Focus Ecoboost 1.0L I-3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
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 didnt want to say anything since technically gm did make a 302 it just didnt last long and was long forgoten lol come to think about it alot of chevy v8 are long forgotten . You know accept the 305 and 359 and the occasional 327 reference .
 
Got out-of-town for the first time with my Focus 1.0. 55-65 MPH with CC on. Mostly 55 MPH.

Computer read 51.7 MPG, hand calculated at 46.5 MPG. Overall MPG since new is hand calculated at 38.8 MPG.
 
Last edited:
I somehow managed to get my '81 Rabbit Diesel safely on the freeway. I believe it's 0-60 was measured with a calendar.

If someone wants a 6L V8, I'm all for your right to own one. However, I like my horsepower a bit more high strung in a smaller package.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
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.
 
The horsepower figures don,t tell the whole story with this gem of an engine it is the torque and the way it is delivered from about 1500 rpm onwards which gives it good drive ability in the real world. You would have no problem getting up to speed quickly as the in gear acceleration figures are good with the light weight and punchy engine. The car I drove had the slick manual gearbox so don,t know how it would do with an auto.
If you are wondering about this engine just take a test drive and be amazed!
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
That's not bad. That is on par with family sedans of 10 years ago. I remember the Taurus with "vulcan" engine was 10 seconds.


Ah yes...

My Dwight D. Eisenhower and separate but equal schooling laws Vulcan V6 is no sprinter, but cruises pretty well at 65~ with 4 people and there stuff and the A/C On

Last 0-60 I did, ~12 seconds IIRC?

A 1.0 I3 Fiesta SFE should be able to do the same, if not better

Progress
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Fredbear
The horsepower figures don,t tell the whole story with this gem of an engine it is the torque and the way it is delivered from about 1500 rpm onwards which gives it good drive ability in the real world. You would have no problem getting up to speed quickly as the in gear acceleration figures are good with the light weight and punchy engine. The car I drove had the slick manual gearbox so don,t know how it would do with an auto.
If you are wondering about this engine just take a test drive and be amazed!


Fred did you test drive the Focus or Fiesta with the 1L?
 
I drove the fiesta as my wife is looking for a car but is a bit nervous about driving cars she is not familiar with. Don,t know how this engine would do in the heavier focus but in the fiesta it is well suited. Will probably be buying this vehicle once we can get a sensible deal out of salesman we are dealing with.
 
New MPG PR with my 1.0 Focus. 56.2 MPG, hand calculated. Computer was at 51 MPG. I'd guess the real number was somewhere in between. Mostly all 55-65 MPG. A/C off for almost all the trip. I've noticed AC on in this car gives a quite noticeable drop in MPG. Trip was point-to-point with 490' of total elevation gain.

Interestingly this was with BP 93 octane (E10) which I almost never buy. I believe all my other 50+ MPG tanks were with E0, as expected.

35,000 total miles and still loving the power train. The 6 speed manual is quite good.
 
Just hit 50,000 miles on my Focus 1.0 6M. Car has been flawless so far.

Pulled my 5x8 enclosed trailer about 2,000 miles in the past two months and it’s done perfectly fine. 70 MPH for 2 hrs at a time gets me about 22 MPG with the trailer. No trailer at 70 MPH is about 45 MPG. 55 MPH is easily 50+ MPG every time.
 
Originally Posted By: red7404
YEA. let me know how much it cost to clean the intake valves.


Looks like $15 will do it.
 
Data point for owners looking at using 5w-30 vs. the spec’d 5w-20. I have QSUD 5w-30 in now because I’m towing a lot this summer. Still could do an indicated 51.5 MPG over 156 miles. Mostly all 55-65 MPH. 89 octane E10. 550’ elevation gain. 5w-30 doesn’t seem to hurt fuel economy much. 2015 Focus 1.0 / 6M hatchback.

 
These engines (slightly moded/tuned for more power), in Fiestas, regularly and routinely win rallies in the R2 class in the World, and European Rally Championships.
wink.gif
19.gif
 
Originally Posted By: philipp10
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.

