Focus Ecoboost 1.0L I-3

Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean someone can safely merge onto an autobahn with that engine? No way! its impossible!.

LOL.

I think it would be fine. Tons of folks logged millions if not billions of miles on lesser 3 cyl engines in the not so distant past.

Its just the know-it-alls who cant seem to be safe without 6+ cyl and 300 hp that are dangerous.
 
Small V6 engines are a pretty good compromise here where low end grunt is more important than how fast you can go on the Autobahn. A Toyota V6 is gonna need a whole lot less TLC that one of these 1 liter buzzbombs. In the US we are not real kind to high output/liter engines. Folks buy them and then treat them like 302 Chevys. Change the oil once a year whether it needs it or not. SAAB sold a lot (for them anyway) of turbo models in the 80's, many ended up in the hands of devoted owners and ran a long time, others were owned by those who bought them because they were "PC" for a while, and treated them like any other car. No long and happy life there. Start it cold, rev it a few times, and jam it into gear. The SAAB 9000, in the end, had a V6 option. I am sure I would properly care for an "ecoboost" but I don't know about the rest of the folks in my neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see one in the Fusion. The 3 cyl is suppose to replace the 4 Cyl.

There is 1 brand new spark plug sitting by itself in my toolbox and it took me a minute to figure out why there was one. I used to have a 3 cyl Geo Metro and I had to buy spark plugs in packs of 4!
 
Its sounds great on paper.

The complicated economy car can carry upper end car maintenance bills in its elder years. Especially bleeding edge technology. A few expensive repairs buy a lot of fuel for a less complex slightly thirstier I4.

Then again the majority of car buyers though only keep them four years anyway.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Its sounds great on paper.

The complicated economy car can carry upper end car maintenance bills in its elder years. Especially bleeding edge technology. A few expensive repairs buy a lot of fuel for a less complex slightly thirstier I4.


The problem with this is people are under the presumption that they WILL have expensive repair bills. What I mean is, these cars are too new to tell whether they will prove reliable long-term or now. I'm sure I'll find out firsthand when my cruze gets older.
 
I think Saab had a good set up. Low pressure and slow spinning turbos, coupled with fair size engines, and they returned very good fuel economy for car size.

I think that those small displacement engines with high pressure, fast spinning turbos are a turn in the wrong direction as far as reliability and fuel economy goes. High boost operation will return poor economy.
I would rather see a 1.8-2.0L engine with a low pressure turbo.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Folks buy them and then treat them like 302 Chevys. Change the oil once a year whether it needs it or not.


The last time GM made a 302 was like 1970, LOL!
grin.gif


I assume you are thinking of a 350? Or Ford 302?
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Folks buy them and then treat them like 302 Chevys. Change the oil once a year whether it needs it or not.


The last time GM made a 302 was like 1970, LOL!
grin.gif


I assume you are thinking of a 350? Or Ford 302?


305 Ill bet...
 
I think with a 0-60 run of 12.5 seconds, people would get slammed in the rear by Semis trying to enter the highway. I would have to cut the driver some slack if they could not get up to the speed of traffic using the on ramp. I will break the tires lose in my Escort, and shift it a 7k to make 70-75mph if I need to. For ANYTHING more than a Smart, getting on the highway slower than the speed of traffic is [censored] dangerous and the BOZOs that pull this [censored] should be ticketed/lose points.
Dusty
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Its sounds great on paper.

The complicated economy car can carry upper end car maintenance bills in its elder years. Especially bleeding edge technology. A few expensive repairs buy a lot of fuel for a less complex slightly thirstier I4.


The problem with this is people are under the presumption that they WILL have expensive repair bills. What I mean is, these cars are too new to tell whether they will prove reliable long-term or now. I'm sure I'll find out firsthand when my cruze gets older.


Exactly. It seems like the concensus here is that the average American must be substantially dumber than the average European, who will run an engine like this, will sit in traffic, will encounter cold starts, and will fly off of a highway and shut down the endine at a rest stop just like here in the USA.

Id sure like to know what makes the USA so tough, unless it is that our owners are dumber and less caring than Europeans.

Otherwise there is no reason why the vehicles cant operate and last.

And if those folks have to change their paradigm of maintenance, the dollar is going to snag them one way or another...
 
Brings back memories of that I3 turbo from Suzuki... Forsa turbo!! Only had about 80hp, but drove spiritedly.
 
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
I think with a 0-60 run of 12.5 seconds, people would get slammed in the rear by Semis trying to enter the highway. I would have to cut the driver some slack if they could not get up to the speed of traffic using the on ramp. I will break the tires lose in my Escort, and shift it a 7k to make 70-75mph if I need to. For ANYTHING more than a Smart, getting on the highway slower than the speed of traffic is [censored] dangerous and the BOZOs that pull this [censored] should be ticketed/lose points.
Dusty


What is the 0-60 of a semi that is merging onto the highway from that same onramp? Does it routinely get slammed into?

That "safety" argument is a poor one, IMO.
 
My '84 Cutlass would probably struggle to make 60 in much under 12.5 seconds, but merging onto a busy expressway was never a problem. My current vehicle, only 166 horsepower moving 3500 pounds, never leaves me wanting for more power. I've never had issues with "power", and most of the vehicles I've owned haven't been fast vehicles. Slowest was probably that Cutlass or my '95 Nissan pickup. Four cylinders, four wheel drive, 5 forward speeds. It wasn't quick, but it got the job done.

