We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Engine types
theoretica
Posts: 12,691 Forumite
in Motoring
Where can I find reasonably in depth assessments of the pros and cons of different engines?
I am currently interested in a Ford B-max, petrol, and most of the reviews recommend the ecoboost engine. But looking at the cars available second hand, a fair proportion of people bought the conventional petrol engine. Presumably they had their reasons and I would like to know what they were likely to have been, in case they are good reasons for me too.
I am currently interested in a Ford B-max, petrol, and most of the reviews recommend the ecoboost engine. But looking at the cars available second hand, a fair proportion of people bought the conventional petrol engine. Presumably they had their reasons and I would like to know what they were likely to have been, in case they are good reasons for me too.
But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,
Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll
Lewis Carroll
0
Comments
-
theoretica wrote: »Where can I find reasonably in depth assessments of the pros and cons of different engines?
I am currently interested in a Ford B-max, petrol, and most of the reviews recommend the ecoboost engine. But looking at the cars available second hand, a fair proportion of people bought the conventional petrol engine. Presumably they had their reasons and I would like to know what they were likely to have been, in case they are good reasons for me too.
Cost, when the ecoboost came out it was about four grand more.0 -
Yeah same thing as above poster. The 1.4 was/is the entry level engine and cheaper.
But one other possibility is that some people may choose a standard conventional petrol engine because it's simpler and therefore likely to be more reliable. Even if it can't match the (claimed) mpg and performance of the smaller turbo units.
In reality the mpg figures that many have been reporting from the EcoBoost engines have been no more than the older ones.
But I do suspect that the main reason will have been upfront cost.Mortgage remaining: £42,260 of £77,000 (2.59% til 03/18 - 2.09% til 03/23)
Savings target June 18 - £22,281.99 / £25,0000 -
More to go wrong and a bigger risk of future bills.
Not checked reliability data for a while but the most reliable cars used to be the basic spec models. Less toys so less to go wrong.Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...0 -
Thank you all, that makes sense. Reliability is very tempting, but sadly hard to guarantee.But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll0 -
Whatever you do, do not buy an ecoboost (especially 2012 to early 2015)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FordEcoboostNightmare/?ref=bookmarks
They have major reliability issues0 -
That's the EcoBoost 1.0 - which I would have guessed was likely to be OK in a Ka or Fiesta but perhaps struggling to haul around a Focus or a B-Max bodyshell. It may be equivalent on paper to a 1.4 or so but I'd suspect it's quite dependent on the type of driving you do... Are you doing lots of short trips lightly loaded (school runs) or hauling stuff on a longish commute?hollie.weimeraner wrote: »Whatever you do, do not buy an ecoboost (especially 2012 to early 2015)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FordEcoboostNightmare/?ref=bookmarks
They have major reliability issues
I have the 1.6 EcoBoost in my Focus and it's been fine. It definitely gets better MPG than the 1.8 DuraTec it replaced and I could probably do better if I didn't spend so much of my driving time in suburban traffic.I need to think of something new here...0 -
That's the EcoBoost 1.0 -
Yes it is but nothing to do with the power of the engine. There is an issue with the materials used in the de-gas hoses which causes them to lose coolant. Due to the fact that Ford didn't fit any warning lights for low coolant levels the cars continue without coolant which then causes massive engine failure resulting in a total failure necessitating a full engine change.
The concept is great and I loved my Focus whilst I had it but couldn't live with the ticking time bomb.
BTW they are now fitting the 1.0 ecoboost in the Mondeo.
Additionally although my engine didn't fail Ford customer service is about the worst I have ever encountered and is borne out by the tails of woe I linked to above.0 -
No - it's to do with the 1.0 EcoBoost having the known problem and not the other members of the family - New 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.3 (in the Mustang) and 3.5 (US only).hollie.weimeraner wrote: »Yes it is but nothing to do with the power of the engine.
I've always found that the temperature gauge was sufficient to warn of a possible problem - never needed a specific "Low Coolant" light as well.
OP see also - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5612757I need to think of something new here...0 -
I've always found that the temperature gauge was sufficient to warn of a possible problem - never needed a specific "Low Coolant" light as well.
Would be useful if cars still had temperature gauges.
On a side note I would be very wary of buying a 1.0 Mondeo, what is the resale value on a 100,000 mile example going to be?0 -
I haven't looked at the JD Power Surveys recently, but if reliability is key, don't you have to get a Jazz?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards