juddery around town, but again, fine when given its head. Economy was generally poor.
re the VW 1.4 TSi engine - I've heard VW are having all sorts of problems with excessive oil consumption with that engine.
Last edited by: Bill Payer on Thu 17 May 12 at 08:38
|
I drove a 3 cyl Colt recently while I was having my Lancer serviced by a pain dealer.
Whereas I find the Lancer turns me into a sedate mimser, I was gunning the Colt all the way from Falmouth to my home & back again in the same manner, so, consequently the MPG was nothing short of abysmal :)
Cars do that to me - when I had my Toyota Supra, I used to drive it everywhere like Hunt the Shunt :}
|
>> >> The instant fuel consumption display
>> >> on my car varies between 19mpg and 99mpg and is controlled by my right
>> foot.
>>
>> I bet you only get 99 mpg on the overrun.
>>
Yes, it proves that the fuel shut off works. :-)
All this economy / performance waffle can't get round the laws of physics, you need x amount of fuel to shift a lump of metal.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 17 May 12 at 09:17
|
>> All this economy / performance waffle can't get round the laws of physics, you need
>> x amount of fuel to shift a lump of metal.
And the faster / quicker you want to do it, uses more fuel.
|
|
Certainly true of my car. With care it'll exceed 50 mpg. When hurrying a bit, ( you know, in, er, um, Germany for example...) it can drop as low as 35 mpg.
|
|
yep, even the little C2VTS Diesel can drink the stuff if you boot it, its short dumpy shape whilst making it light and relatively frugal for dodging about considering the way it shifts, doesn't help when speeds increase, run it at 70 and 60+mpg constant, push it up to 80 and that drops below 50mpg, from mpg's posted here it's no better on fuel than the huge and heavy C5 with the same lump, and seemingly heavier on fuel in general use.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 17 May 12 at 09:39
|
|
On particularly boring journeys on the M3 between Winchester and Amazingstoke I set the CC at 60 and switch to instantaneous fuel consumption. On level road a pretty steady 50 mpg is achieved, falls to 30 or below on moderate inclines and around 60 downhill. Lowest i've seen displayed is 7mpg when putting foot down hard. This is on a early 90s design 2.0 16v 130 bhp (when it left the factory anyway).
|
>> Lowest i've seen displayed is 7mpg when putting foot down hard. This is on a
>> early 90s design 2.0 16v 130 bhp (when it left the factory anyway).
Scariest I've seen was a Granada 2.8i Ghia auto, when cold, which showed 3 mpg under full throttle acceleration, up a hill. In close second was an Escort RS Turbo with 4 mpg.
The old Ford 2.8i V6 was a proper gas guzzler, particularly with an auto box. Rarely bettered 20 mpg average, with mid teens if driven hard. And all this for just 150 bhp. :-) Sounded good though.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 17 May 12 at 21:06
|
>> The old Ford 2.8i V6 was a proper gas guzzler, particularly with an auto box.
>> Rarely bettered 20 mpg average, with mid teens if driven hard. And all this for
>> just 150 bhp. :-) Sounded good though.
>>
When I was 17-18 my then girlfriend's dad was sales director at a Ford dealership and so always drove a top of the range Granada 2.8, and I was sometimes trusted with the keys. Well, it would have been rude not to ....
|
>> Well, it would have been rude not to ....
>>
Car or daughter ?
|
"All this economy / performance waffle can't get round the laws of physics, you need x amount of fuel to shift a lump of metal."
But isn't the theoretical distance that piece of metal can be carried by a given amount of fuel much greater than any car achieves in practice? If that is so there would seem to be a considerable scope for greater economy.
|
If that is so there would seem to be a considerable scope for greater economy.
>>
I suppose thats where Hybrids come into their own, recovering the losses as the vehicle slows, storing it and re-using at least some of the loss to get back to previous speed.
|
I would really like to have a go in one of these. Sounds like a cracking engine. I wouldn't be too concerned about longevity either. Daihatsu had a 1.0 turbo 3 pot with 100 bhp 25 years ago, and those engines proved themselves reliable if looked after.
I think the point with models like the Ecoboost, BMW EfficientDynamics et al is that they give you a choice of performance or economy depending on your mood and driving style. The only issue I have with them is that to achieve the combined figure is either impossible, or only achievable with borderline dangerously gentle driving, and in perfect traffic conditions. The word Combined is misleading, as it implies mixed driving conditions, and therefore realistically achievable.
These are of course the fault of the test process, and the manufacturers raising expectations unrealistically rather than the technology in the engines themselves.
My 320d ED does low 50's mpg which is disappointing in the light of the official figure, but would have been the stuff of dreams for a 163 bhp 5 seater saloon car not that long ago.
|
@gordonbennet: yes some interesting progress on flywheels too for storing energy. Great article in last week's autocar.
