Consumer Reports pans turbo engines

[jpd80]

My thoughts exactly....although theres no doubt in my mind there is a Sports varient in the near future, maybe a year or so....figure about 350 or so horsepower.....

I'd love to see an energi SHO, an AWD PHEV with a whopping big electric drive motor

and big battery that's capable of making a 500 hp ICE look silly....but i know it won't happen.

Edited February 9, 2013 by jpd80

[DR61]

I'd love to see an energi SHO, an AWD PHEV with a whopping big electric drive motor

and big battery that's capable of making a 500 hp ICE look silly....but i know it won't happen.

I agree. I think it will happen but the basic plug-in hybrid market needs to be developed first. I would love to have a plug-in hybrid performance car with a great suspension package and torque available from an electric motor. I would like it in a smaller package like the Fusion however.

[chevys]

Back on topic. I hate CR just as much as most of you but one question that looms in my mind is about the up coming I3 turbo. No numbers have been released and its speculated this engine will be a 1K pop over the 1.6. This thing needs to put up some big numbers to justify itself in a car already cheap. Yah, CR and a lot of the so called auto journalists always fail to mention how much better driveability is on a daily basis when you have an engine that actually makes some torque over a broad curve instead of having to rev the day lights out of it.

 

I know that just as sure as Im sitting here that Ford and everybody else has little tricks to best the epa cycle. Those numbers dont always tell the whole story. That said, I have always been able to meet or beat the numbers even going back to pre 2008 numbers. So its a guide line to me if nothing else.

 

Bottom line to me is that somebody better be able to make a business case for the small turbo engines that make similar power to their NA larger counter parts. If you cant do that then keep them. Now when you reverse the scenario and offer up a turbo engine with way more power (Taurus SHO) then its totally different. You gotta love the option of having a beast like that. Im strickly thinking about daily drivers that get run to the grocery store and such 19 times a day.

[Edgy Girl]

My Ecoboost Edge - 10.5l l/100km or 22.4 mpg

mostly stop and go rush hour traffic

My Edge also has the massive panoramic roof adding to its weight - its about .5 litre over the stated window sticker numbers

 

No complaints here

Edited February 9, 2013 by Edgy Girl

[jpd80]

Back on topic. I hate CR just as much as most of you but one question that looms in my mind is about the up coming I3 turbo. No numbers have been released and its speculated this engine will be a 1K pop over the 1.6. This thing needs to put up some big numbers to justify itself in a car already cheap. Yah, CR and a lot of the so called auto journalists always fail to mention how much better driveability is on a daily basis when you have an engine that actually makes some torque over a broad curve instead of having to rev the day lights out of it.

 

I know that just as sure as Im sitting here that Ford and everybody else has little tricks to best the epa cycle. Those numbers dont always tell the whole story. That said, I have always been able to meet or beat the numbers even going back to pre 2008 numbers. So its a guide line to me if nothing else.

 

Bottom line to me is that somebody better be able to make a business case for the small turbo engines that make similar power to their NA larger counter parts. If you cant do that then keep them. Now when you reverse the scenario and offer up a turbo engine with way more power (Taurus SHO) then its totally different. You gotta love the option of having a beast like that. Im strickly thinking about daily drivers that get run to the grocery store and such 19 times a day.

I can't see the 1.0 Ecoboost being an added cost over the 1.6, experience elsewhere in the world is that the 1.6 is being replaced by the 1.0 Ecoboost which gives at least 20% improvement in fuel economy and a ton more torque than the 1.6 could ever manage,. I can see the engine being a perfect fit for the US fiesta but I have serious reservations for a 1.0 Ecoboost Focus. Even though it and the 1.0 EB Mondeo are offered in Europe, I think the lack of performance is a bridge too far for US buyers.

 

In my estimations, a 1.0 EB Fiesta will deliver around 35/48 mpg, enough increase to stun the market and draw more young buyers to Fiesta.

Larger versions of the I-3 are possible, that's where perhaps a 1.3 or 1.5 I-3 EB becomes more important to other larger vehicles,

the 90 lb drop in weight is worth the effort in the very least.

 

On the other side of the equation, I think Ford will shock people with the next 2.7 EB V6, the performance and fuel economy will be a home run,

that engine has broad application .in everything above Fusion and Escape all the way up to Taurus Expedition and F150.

Edited February 9, 2013 by jpd80

[ZanatWork]

The issue of horsepower disparity is worrisome enough that Ford put that dumb commercial on FB/YouTube about the "missing 30 horsepwer"...so I'd say that makes it well in Ford's concerns.
That the commercial was panned by so many viewers is likely also a concern.

