Ford Ecoboost engines

agrinnall

It is from the dash, while I accept that it's almost certainly inaccurate I can't be bothered with the faff of recording volumes and mileages. I drive when I need to drive, and having only had the car for 3 months I'm unlikely to be changing it in the near future, so the actual consumption really doesn't matter.

TonyMMM

I have a Focus with the 125 ecoboost engine - very happy with it. Plenty of power for town or motorway. Average mpg I get (in mixed driving) is 50-55 without any trouble.

Like any engine , very short runs without warming up drop that down considerably to low 30s.

Those figures are from the dash computer, but checking brim to brim shows the real figure is only a 1-2 mpg less.

molerat

I must be sad. I have got MPG figures going back to 1994.

Rover 214 SEi, 94-05, 83745 miles driven, av mpg 35.13, best tank 46.2, worst 20.82.
Ford Focus 1.6, 05-15, 67772 miles driven, av mpg 35.41, best tank 45.94, worst 22.3
Ford Cmax 1.0 125, 15-16,5033 miles driven, av mpg 39.5, best tank 43.7, worst 34.2.

FreddieFrugal

My trip computer MPG is only slightly over generous - by 1.6%

Marktheshark

Only time will test, they have made quite a few engines over the years that had the shelf life of fresh cream cakes, wait until they hit 100k+ then decide.

bigjl

With mostly local running the Picanto is showing 47mpg on the computer.

As a full tank is only £30 I am not sure if I can bothered to work it out more accurately.

Though might do a couple of empty to brim calculations to see how accurate or indeed inaccurate it actually is.

ResidentEvil

A quote from another forum regarding the (troubled) engine :-

"I'm not entirely convinced that Ford got this engine right at the first meeting - tax category isn't eveything. The use of a turbocharger on a petrol engine for "school run" applications is questionable due to potential reliability problems. The exhaust gas temperatures far exceed those found in most diesel applications and turbochargers fitted to petrol engines seldom last as long, on average.

Engine balance is another big question and I thoroughly dislike engines which lack at least primary balance. Obviously we can't all own straight sixes which are almost perfectly balanced but the 3 cyl without a balance shaft is poor - and not a lot better with a balance shaft. Remember all of the engine components, turbocharger, alternator, fuel control etc are being shaken to bits during their operating life. One failure here is expensive.

The maximum rev limit should be a big clue as to how large the out of balance forces are. I haven't checked this engine, but a well balanced 3 of that size should be safe to 7000 rpm.

Finally, although I admire Ford's engineering enterprise, I once unwisely purchased a Ford CVH. The detail engineering, especially the 19 tooth belt timing drive was truly dreadful and the engine was worn out at 100k miles despite good maintenance. A fair engineering concept ruined by cost cutting. No doubt the work of Ford accountants - but I will never again purchase anything from this organisiation.

We'll see how it survives the tarmac jungle - but it's not for me."

I had one for a Hire Car (a Focus) the turbo whistle is nice, but sometimes I found it a bit gutless. This small engine/big vehicle combination isn't the best as the engine then has to be thrashed to get anywhere...

noh

ResidentEvil wrote: »

A quote from another forum regarding the (troubled) engine :-

"I'm not entirely convinced that Ford got this engine right at the first meeting - tax category isn't eveything. The use of a turbocharger on a petrol engine for "school run" applications is questionable due to potential reliability problems. The exhaust gas temperatures far exceed those found in most diesel applications and turbochargers fitted to petrol engines seldom last as long, on average.

Engine balance is another big question and I thoroughly dislike engines which lack at least primary balance. Obviously we can't all own straight sixes which are almost perfectly balanced but the 3 cyl without a balance shaft is poor - and not a lot better with a balance shaft. Remember all of the engine components, turbocharger, alternator, fuel control etc are being shaken to bits during their operating life. One failure here is expensive.

The maximum rev limit should be a big clue as to how large the out of balance forces are. I haven't checked this engine, but a well balanced 3 of that size should be safe to 7000 rpm.

Finally, although I admire Ford's engineering enterprise, I once unwisely purchased a Ford CVH. The detail engineering, especially the 19 tooth belt timing drive was truly dreadful and the engine was worn out at 100k miles despite good maintenance. A fair engineering concept ruined by cost cutting. No doubt the work of Ford accountants - but I will never again purchase anything from this organisiation.

We'll see how it survives the tarmac jungle - but it's not for me."

I had one for a Hire Car (a Focus) the turbo whistle is nice, but sometimes I found it a bit gutless. This small engine/big vehicle combination isn't the best as the engine then has to be thrashed to get anywhere...

Where do you get the idea that the engine is troubled?

That post you quote is from the honestjohn forum and was made in January 2013. It was one posters opinion which has not been backed up by any facts in the 3 years between then and now.

WellKnownSid

A quote from a first-time poster quoting a three year old post from someone still griping about the bad experience they had with the engine in their Orion 30 years ago only covering 100,000 miles?

Strider590

Hard to answer this, so i'll put it this way.....

As the owner of a bullet proof Ford crossflow engine from 1979, do I think an ecoboost will still be going strong in 30 years time? No.