@DP WhatCar and former leader are doing a thing on "real world" economy as the EU figures (which car companies must use) are just so much BS really and have no relation to real world driving conditions.
|
>>"real world" economy
Sadly, it's half baked nonsense, and the figures obtained by this mass participation don't mean much. How can a car being used, in, say, up and down the hills in the lake district be compared with one almost freewheeling around the fens? How can the mpg figures obtained by people of different driving styles be compared? etc, etc. The sensible approach is to remove all of these variables via a standard test.
Flywheels can only provide transient power, as the amount of energy they can store is rather meagre.
Regenerative braking is a technology which does contribute to efficiency, but, its effect is frequently overstated. There is only sufficient energy available for regenerative braking if the vehicle is heavy to begin with, and therefore is already wasting lots of energy when it is being accelerated. The better approach is to aim for lightweight design to begin with - which is why I find this 1.0 litre engine so exciting - and why I think that Ford is on the right track, as you might expect.
|
>> >>"real world" economy
>>
>> Sadly, it's half baked nonsense, and the figures obtained by this mass participation don't mean much. How can a car being used, in, say, up and down the hills in
>> the lake district be compared with one almost freewheeling around the fens? How can the
>> mpg figures obtained by people of different driving styles be compared? etc, etc.
Because people will do just that, compare their style of driving to those tested and look at what the likelyhood of them matching it is. Ie if the test is freewheeling around the fens and they do a similar type of driving, that is much likely to tell them something than some test than no-one has ever come close to matching and that most people think is nonsense.
|
>>..............than some test than no-one has ever come close to
>> matching and that most people think is nonsense.
>>
>>
Judging by the amount of complaints you see on motoring forums a surprising number of people must believe the official figures.
|
>>people must believe the official figures.
There is no act of faith required. The figures are quite true.
The problem comes when people mis-interpret the figures, and think that the figures should compare with how they happen to drive their car.
|
>>most people think is nonsense.
They think badly.
The purpose of the official test cycles isn't to provide something that people can replicate, or to represent their driving, it is simply to provide a STANDARD which allows cars to be compared.
|
>> >>most people think is nonsense.
>>
>> They think badly.
>>
>> The purpose of the official test cycles isn't to provide something that people can replicate,
>> or to represent their driving, it is simply to provide a STANDARD which allows cars
>> to be compared.
>>
>>
A test they think is meaningless, the test is there to inform people, most people aren't car designers. So it might make perfect sense to them, but the aim is layman customers. It in it's current format doesn't inform people (on the whole).
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 17 May 12 at 12:21
|
Yes, I think the official test results would be better if they were presented like energy ratings, A, B, C, .... rather than presenting a number.
However, the point remains that the tests are properly specified and conducted. They do make a good job of removing spurious variable effects while capturing the performance and economy aspects of the vehicle.
It might be more fruitful to debate the definition of the test cycles. One possibility that technology now allows would be the use of on vehicle telemtry to provide real usage data to inform the development of new driving cycles representing contemporary traffic and driving conditions.
|
I know that they're scientifically tested all bench marked and so, I'm sure they perfectly compared, but the problem is that it's not performing it's function and giving people what they want ie a number they can relate to outside of a lab.
I agree the test cycle would do well to be changed, but then that brings us to the change in co2 figures that I'm sure it would bring. I'm not sure how much people would want that, particularly those that have cars provided by their employer...
|
>>giving people what they want
In this case, the people cannot be given what they want, because, what they want is neither sensible or possible.
Considering both the complexities of cars AND the complexities of traffic, the complication of weather conditions and varying terrain, there are simply too many variables which make anything but strictly controlled tests utterly meaningless - which is where we began this discussion.
|
|
How about a constant speed test at 30, 50, and 70mph ?
|
>>How about a constant speed test at 30, 50, and 70mph ?
Why?, what advantage would that give us?
I can think of one immediate disadvantage - manufacturers would find it very easy to tweak vehicles to be particularly efficient at these test speeds.
|
>> >>How about a constant speed test at 30, 50, and 70mph ?
>>
>> Why?, what advantage would that give us?
>>
>> I can think of one immediate disadvantage - manufacturers would find it very easy to
>> tweak vehicles to be particularly efficient at these test speeds.
>>
>>
At least the punters might be able to match them on a warm day and a flat road. :-)
|
|
Also weight car full of people and luggage more fuel use.
|
>> In this case, the people cannot be given what they want, because, what they want
>> is neither sensible or possible.
>>
Well I'd say it was, just maybe not through scientific tests. Why else do we have loads of online chat about mpg if the tests are so good? People would rather look online see someone with a similar driving pattern to them and use that. If it's not possible in the lab, they may well get rid and just keep them for designers and inside the industry.
>> Considering both the complexities of cars AND the complexities of traffic, the complication of weather
>> conditions and varying terrain, there are simply too many variables which make anything but strictly controlled tests utterly meaningless - which is where we began this discussion.
We are indeed, whether right wrong or somewhere in between, most punters reckon the same of the tests, utterly meaningless. I think some thought needs to go into what is the function of the figures, why are they there, what do the industry hope to do with them and are they of any use to buyers?
|
>>Why else do we have loads of online chat about mpg if the tests are so good?