Where is the heck are entrance ramps so short?


The ramps are actually long enough.

However you’re subjecting yourself to the scenario where the jerk tailgating you on the ramp with the Jetta decides you’re easy prey, so he will quickly merge then accelerate, after which he will drive in parallel with you, denying you access, so eventually you will have to brake hard and abort the merging. Watching his victorius smile and possibly his middle finger too.
 
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I believe that Ford has said that the 1L eco boost WILL make its way into the Fiesta next year and WILL be sold in the US as well. If this engine is done correctly it would be a very good solution to the issue of poor economy in subcompacts in the USA. But I still think that all car companies need to offer small diesel engines in compact and subcompact economy cars in the USA. It just makes good sense. Almost always the diesel will offer much superior MPGs when a car is driven normally compared to hybrids.


The problem with subcompacts getting exceptional highway MPG is aerodynamics and gearing. Our Cruze will get 10-15 mpg better than the Fit since it's a bigger, longer car with better aerodynamics. The air stays attached for longer, so there's less drag when it breaks off the car. Also, the Cruze has a very long 6th gear so it doesn't turn that fast at 65 mph. The Fit's gearing is much shorter to make it "peppy", so it's turning over faster. Combine worse aerodynamics with short gears, and most subcompacts won't get good highway fuel economy.

Also, the trend recently has been to market subcompacts as "sporty" cars instead of "economical" cars with stellar highway fuel economy numbers. It's one of the reasons the Sonic hatchback with the same drivetrain gets worse fuel economy than my Cruze, despite being 400 lbs lighter.

All that, and the profit margin on hybrids is higher than on subcompacts. So makers have little incentive to make a cheap "fuel economy special" when they have a hybrid to sell.


Your Cruze is the ECO version, set up for mileage. The Sonic was never offered in ECO form. Compare it to the Cruze without the ECO modifications.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: rjundi
MotorTrend:
To further reduce exhaust gas heat, the manifold is cast into the cylinder head, surrounded by coolant. And finally, less cooling is needed than in most turbo engines because the tiny turbo is a new unit able to accept incoming gas at 1900 degrees Fahrenheit. Another big-number fact-nugget: It spins to a maximum of 248,000 rpm.


Crack the manifold new top of engine block?

Higher heat in turbo irregardless is going to lead to shorter life. $1000-$2000 "maintenance"



IIRC, Ford is not the first to do this (manifold as part of the head).


60 Ford Falcon had the intake manifold cast into the head.
 
Originally Posted By: DweezilAZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: rjundi
MotorTrend:
To further reduce exhaust gas heat, the manifold is cast into the cylinder head, surrounded by coolant. And finally, less cooling is needed than in most turbo engines because the tiny turbo is a new unit able to accept incoming gas at 1900 degrees Fahrenheit. Another big-number fact-nugget: It spins to a maximum of 248,000 rpm.


Crack the manifold new top of engine block?

Higher heat in turbo irregardless is going to lead to shorter life. $1000-$2000 "maintenance"



IIRC, Ford is not the first to do this (manifold as part of the head).


60 Ford Falcon had the intake manifold cast into the head.


It's also how the 6.7 psd is.
 
I know I'm probably gonna get flogged for saying this, but I don't like the latest trend of engines getting smaller and smaller and then boosting them with a turbo to get them to make power. If GM could get 30 MPG and 350 HP out of the old pushrod design LS1 5.7L 20 years ago, there's no reason larger displacement engines couldn't be produced that are even more efficient today. Turbos are just something else that can (and will) break. Give me a good ol' large cubic inch, naturally aspirated engine any day...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
My gen 1 3.5 Ecoboost; An inauspicious Start
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
benjy
C
Acceptable Amount of Tolerance for Clutch Fan
Replies
3
Views
1K
cutlassvillager
Hermann
3 Month review of 2021 Toyota Venze LE
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Joe1
B
Bought a "Trash Can"
Replies
8
Views
1K
bunnspecial
john_pifer
First New Coffeemaker in 9 Years!
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
4K
Cropduster172
Back
Top