Ford Ecoboost engines

I'd wonder about long-term reliability, myself.

Not driven one yet, but I would have thought you would have to work the small engine hard in a relatively heavy car like the Focus - might lead to early wear and tear issues under such strain?

Neil

They claim the cam belt that runs in oil lasts the life of the car. It's unclear they will supply them as spares or if you will have buy a whole car to get a new cam belt.

To stop the exhaust manifold heat soaking the diddy turbo they water cooled it as well as the turbo. About 1/3 of the rad cooling capacity should be for the manifold and turbo.

[...]

AIUI the head and 'manifold' are cast as one unit, so I suppose that water cooling it is relatively easy.

It has a DMF which is claimed to be 'deliberately unbalanced', which sounds like marketing speak for 'doing the job of a balancer shaft'. I hope the DMF is more reliable than previous Ford attempts...

Chris

Many downsides - gutless off boost, nowhere near as economical as they claim in the real world, and over-stressed, leading to reliability issues.

VAG have had numerous issues with low capacity / high power charged lumps - the 1.4TSI, especially the twin-charged version, has a horrendous record.

Thing is, the 1.4TSI was no more economical than the old VAG 2.0 16v lump, but delivered only 10bhp more. I suspect the same will apply with the Ecoboost - is it actually any more economical than a 1.8 Duratec?

Apart from the subtle detail that turbos have been routinely water-cooled for about 30 years, turbo-and-manifold in a single casting is also far from unusual.

So Ford have jumped on the engine-downsizing bandwagon. Woo.

Who gives a toss about real-world figures, when it's the official figures (and the tax bonuses from 'em) that really sell new cars?

That's a good point - although there's a growing trend for people to look at 'real world mpg' websites as the official figures are worthless.

The people who set the VED bands and the people who set co.car tax bills aren't amongst those, though...

But usually it's just the bearing core that's cooled.

Reducing the exhaust temp means there is a reduction in exhaust energy to drive the turbo.

Mahle have been showing a twin turbo 192bhp 1.2L triple 160bhp/L for a few years now.

That's the case, AIUI. I have to say, the engine as a whole is an interesting design.

reported real world mpg of 40 is not very impressive, it would be better to get the 1.6 diesel, pay a bit of road tax and get 50 mpg. Probably better to drive too.

Well I'm looking at it in the Fiesta which seems to return a real world

47mpg. I drive a 2.0 TDCi Focus myself and do like diesels but this is mainly for the missus with me driving it at the weekends.

It will probably only be doing 8k a year so I think I'll stick to the petrol models. The 123bhp Ecoboost in the Fiesta seems to out perform the 1.6 diesel and the cost of diesel is still 5p/litre more for a modest mpg increase.

Then there's the DPF potential with a modern diesel as the wife's potteringmobile.

Real world economy from the 1.6 diesel won't be far off 40mpg, either...

not according to real world mpg. Why doesn't the OP hire one with the ecoboost and see if he/she likes it/what the economy is.

I've just tried the What Car? True MPG tool.

It calculates that I should have seen 38.6mpg from my old Golf TSI-160 - which is pretty much exactly what I saw, give or take a couple of MPG each way.

For the Focus 1.6TDCI, it reckons I'd see 41.7mpg (vs. claimed

67.3mpg)... for the Ecoboost, it reckons 35mpg vs claimed 56.8mpg.

For 8k miles / year, and considering the performance on offer, both cars seem vastly over-complex and liable to give expensive bills in later life.

I'm sure he'll test one extensively.

I was looking at 'real mpg' on Honest John's site. None of my own cars are very economical, but when you factor in the depreciation that a newer car would have, the existing ones work out far cheaper to run given the mileage they do, if I were doing huge distances then the situation would just about reverse.