Could it be that mpg is so variable, with so many contributing factors?
As we've also discussed another problem with asking people to report their mpg figures is that a significant number of these people will be mis-reporting their figures. Some will be rounding up a bit to provide bragging rights, some will be simply reading the fiction provided by the car's computer, some will be reporting results from one tankful, and others might be reporting results from long term monitoring.
Even those who follow the rigour of recording every tankful will find a large scatter in their results.
>>just maybe not through scientific tests
If the tests are not scientific, then, I would argue that they don't deserve to be called tests, and they certainly do not deserve to be taken seriously.
|
I'd say a lot of it is to try and find out what their is achievable of in relation to mpg, why like I said the figures mean nothing to them.
In my previous post, possibly they need review as to what the purpose is of the numbers produced.
|
|
Be nice if prices went down again.We wouldn't be so hung up about mpg.
|
Official consumption figures are useful, but only as a comparison between different models, no meaningful test can differentiate between different driving styles and conditions.
Invariably i find knocking 10 to 20% from the official combined gives a realistic figure for general use, but keep in mind that hard driving can half it with any vehicle.
We can all if we drive with restraint and in the right circumstances almost match the official figures, but in practice i know i can't do that for long, its simply too frustrating, so applying a little common sense combined with a knowledge of ones own driving style and traffic/routes encountered can give a fair indictaion of what consumption will be in practice.
|
To give an example, one hilly cross country route i take regularly in a Scania at full weight sees me departing almost every roundabout and junction on a long incline so the engine is always under load, the truck returns around 5mpg by the time i've returned the same route empty, so its loaded consumption is probably around 4mpg or less....i see 2.2 mpg on the instant readout for much of the loaded journey and 9 to 12 mpg on the return leg.
I've driven same engined Scania with a light load via flattish motorway and into London via Enfield so flat road continuous running return a genuine 15mpg overall.
How could these variables be incorparated into a valid easily understood chart for buyers, it can't.
|
|
It's marketing if it looks good it must be.These figures are meaningless the manufacturer knows this I think.>;)
|
Regarding MPG figures, this is where HJ's real world mpg results might be more informative to Joe Public but only providing lots of people enter their figures, because the results of for example 3 drivers of Peugeot 307's driving along Bournemouth sea front at 27mph isnt realistic. Its too small a sample.
Lab tests of fuel consumption is a bit like drug companies testing a new headache tablet on 30 people in clinical trials. They might get enough results to satisfy NICE but we all know some tablets work better for some and not for others. Too many variables as NC says.
Getting back to the actual car, I'd buy one but not at Ford's current overblown prices.
Last edited by: TheManWithNoName on Thu 17 May 12 at 13:22
|
|
What might be interesting would be for makers to have to supply the metred instant consumption at max bhp in top gear as well as the other figures, therefore providing comparison of worse case scenario, that would ne an interesting figure, especially with turbo Diesels, many of which prior to DPFs dumped clouds of black smoke during such events.
|
I calculate my car's fuel consumption meticulously. I calculate the average for each month and then the overall average since I bought the car. With every car I've had I've been able to get an overall average equal to, or better than, the official combined figure. I don't choose cars on the basis of good fuel economy, I drive spiritedly, and I'm not obsessed with getting good fuel economy. I just keep the data out of interest ~ you could say that recording data is one of my hobbies. I did it for 40 years as part of my job and I've never got out of the habit. Finally, I don't plan to buy any car, Ford or otherwise, which only has a measly 1 litre engine!
Make what you will out of all of that lot!
|
>> Finally, I don't plan to buy any car, Ford or otherwise, which
>> only has a measly 1 litre engine!
>>
X2
|
>> >> Finally, I don't plan to buy any car, Ford or otherwise, which
>> >> only has a measly 1 litre engine!
>> >>
>>
>> X2
>>
Ahh, so size matters does it gents? What is it about a small engine that puts you off so vehemently. Surely if it performs well, as the many reports suggests, then size is irrelevant.
|
For once I agree with the Americans, "There is no substitute for cubic inches".
Unfortunately it has to be tempered by cost the of fuel (tax) in Europe.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 17 May 12 at 14:11
|
>>"There is no substitute for cubic inches".
Except when the 1 litre outperforms the 1.4 and performs similarly to the 1.6!
|
>> >>"There is no substitute for cubic inches".
>>
>> Except when the 1 litre outperforms the 1.4 and performs similarly to the 1.6!
The torque output of an engine is a function of the load on the top of the pistons. I prefer that the load on the top of my car's pistons is relatively low.
|
>>I prefer that the load on the top of my car's pistons is relatively low.
As per my question on where to draw the line, what are you comparing the load on the pistons with? Is 1000 N OK?, or is your limit 800 N?
|
>> For once I agree with the Americans, "There is no substitute for cubic inches".
I agree as well.
>> Unfortunately it has to be tempered by cost the of fuel (tax) in Europe.
But not tempered obsessively though.
|
>> Ahh, so size matters does it gents? What is it about a small engine that
>> puts you off so vehemently. Surely if it performs well, as the many reports suggests,
>> then size is irrelevant.
