Ford Ecoboost engines

FreddieFrugal

Gosh, that mpg is appalling compared to the official figures.

Nearly half!

If it was actually being taxed on its real CO2 emissions it wouldn't be £30 a year, it would be £225. Tax Band I

It's still better than the old 1.6 petrol could manage - mpg wise - but only just barely.

Wife gets 48mpg purely around town in her 1.2 petrol, but granted that's a dinky Fiat 500! My car is a diesel focus (as it doesn't do short trips) that's averaging 58mpg at the moment (in winter)

That's also being nerdy and using a spreadsheet, but just started measuring in October so it's only done the colder months so far. Will hopefully go up above 60 in summer.

It's Official mpg is 64 combined, so it's not actually doing too badly!

Wonder why Fords more recent measurements have been so overinflated.

I think maybe manufacturers are genuinely reaching the limit of what they can get out of a standard affordable car with a combustion engine.

They say that their new magical tweaks manage to tease out an extra 10mpg but in reality it's about 1 or 2 in the real world.

agrinnall

FreddieFrugal wrote: »

If it was actually being taxed on its real CO2 emissions it wouldn't be £30 a year, it would be £225. Tax Band I

The VED on my 2015 (65) 125 bhp Ecoboost Fiesta is £0.

molerat

Another satisfied 125 customer. I have had a CMax since June and have averaged 39.5 mpg, mainly town driving. Best tank 43.7, worst 34.2 but an improvement over my old 1.6. Quite impressed with what it does when putting the right boot down to overtake.

FreddieFrugal

agrinnall wrote: »

The VED on my 2015 (65) 125 bhp Ecoboost Fiesta is £0.

Yeh, much smaller car. What mpg do you get in the Fiesta? Mid 40s?

agrinnall

FreddieFrugal wrote: »

Yeh, much smaller car. What mpg do you get in the Fiesta? Mid 40s?

Yes, mid-40s in out of town use, a bit higher on a motorway run, 30s around town. I've yet to see it get into the 50s, although it's only done 2000 miles so may improve with time.

It was one of the first fitted with an Eco button (the salesman had never seen it before and had no idea what it did), I'm not entirely convinced that having it on makes any significant difference to fuel consumption but it does seem to noticeably cut the power so you'd think that might result in less fuel use. What I really need to do is calibrate it by doing the same run with it on and off, but I suspect the variability of road and weather conditions may make direct comparison difficult.

Horizon81

The 1.0 can come in 100 or 125bhp in the fiesta, plus red/black special editions that have 138bhp. Now this seems excessive to me, I think it's the highest output production car from a 1 litre. Only time will tell. £20 road tax for that one.

In the Focus you can have the 1.0 in 125bhp format. Or the 1.6 with either 148bhp or 180bhp. Hope that helps OP.

pd52

I've got the 1.6 ecoboost fiesta ST with the mountune 215 upgrade and I'm getting 40mpg can rise to 46mpg on a motorway run. So bit surprised that some people are getting low mpg from the 1.0L

WellKnownSid

arcon5 wrote: »

Significant sums of money would have also been spent on a lot of kak engines out there too. Audis AKL engine; Mazda had a short run of their Mazda 5 engine in 05 and 06.

The 2.8 litre XK engine had a habit of going pop despite a huge amount of testing being blasted around roads and on test tracks without a single problem.

But when Mr Miggins got hold of it and pootled around Conventry - carbon would build up on the piston crown which would then ignite if he ever gave it some welly. A feature of the over-square geometry if I recall correctly correctly.

Sometimes only real life testing will tell.

FreddieFrugal

pd52 wrote: »

I've got the 1.6 ecoboost fiesta ST with the mountune 215 upgrade and I'm getting 40mpg can rise to 46mpg on a motorway run. So bit surprised that some people are getting low mpg from the 1.0L

Most of the responses have been about the Focus or CMax with the 1.0L which are obviously heavier than your Fiesta.

A lot will obviously depend on driving style too. I drive particularly light footed, only ever pressing just enough to maintain speed. Have the trip computer set to show the running mpg and use that to make sure I'm not being unnecessarily heavy footed.

I doubt many people would bother with that! You really do need to really focus on economy driving if you want to get anywhere near official figures.


Even then, I think you're only ever likely to manage to get near the 'combined' mpg. Even if you're doing exclusively extra urban runs.

molerat

agrinnall wrote: »

Yes, mid-40s in out of town use, a bit higher on a motorway run, 30s around town. I've yet to see it get into the 50s, although it's only done 2000 miles so may improve with time.

It was one of the first fitted with an Eco button (the salesman had never seen it before and had no idea what it did), I'm not entirely convinced that having it on makes any significant difference to fuel consumption but it does seem to noticeably cut the power so you'd think that might result in less fuel use. What I really need to do is calibrate it by doing the same run with it on and off, but I suspect the variability of road and weather conditions may make direct comparison difficult.

I hope you are working that out and not taking it from the dash display, my spreadsheet is about 4mpg lower than the display