And I've never been rearended. Take that as you will.
 
3-cyl cars:

1. Suzuki Swift/Geo Metro.
2. DAIHATSU (please confirm?)
3. Really thought the Festiva was a 3.

I hat the Geo Metro XFis can still get $2500.. from 1992..

Thoughts on these?

Oh, and i vote 89 Volkswagen FOX 4-speed for slowest car...
 
It really looks like Ford is banking its future on the ecoboost. Now they have a 3,4 and 6 cyl and the rumored v8. I think they must think they have the turbo cool down and the DI deposits figured out to be moving forward as fast as they are.
As far as maint, according to my owners manual there is really nothing stated differently than a NA engine. No talk of turbo cool down or other such items. OCI is the same as the NA engine in the lineup. Oil weight is 5w-30 instead of 5w-20.
I know water is siphoned through the turbos after the engine is switched off, this must help tremendously WRT oil coking.
 
Originally Posted By: 45ACP
3-cyl cars:

1. Suzuki Swift/Geo Metro.
2. DAIHATSU (please confirm?)
3. Really thought the Festiva was a 3.

I hat the Geo Metro XFis can still get $2500.. from 1992..

Thoughts on these?

Oh, and i vote 89 Volkswagen FOX 4-speed for slowest car...

I had a Subaru Justy with a 3cyl 1L engine. I could run faster than it could accelerate, especially if I had passengers. What a slug that car was LOL
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My '84 Cutlass would probably struggle to make 60 in much under 12.5 seconds, but merging onto a busy expressway was never a problem. My current vehicle, only 166 horsepower moving 3500 pounds, never leaves me wanting for more power. I've never had issues with "power", and most of the vehicles I've owned haven't been fast vehicles. Slowest was probably that Cutlass or my '95 Nissan pickup. Four cylinders, four wheel drive, 5 forward speeds. It wasn't quick, but it got the job done.

And I've never been rearended. Take that as you will.

A 12.5s 0-60 isn't dangerous to drive with, that's probably what my Tracker's is, then add the trailer! I towed a u-haul through Detriot, Chicago, Minneapolis twice on a round trip to Winnipeg and back with no "scary" moments merging by getting on the gas early and hard.
That said, I don't quite understand why ford would choose the 3 cyl for the Focus or even why GM chose a 1.4L for the Cruze? Why not make it a 1.6L turbo with a bit more zip? With the new mid-size cars having 70's muscle car performance, I don't like the fact that many of the new smaller cars have less than 90's econobox performance and are slower than my Neon...
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My '84 Cutlass would probably struggle to make 60 in much under 12.5 seconds, but merging onto a busy expressway was never a problem. My current vehicle, only 166 horsepower moving 3500 pounds, never leaves me wanting for more power. I've never had issues with "power", and most of the vehicles I've owned haven't been fast vehicles. Slowest was probably that Cutlass or my '95 Nissan pickup. Four cylinders, four wheel drive, 5 forward speeds. It wasn't quick, but it got the job done.

And I've never been rearended. Take that as you will.

A 12.5s 0-60 isn't dangerous to drive with, that's probably what my Tracker's is, then add the trailer! I towed a u-haul through Detriot, Chicago, Minneapolis twice on a round trip to Winnipeg and back with no "scary" moments merging by getting on the gas early and hard.
That said, I don't quite understand why ford would choose the 3 cyl for the Focus or even why GM chose a 1.4L for the Cruze? Why not make it a 1.6L turbo with a bit more zip? With the new mid-size cars having 70's muscle car performance, I don't like the fact that many of the new smaller cars have less than 90's econobox performance and are slower than my Neon...


Well It will have 125HP, which is only 18 less than my cruze does, which is extremely impressive considering it's 1 cylinder and .4L smaller.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My '84 Cutlass would probably struggle to make 60 in much under 12.5 seconds, but merging onto a busy expressway was never a problem. My current vehicle, only 166 horsepower moving 3500 pounds, never leaves me wanting for more power. I've never had issues with "power", and most of the vehicles I've owned haven't been fast vehicles. Slowest was probably that Cutlass or my '95 Nissan pickup. Four cylinders, four wheel drive, 5 forward speeds. It wasn't quick, but it got the job done.

And I've never been rearended. Take that as you will.

A 12.5s 0-60 isn't dangerous to drive with, that's probably what my Tracker's is, then add the trailer! I towed a u-haul through Detriot, Chicago, Minneapolis twice on a round trip to Winnipeg and back with no "scary" moments merging by getting on the gas early and hard.
That said, I don't quite understand why ford would choose the 3 cyl for the Focus or even why GM chose a 1.4L for the Cruze? Why not make it a 1.6L turbo with a bit more zip? With the new mid-size cars having 70's muscle car performance, I don't like the fact that many of the new smaller cars have less than 90's econobox performance and are slower than my Neon...


Well It will have 125HP, which is only 18 less than my cruze does, which is extremely impressive considering it's 1 cylinder and .4L smaller.

There's no prize though for hp/L in daily driving though... It seems to me that they could make the engines slightly bigger and have a bigger turbo with something like 160-170hp with only a very small mileage loss on the EPA tests. Maybe they are saving that for the sporty versions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top