The relevance to me is that I prefer a lightly stressed 2 litre to a highly stressed 1 litre. Given the choice I'd even prefer a low-revving 8 valve engine to a high-revving 16 valve engine.
|
>>The relevance to me is that I prefer a lightly stressed 2 litre to a highly stressed 1 litre.
Why? What practical purpose?
Where do you draw the line? A lazy 4 litre engine, a barely ticking over 8 litre engine?
|
|
I don't want a car that has a teenagers moped engine and sounds like an angry hornet. :-)
|
>> I don't want a car that has a teenagers moped engine and sounds like an
>> angry hornet. :-)
>>
My thoughts exactly.
|
The point is that we all prefer what we are used to, or what we would like to be used to. Lolloping woffling large V8s make a good noise and are relaxing. But they are heavy and thirsty, although not as thirsty as they used to be.
I'm pretty sure that the perception is that these small forced-induction petrol engines will sound busy and may not be all that durable. And there is something odd, counter-intuitive, about the idea of a largish car propelled (however convincingly) by one of these tiddler-on-steroids power plants. I know if I was in the market for a sensible car with that sort of engine I would want the car to be small too. Apart from anything else it would perform better like that.
A forerunner of these 1-litre and smaller engines was something from VW a couple of years ago, a 1400 cc engine with a supercharger and a turbocharger. The two devices together took up a lot of space and were quite heavy, I seem to remember. But the thing was supposed to go very well.
|
>> Where do you draw the line? A lazy 4 litre engine, a barely ticking over
>> 8 litre engine?
Having chosen the model of car, I then look to see which variant I can afford and what the biggest engine available in it is that I can afford. I doubt if you could get a 4 litre or 8 litre engine into a Focus.
|
Given the choice I'd even prefer a low-revving 8 valve engine to a high-revving 16 valve engine.
>>
Thats probably a pointer as to how you get good overall fuel consumption, using the lower speed torque to maintain constant smooth progress.
I too prefer a larger easier running engine, but i'm a lazy driver, if i don't have a proper auto i want nay need an engine capable of lugging down to almost stall speed without the slightest complaint, cannot abide having to play a gearbox constantly with un underpowered engine, and i hate having to thrash an engine to make decent pace.
In reality fuel costs are only going one way.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 17 May 12 at 14:19
|
Lifted from Car Magazine...
Enough tech: how does it drive?
The first thing you notice is a smoothness to make Gillette envious: this engine is barely perceptible at idle. And forget Charles Hawtrey, the 1.0-litre pulls like Charles Atlas, given its displacement. At 20mph in third or 30mph in fourth with barely 1500 revs on the clock, the Ecoboost briefly shudders like a shrug of the shoulders before the engine starts pumping and the acceleration starts building. Ford quotes 11.3secs for the sprint from standstill to 62mph in the 123bhp version we drove, which is coupled to a no-nonsense six-speed manual gearbox. Each gear pulls cleanly to the 6400rpm redline, and the engine really gets on song above 3000 revs, with the fluttery ringing of a three-cylinder engine. If anything the Focus’s exceptional mechanical refinement – you feel hermetically sealed inside – over-suppresses the engine’s wonderful note.
nuff said
|
>> Lifted from Car Magazine...
>>
>> given its displacement.
>> nuff said
>>
Yes, nuff said.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 17 May 12 at 14:23
|
Many folk probably struggled when the horse and cart gave way to the
internal combustion engined a-u-t-o-m-o-b-i-l-e, so I can accept some people's reluctance to embrace new technology.
;-)
|
>> so I can accept some people's reluctance to embrace new technology.
I'm all for new technology if it's better than the old technology, but in this case it doesn't appear to be so.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Thu 17 May 12 at 14:43
|
|
It sounds like this is 1-2 secs slower to 60 than my ancient 2.0, but in terms of driving characteristics it sounds great. I'd be more than happy to swap, if anyone's offering... :)
|
>> Ford quotes 11.3secs for the sprint from standstill
>> to 62mph in the 123bhp version we drove,
Ford quotes 9.3 seconds for my (9 years old!) 130 PS 2 litre.
>> which is coupled to a no-nonsense six-speed
>> manual gearbox.
It's bad enough having to keep stirring the gear lever of a 5-speed gearbox, let alone a 6-speed gearbox.
>> Each gear pulls cleanly to the 6400rpm redline,
I don't want to keep thrashing my engine up to 6400 RPM.
>> and the engine really gets
>> on song above 3000 revs,
With my 2 litre I don't need to (and rarely do) go above 3000 RPM.
>> you feel hermetically sealed inside ........
I don't want to feel hermetically sealed inside. I like a bit of fresh air. I just wish my car had a sunroof, but it was second-hand and the previous owner didn't specify a sunroof.
|
To Old Navy and L'escargot
Go and drive the 125 bhp version and then come back and post about lack of torque and a noise like a hornet. It actually sounds (and feels very nearly as smooth as) a small BMW straight six and I am not joking It will also pull 40 mph in 6th so you don't need to stir the box at all. 70 is a mere 2500 rpm and the engine is silent at that speed. Once can't make a judgment until one has driven the car.
Last edited by: mattbod on Thu 17 May 12 at 14:53
|
>> To Old Navy and L'escargot
>>
>> Go and drive the 125 bhp version and then come back and post about lack
>> of torque and a noise like a hornet. It actually sounds (and feels very nearly
>> as smooth as) a small BMW straight six and I am not joking It will
>> also pull 40 mph in 6th so you don't need to stir the box at
>> all. 70 is a mere 2500 rpm and the engine is silent at that speed.
>> Once can't make a judgment until one has driven the car.
>>
See my post timed at 14:12.
|
|
May as well get used to it, gentlemen. CO2 based taxation is only heading in one direction, and manufacturers will adapt their product range to suit the demand this creates. Give it 10 years, and I reckon anything with a 2.0 engine will have the same customer demand / resale value / punitive taxation as a car with a 4.0 engine today.
|
>> Give it 10 years, and I reckon anything with a 2.0 engine will have the
>> same customer demand / resale value / punitive taxation as a car with a 4.0
>> engine today.
>>
I've had my current car 9 years and it's now worth very little, so under those circumstances resale value isn't important to me. Taxation is but a small proportion of the total cost of running a car, so again I don't worry about it.
|
Taxation is but a small proportion of the total cost of running a car...
Really? At 80p a litre?
|
|
My car has no DMF or timing belt, it was also one of the last built without a DPF. If I keep it untill it is ten years old, a lawnmower engined supermini will see out my driving days. But who knows, there might just be a 3 liter car unwanted at the back of a used car lot which will be ideal for my (by then) low mileage. :-)
|
@ L'escargot
I did see your post but the number of valves and cams don't necessarily make a difference but how an engine is tuned. The Peugeot 106 Rallye had a 1.3 sohc 8 valve and nothing happens below 3500 rpm.
The Ecoboost is said to last just as long as any other Ford engine and honestly it is an extremely flexible little thing. It may be dohc 12 valve but it is an undersquare engine not a short stroke screamer.
Go drive as it will be interesting to have a post drive report from the doubters as you are the sort Ford needs to win over.
@OldNavy: If you do few miles go get a big v6: Skoda Supurb 3.6 V6 a hell of a lot of car for the money as nobody wants them due to £400 year tax and a big thirst.
Last edited by: mattbod on Thu 17 May 12 at 15:18
|
|
What is the point having a powerfull car and the speed limit is 70mph.You do a few miles at about 25 mpg.and £4oo tax.
|
|
190 in the 3 Series ! And you wouldn't want much more power than that - a second quicker than a GTi to 60...and 35mpg.
|
>> 190 in the 3 Series ! And you wouldn't want much more power than that
>> - a second quicker than a GTi to 60...and 35mpg.
>>
I thought the post 2008 E90 325i had 215PS ? Anyhow, I think 245PS and close-on 400lbft is 'adequate' ;-)
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 17 May 12 at 17:10
|
|
The 190 is the VED -( it has 215 very discrete horses)
|
...it has 215 very discrete horses.
Must be hugely inconvenient, RP. Couldn't you have asked for them to be continuous?
};---)
|
>> @ L'escargot
>>
>> I did see your post but the number of valves and cams don't necessarily make
>> a difference but how an engine is tuned. The Peugeot 106 Rallye had a 1.3
>> sohc 8 valve and nothing happens below 3500 rpm.
>>
>> The Ecoboost is said to last just as long as any other Ford engine and
>> honestly it is an extremely flexible little thing. It may be dohc 12 valve but
>> it is an undersquare engine not a short stroke screamer.
>>
>> Go drive as it will be interesting to have a post drive report from the
>> doubters as you are the sort Ford needs to win over.
>>
>>
>> @OldNavy: If you do few miles go get a big v6: Skoda Supurb 3.6 V6
>> a hell of a lot of car for the money as nobody wants them due
>> to £400 year tax and a big thirst.
>>
Old Navy, they'll be telling us next that the cigarettes they smoke have filter tips!
|
|
Clearly clever new technology scares some on here so the rest of us will just have to accept that and treat them the same way as those sceptics who said a coal powered steamship couldn't transport itself across the Atlantic. Thank goodness there are some very clever engineers out there who are prepared to design, test and manufacture such engines, otherwise we'd still be driving cars with tillers and a man in front with a red flag!
|
>Clearly clever new technology scares some on here..
Since when has turbocharging and direct injection been "new technology"?
|
>> >Clearly clever new technology scares some on here..
>>
>> Since when has turbocharging and direct injection been "new technology"?
>>
Its not, they are just tax dodger specials.
|
>> Old Navy, they'll be telling us next that the cigarettes they smoke have filter tips!
