Ford 1.0 EcoBoost engine revealed

56mpg on a petrol engine a big car like this

if they really can handle over 55mpg with 1.0 petrol eng.ne on a big car. I wonder that they can handle 90bhp 160nm n a 3 door fiesta 75mpg -but if they want it.

By perperek on 10 November, 2011, 12:05am

Why?

Why are engines getting smaller and smaller yet more powerful and therefore hardly any more efficient? why isn't the aim to reduce consumption rather than the highly questionable focus on C02 emissions as the be all and end all?

By JamesRiley on 10 November, 2011, 9:31pm

cracking engine for a KA

This 123bhp engine would be fantastic in something tiny like a KA it could be Fords version of the 500 Abarth.With Skoda fitting 1.2 engines to Octavia's it would seem small turbo engines are the future.170nm torque is okay but its how powerful it is through the rev range if it needs to be worked hard under load then its going to guzzle fuel making it pointless and as lot's of Focus's are family cars it will be worked hard.I guess we will have to see if this engine is as powerful in real world driving conditions as a regular 1.8 non turbo engine if it is then they could be on to a winner.

By nickbsmooth on 13 November, 2011, 10:02pm

why not

JamesRiley - CO2 emissions are directly related to the fuel consumption - so achieving a lower CO2 figure automatically means a better consumption figure. So its the same focus either way you look at it.
I do agree that the focus on CO2 is a little flawed - its all very well for BMW etc to claim headline grabbing consumption figures, hence low CO2 output - but in reality these figures are never met, hence CO2 outputs are higher.
I think this has the potential to be a fantastic little engine - and is surely the future for petrol engined cars. It will be interesting to see how the economy figures hold up in "real world" driving.

By AJD_84 on 14 November, 2011, 7:51am

AJD_84

Headline grabbing consumption figures are there as a comparison between different cars and not as an accurate real world indication.
Take for example the great little Fiat Twinair, if you drive it enthusiastically you can expect 38mpg instead of the advertised 68mpg. I'd be happy with 38mpg around town.

By LANMAN on 15 November, 2011, 1:51pm

How can someone put a triple-figure power output in such a small engine? It may be a turbo, but I don't understand. Most 1.0 litre cars don't even have 80bhp!

Then again, if it's gonna slash the insurance costs of the Focus (which I hope it does), then I would consider it, regardless of the price.

By JPW2010 on 18 November, 2011, 11:25am

Small CC and Real World Economy

The internal combustion engine is not very efficient and a lot of the energy is lost in waste heat. Turbocharging helps to capture some of this lost energy. Using the advancement in fuel injection technology such and direct injection raises the efficiency, and ofcourse we all know the effects of Turbocharging. Once the internals of this engine can handle it, this little 1000 cc engine is capable of turning out 200 HP smoothly if required, especially if you use twin turbos sequentially. 90% of most commuters use their cars round town, or as the Americans say, in the City puttering around in traffic, which is where small CCs come in handy and derive great fuel economy compared to larger engines. Additionally, once you get a car up to speed, it only takes a little power to maintain that speed, and with 120 HP or 150 HP you have enough overtaking capacity. Therefore I think this concept of a small turbocharged engine is excellent. Why do automotive journalist keep leaving out the torque numbers when quoting HP, one means nothing without the other

For those of you old enough to remember Ford's mighty Cortina GXL 2 litre, that was only 98 HP, yet no-one dared to call it slow. The Ford Capri 3000E and 2.8i were 140 HP, and so was the Escort XR3i, and really brutally fast cars in their era. I think this little engine will do just fine in the real world for power and economy.

By Caribbean on 29 November, 2011, 1:53pm

Low CO2 is not related to fuel consumption

This insane push to lower CO2 emissions, at the expense of everything, is not helping cut the cost of car ownership. Why not tax cars by their real world consumption (and for that vehicle - not an unachievable figure plucked from inside a building!).
Until the government changes the rules the Fords of this world will still offer little engines with low emissions that are not economical in the real world. Drove a 1.5d Laguna last week - twice as economical at 70mph than round town - engine too weedy to keep accelerating such a heavy car, but once it is moving, easy to hold the speed.
I also remember the Cortinas, the big Capris and Granadas. I also remember paying 20 odd pence for petrol PER GALLON and the service every 6000 miles and replacing engines at 100,000 miles - lets not forget the past but we can't live in it, we must move to the future cheaply and economically - come on Mr Ford help us poor mortals who buy and run their own cars.

By pandlparkes on 1 December, 2011, 2:32pm

Moped engine

Is this what Vespa riders ignored because it was so lame?

By noknok1 on 26 December, 2011, 9:12pm