It has the FE numbers and the styling, so I hope the sport model gets done soon.

[chevys]

I can't see the 1.0 Ecoboost being an added cost over the 1.6, experience elsewhere in the world is that the 1.6 is being replaced by the 1.0 Ecoboost which gives at least 20% improvement in fuel economy and a ton more torque than the 1.6 could ever manage,. I can see the engine being a perfect fit for the US fiesta but I have serious reservations for a 1.0 Ecoboost Focus. Even though it and the 1.0 EB Mondeo are offered in Europe, I think the lack of performance is a bridge too far for US buyers.

 

In my estimations, a 1.0 EB Fiesta will deliver around 35/48 mpg, enough increase to stun the market and draw more young buyers to Fiesta.

Larger versions of the I-3 are possible, that's where perhaps a 1.3 or 1.5 I-3 EB becomes more important to other larger vehicles,

the 90 lb drop in weight is worth the effort in the very least.

 

On the other side of the equation, I think Ford will shock people with the next 2.7 EB V6, the performance and fuel economy will be a home run,

that engine has broad application .in everything above Fusion and Escape all the way up to Taurus Expedition and F150.

 

I hope you are right about the cost and the fuel economy but I think you are being way to optimistic on both accounts. I am not holding my breath. Now on the 2.7 turbo it just might hit the sweet spot. You forgot it could be used in the Mustang as well. I sure understand Fords direction with the turbo engines and they have pretty much bet the farm on them for the future. Still, sometimes, I back up and think that simpilar is better over the long haul. I resist change slower than most but I usually come around.

 

I cant wait to see the new numbers on the GM truck engines. GM builds good solid small blocks and there is no denying that. I hear they have cylinder deactivation and that has hit a nerve even with the GM fans. Its a different direction and I wonder to if they have over complicated something for the sake of 1 mpg. Or, perhaps they have got it figured out this time. I know there were a lot of folks that hated the last gen 5.3 because of it.

[Extreme4x4]

They hated it because the engines that had the cylinder deactivation also had oil consumption issues.

 

Also, in the real world, in a truck, it rarely happened. Thus, it was like an EPA only advantage.

[Kris Kolman]

Real world truck... Is there such a thing? I mean you have spectrum people that utilize the trucks capability a handful of times a month, but use it as an empty daily driver during the week. Then at the other spectrum you have the farm work truck that is loaded up each and everyday. And for me in in the southern suburbs of Denver I find that I get really close to highway mileage as lights are few and far between even on side streets. But then there are once again construction work trucks downtown that have to navigate thru stop and go while being loaded down everyday. This is a fundamental problem with the flawed logic that one tool is best for all applications. I have multiple screwdrivers of different sizes... And the same thing goes with engine and engine technologies. What works best for one person and their driving spectrum doesn't for another. That's what I like about Ford's multi level engine mix (small Ecoboost, mid NA, mid Ecoboost, and large NA) is that it gives the driver the best tool for the job.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Kris Kolman

[ZanatWork]

One thing that remains true for some drivers is the liking of torque that comes with displacement. For some of us, especially those of us that knew the joys of truly big V8s and their seamless pulling power right from idle, the newer motors can seem very thrashy and high-strung. I don't deny that for a typical person of typical modern existence, a Fusion with the 1.6 EB motor is likely just fine. For those of us who have known a lot of easy torque for most of our lives, it will be less acceptable.

One of my all-time favorite former vehicles was a 429-equipped Mercury Marauder. That car could do most daily driving, including some freeway miles, barely getting off idle. Ditto my old Mustang's 351. My T-Bird SC was less impressive, though the supercharger was only 2000 rpm away from rearing its head.

People who have known those kinds of torque previously will be the ones pining for a V6. I'm just one of 'em.

[jpd80]

The 1.6 Ecoboost underachieves on power and torque compared to the Ecoboost 2.0. On a pro-rata basis, the 1.6 Ecoboost should

be good for 200 hp and 216 lb ft. and In that instance, it would pretty close to being a 3.0 V6 replacement, probably making that

pesky CR back pedal on a lot of their current assertions - there's a lot left in that little engine.

 

I had some fun experiences in a Mondeo with 2.5 I-5 Turbo, I can only wonder at how that would have livened up with Ecoboost treatment,

300 hp and 340 lb ft in as many vehicles as you'd care to mention..My only hope is that the coming 2.7 Ecoboost takes that idea even further.