>>
These tree huggers obviously don't get out much. Travel and see how other countries live, travel, and don't give a stuff for the environment. Our little island can't save the world on our own. My interest is in saving myself a few bob within reason, a well insulated house with an efficient boiler but that is about as far as I am prepared to go. I still enjoy driving and that does not include highly stressed engines that have to be revved to within an inch of their lives to get anywhere rapidly and safely.
|
>> engines that have to be revved to within an inch of their lives to get anywhere rapidly and safely.
But in 125 PS guise, the 1.0 ecoboost makes 12% more torque than the 2.0 petrol at less than a third of the revs.
It's not a recipe for needing to be revved. If anything, it's the bigger engine you'd need to thrash more to deliver the same result.
For me the appeal of this engine has nothing to do with the environment. It's a small, light engine (with the resulting handling / dynamic benefits) which sounds like it's good to drive. For those reasons alone, it's interesting.
|
...It's a small, light engine (with the resulting handling / dynamic benefits)...
Spot on, both my diesel Focuses felt nose heavy.
The CC3 is better balanced with the roof down - lots of weight at both ends.
|
Oh well you will never be able to convince everyone! Here is the keynote on the engine. The engineer is no Steve Jobs for charisma but he says a lot on the engine.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t908YJRebw&feature=related
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t908YJRebw&feature=related
I can't get obsessed about economy or emissions. I want a car that's pleasant to drive and, amongst other things, that means having to make as few gear changes as possible. My 2 litre 8-valve 306 XSi was far more pleasant to drive than my 2 litre 16-valve Focus because it was much more tractable and flexible.
|
>>My 2 litre 8-valve 306 XSi was far more pleasant to drive than my 2 litre 16-valve Focus because it was much more tractable and flexible.
Perhaps that's more a result of a tightening of emissions? My old KIA's very tractable, but it's got the filthiest (albeit legal) exhaust the MOT tester sees each year.
|
>> But in 125 PS guise, the 1.0 ecoboost makes 12% more torque than the 2.0
>> petrol at less than a third of the revs.
The thing which concerns me is that for the same engine output torque the 1 litre engine will have a similar force on smaller pistons compared with the 2 litre engine, and that can't be good for durability.
Incidentally, it's the tractive effort at the point at which the tyres contact the ground (and which depends on the gearing), not the engine output torque, which is the thing that moves the car along.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 18 May 12 at 07:50
|
...will have a similar force on smaller pistons compared...
I lie awake each night worrying of little else.
|
>> I lie awake each night worrying of little else.
A cup of Horlicks just before bedtime would help you to sleep better.
|
>> The thing which concerns me is that for the same engine output torque the 1
>> litre engine will have a similar force on smaller pistons compared with the 2 litre
>> engine, and that can't be good for durability
If the pistons, connecting rods and crankshaft are of a suitable specification to cope with these forces, (and it is hard to imagine they wouldn't be) reliability should not be a concern. The engine will have undergone significant durability testing, and components would have been specced very carefully..
I suspect it will be more sensitive than a lighter stressed engine to missed / skimped servicing, which may prove interesting later on as the cars age. But, given recommended servicing and the basic mechanical sympathy required for all engines to remain problem free, I don't see why this wouldn't rack up six figure mileages without any trouble.
|
>> It's a small, light engine
Should be interesting when the tuners get their hands on them and start dropping them in Kas and the like...
|
>> It's not a recipe for needing to be revved.
So why has it been necessary to increase the number of gears to six? I don't want to have to be forever stirring the gear lever.
|
>> So why has it been necessary to increase the number of gears to six?
Our old Leon FR with the 200bhp 2.0 turbo engine had a fantastic spread of torque, and it definitely didn't need 6 gears. Marketing?
Last edited by: Focus on Fri 18 May 12 at 09:11
|
6 is OK so long as top is an overdrive of some sort, a ratio higher than top on a 5 speed..
Gearing is where some cars fall down, i suppose its economies of scale.
Both our cars having the larger engines for each model could easily have taken much higher top gear ratios, thats been the case in many cars i've owned, it only seems to be later Diesels that are provided with very high top ratios, presumably these are indeed overdriven 6ths?
The highest geared car i've ever been in was a 1969 (H reg anyway) Jag XJ6 4.2 manual with overdrive, ISTR that was doing 2000rpm at 120mph almost silently...M6 to M1 flyover curve is quite sharp when you're a passenger at that speed.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Fri 18 May 12 at 09:29
|
|
The diesel Ceed has overdriven 4th, 5th and 6th gears with the biggest gap between 5th and 6th. The six speed box replaced the five speed at the 2010 facelift, and in the six speed box 5th is marginally lower but 6th is only usable above 50mph, 2,000rpm at 70mph.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 18 May 12 at 09:39
|
Thats a good 6 speed box Navy, just as one should be IMO.
|
A highgear for cruising makes much more sense with a petrol engine.
By reducing the engine speed at cruise, the power available from the engine more closely matches the road load power required to propell the vehicle. This means that the throttle will be further open, thus reducing pumping losses, and bringing the engine closer to its optimum operating point, i.e., somewhere close to the engine speed for maximum torque, and somewhere near 3/4 of maximum load.
The flip side of the engine's power being more closely matched with the road load power is there is little in reserve for acceleration or hill climbing.
|
I agree there.
I drove a Vectra 1.8L auto and that was lovely on the flat sitting at 70mph with 1,700rpm but when a hill came up it couldn't even keep the same speed without a kick down !
Still surprisingly good on fuel on the motorway but useless around town.
|
|
Thats why people (like me) prefer diesels, at 70mph in 6th, and at 2,000rpm the engine is in the peak torque band and still has a good reserve to accelerate or climb hills without changing down a gear.
|
But a lot of the torque characteristics we turbodiesel drivers enjoy come not from the diesel part but from the turbo. Saab's light-pressure turbo in the 1990s 9-3 and 9-5 was a good, early example - easy to drive at moderate to high speeds, with minimal gearchanging even in changing traffic conditions.
These modern, small turbo engines are an extension of the same idea into a smaller size bracket. I'll certainly be looking at them if we're looking at a Focus-size car to replace the Volvo next year; a 2.0 NA petrol (or a DPF TD for that matter) would be an absurdity for the use we'd be putting it to.
|
I've not been following this thread as I'm not into lawn mower engines but, I came across this article with video:
www.smmt.co.uk/2011/11/ford-announces-launch-of-high-tech-uk-developed-1-0-litre-ecoboost-engine/
|
I'm very interested in this engine, as a possible future prospect. We had a new shape Focus 1.6 as a courtesy car for a month and it was excellent in every regard. Hard to fault. Even that averaged well over 40 mpg, running around. From what I've read, the economy (50 mpg ish) is there if you want it, and it has a decent turn of speed as well. It really seems to be a game changer. If I analyse my motoring needs, most of the time I am either in traffic, or in a 40, 50 or 60 mph zone, hence there isn't much need for a large capacity, high power engines, which surely can't be as efficient pottering about as a small unit. The problem with a smaller engine is when venturing out onto fast motorways, where performance and refinement usually suffers, but apparently this 1.0 Focus is quite at home there as well. If it's reliable, it would suit me fine.
|
I'll be interested to see how it lasts, particularly when it gets to 100k or more, which many buyers won't worry about, but others will.
Especially interested to see if the turbos can cope with thousands of heating up and cooling down cyles, as many of these cars will be bought by people who no longer trust modern Diesels to cope with stop start local runs.
Its OK them saying it'll see 150k no bother, they would say that.
|
I still don't see why a small engine should be any less durable than anything else. If they're used for short, urban runs, as GB suggests, the turbo will hardly come into play anyway. And isn't much of the supposed durability of big engines more to do with them tending to come in big, expensive cars that owners have more inclination and resources to look after properly? A neglected V8 will fall apart just as quickly as a neglected 1.0.
There's a lot of rationalizing going on in this thread: reaching an emotional conclusion and then trying to force the facts to fit it. If you don't want a small engine (and I'm addressing all the rationalizers here, not anyone in particular) you won't be compelled to have one, but I suspect you may be the one that loses out.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Sun 20 May 12 at 16:54
|
|
Turbos are well proven technology. Absolutely nothing to fear in terms of reliability from forced induction.
|
>> Turbos are well proven technology.
Proven to fail. How many last past 80k miles?
|
>> >> Turbos are well proven technology.
>>
>> Proven to fail. How many last past 80k miles?
>>
Mine never got that far - failed at 77K!
As the septics use to say "Close, but no cigar".
|
>> >> Turbos are well proven technology.
>> Proven to fail. How many last past 80k miles?
Que? Plenty turbo diesel engines do twice that before some other issue sees the vehicle off. Or is this a petrol turbo issue??
|
|
Now that diesel turbos are subjected to higher temperatures during DPF burn off maybe they will have petrol turbo like durability.
|
|
Hmmm, well, I've never had a turbo failure and my cars tend to do rather more than 80k miles. Rather a lot more actually.
|
|
how many of them had turbos?
|
and the espace never chewed its turbo?
|
|
The one thing it didn't ironically enough !
|
|
Ironically it must be the only one that didn't then.
|
Every car I've 'owned' since '96 (an A4 1.8T) has also had a turbo, though most have been diesel. The 2 petrol 1.8Ts made it to 100k miles with no trouble, and I expect they carried on long after that. Likewise a couple of VAG 1.9TDIs also hit the 100k mark in my 'care', again without issue.
Since then I've changed cars more frequently, but I have no reason to suspect that they wouldn't have made it passed 100k miles. I fully expect our A4 2.0T to be absolutely fine, though at 4 years / 50k miles it has some way to go. Thinking about it, I don't actually know anyone who has had a turbo failure...
|
yes you do, its very common - think harder.
Check the posts on here even.
|
>> yes you do, its very common - think harder.
>>
>> Check the posts on here even.
>>
Of course I've heard of it, but I personally do not know anyone who's actually had a turbo failure (either petrol or diesel). I have no doubt they do fail, but I don't think its that common, and it certainly wouldn't put me off spending my own money on one. In fact, both our cars have turbos - one petrol and one diesel.
|
|
I can't claim never to have heard of it. Pal of mine had bother with the turbo on his 3 series diesel a few years back. I think he had 2 new ones on the same car but that's the only instance I've been personally aware of. Like I say, no troubles on my cars. The Espace mainly just lunched injectors or had random electrical hissy fits.
|
>>Pal of mine had bother with the turbo on his 3 series
Was it green?
;>)
|
|
His was silver. Kinda light grey y'know?
|
>> His was silver. Kinda light grey y'know?
>>
Would that be Greey?
|
|
I have never heard of anyone having major grief with a petrol turbo (I am on the Briskoda forum and never hear of issues with the petrol Octavia VRS: know loads of 1.8 T engines with 150K plus on original turbo even those that have been chipped). It always seems to be the Diesel cars that have turbo problems. Mine packed up at 35k and four years due to sticking vanes on the Variable Vane Turbo. This was covered under goodwill as Skoda ackowledged it was a duff turbo but many Diesel Turbos pack up at quite low miles. I do not know if this is because VGT are more delicate and prone to failure or because too many drivers pussy foot about and they become full of carbon and pack up. However I must say I would not be bothered about a simpler waste gate turbo in a petrol car.
|
>> Proven to fail. How many last past 80k miles?
My last two petrol turbos (Volvo and VW) both had over 150,000 miles on them when sold, and both were on their original turbos.
As above, I know of loads of VAG 1.8Ts with this kind of mileage on original units. There were Volvos on the owners club site with a quarter of a million miles on original turbos.
A mate of mine even had 130,000 miles from the turbo on his Escort RS Turbo in the mid 90's. When it eventually failed, it was rebuilt and refitted, and covered another 40,000 troublefree miles before the car was written off in an accident.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 21 May 12 at 10:04
|
>> As above, I know of loads of VAG 1.8Ts with this kind of mileage on
>> original units
And I can point you to loads that aren't. The turbo IS a weak spot. Like it or not.
|
This engine appeared in most of the VAG model line up over a period of more than a decade. Polo, Golf, Bora, Passat, Sharan, Touran, A3, A4, A6, TT, Ibiza, Leon, Toledo, Alhambra, Octavia, Superb etc etc. Many of these were sold in huge volumes all over the world, and many have been chipped and are producing significantly more power than standard. To find a number of turbo failures is not surprising.
A friend of mine is a VW technician, and he reckons apart from some issues on the early units with coils and throttle bodies, the 1.8T is bulletproof if serviced properly. The oft publicised oil sludging issue was particular to the US and is almost unheard of in Europe.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 21 May 12 at 10:53
|
If serviced properly, if simmered, if you use fully synth, if you use good quality petrol if if if
They are fragile. Always have been, always will be. The very nature of what they have to do, and where they sit in the exhaust system means this is an inevitable compromise.
The turbo is being FORCED upon makers b y legislation, its not there as a matter of preference.
|
I don't think a modern turbo is *that* fragile; certainly all of mine have been driven briskly much of the time, but they have all been serviced in line with manufacturers requirements and nothing has gone wrong.
I like petrol turbos - the torque characteristics of the 1.8T made it feel like a much larger engine, and the same is true of the 1.4T in my experience. Sure, they're more complex than a normally aspirated engine of the same capacity, but to get the same power / torque combination of a 1.8T would have needed a larger capacity 6. IIRC in the original A4 the 1.8T and 2.8V6 had very similar performance, though the V6 had slighlty more power and torque and a higher weight. I'm not sure a V6 24 valve DOHC engine is much less complex than a 1.8T, and certainly brings its own cost disadvantages, as well as increased weight. Lighter and more economical is better, regardless of legislation IMO
I do miss the sound of a straight 6 though... :-)
|
BBC article 'Smaller engines drive petrol revival' featuring the Focus:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18017591
|
|
I'll book a test drive and report back
|
|
Well-presented little article in F's BBC link. Even points out that you won't get 70mpg from your Twin Air if you drive it like a racing car.
|
5th Gear seemed to like it in their team test on Mon 15th Oct episode.
At first the likes of Tiff and Jason laughed at the 1.0 litre engine, but when they put it up against a 1.6 Focus in a drag race, the 1.0 turbo engined Focus beat it.
I know these team tests don't account for much, but it did highlight how good the 1.0 engine was. I think Tiff and co were surprised too.
Currently no vids up yet on youtube, but maybe later in the week.
|
|
Brother bought the new 1.0 Focus a week ago.He part exchanged his old Focus which he drove for fifteen years.The car got cruise control, brother said on a run with the Focus on the motorway he was happy with the turn of speed .Also economical engine .He paid about 17000 euro's.
|
The Focus was launched in 1998, Dutchie. It must have only seemed like fifteen years.
};---)
|
|
Thats what he told me Wildebeest can't trust me own brother.>:)
|
Ford Focus III - New Ford Focus 1.0 - Old Navy