Edited February 11, 2013 by jpd80

[mettech]

Maybe Ford should install an "Eco" switch with the EcoBoost engines.

 

With the switch activated, it would reduce boost/hp and allow the max MPG the engine is capable of achieving.

[akirby]

Maybe Ford should install an "Eco" switch with the EcoBoost engines.

 

With the switch activated, it would reduce boost/hp and allow the max MPG the engine is capable of achieving.

 

That's not a bad idea.

 

Ford is caught between a rock and a hard place here. If they don't maximize their EPA results then they risk losing out to the competition who is doing that. OTOH by doing that they risk alienating buyers who can't get the same mpg in normal driving. Lowering the advertised EPA results for everyone to account for winter conditions (fuel and temp) and less than perfect driving style would at least make it a level playing field for everyone. That wouldn't have to change the tests or CAFE - only the adjustments they already make for the window stickers.

[Biker16]

Maybe Ford should install an "Eco" switch with the EcoBoost engines.

 

With the switch activated, it would reduce boost/hp and allow the max MPG the engine is capable of achieving.

The switch could use a different Algorithm to determine driver acceleration needs. one based on how fast the driver depresses the throttle, not simply how far the drive has depressed the Throttle.

 

it oucl work like the Emergency brake assist.

 

By interpreting the speed and force with which the brake pedal is pushed, the system detects if the driver is trying to execute an emergency stop, and if the brake pedal is not fully applied, the system overrides and fully applies the brakes until the Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) takes over to stop the wheels locking up.

 

Imagine a similar system that worked for the Throttle. The truth is most Americans rarely floor the throttle, using an algorithm that requires more aggressive throttle movement to accelerate would improve economy as a result. .

[FordBuyer]

The 1.6 Ecoboost underachieves on power and torque compared to the Ecoboost 2.0. On a pro-rata basis, the 1.6 Ecoboost should

be good for 200 hp and 216 lb ft. and In that instance, it would pretty close to being a 3.0 V6 replacement, probably making that

pesky CR back pedal on a lot of their current assertions - there's a lot left in that little engine.

 

I had some fun experiences in a Mondeo with 2.5 I-5 Turbo, I can only wonder at how that would have livened up with Ecoboost treatment,

300 hp and 340 lb ft in as many vehicles as you'd care to mention..My only hope is that the coming 2.7 Ecoboost takes that idea even further.

 

To be pricise, CR states that in their testing the 1.6 EB in Fusion gets 25mpg, 1 mpg lesst than its peer group average, and well below the best that get 30-31mpg in combined driving. To make it worse, the 1.6 EB is one second slower to 60mph than its peers. I will pass on the 1.6EB in my next Ford, be it Escape or Fusion. As for the 2.0 EB, CR states again that up against its V6 engined mid sized peers, 2.0 comes up short again in performance and fuel mileage. CR only averaged 22mpg in combined driving with Fusion Titanium, about same as my 2002 V6 24 valve Taurus. If I had to replace my Taurus now, it would be 2013 MY only Focus SE, and if I could wait, not look at Fusion or Escape until 2014 MY at least and see what better engine offerings they have. A 2.7L V6 would be nice putting out about 250hp, decent torque, and buttery smooth driving dynamics plus maybe 24-25mpg combined with 0-60 times in low 6's.

[03 LS]

I can't see the 1.0 Ecoboost being an added cost over the 1.6, experience elsewhere in the world is that the 1.6 is being replaced by the 1.0 Ecoboost which gives at least 20% improvement in fuel economy and a ton more torque than the 1.6 could ever manage,. I can see the engine being a perfect fit for the US fiesta but I have serious reservations for a 1.0 Ecoboost Focus. Even though it and the 1.0 EB Mondeo are offered in Europe, I think the lack of performance is a bridge too far for US buyers.

 

In my estimations, a 1.0 EB Fiesta will deliver around 35/48 mpg, enough increase to stun the market and draw more young buyers to Fiesta.

Larger versions of the I-3 are possible, that's where perhaps a 1.3 or 1.5 I-3 EB becomes more important to other larger vehicles,

the 90 lb drop in weight is worth the effort in the very least.

 

On the other side of the equation, I think Ford will shock people with the next 2.7 EB V6, the performance and fuel economy will be a home run,

that engine has broad application .in everything above Fusion and Escape all the way up to Taurus Expedition and F150.

If the 1.0 EB is introduced as a Focus SFE only engine, I think US buyers will accept it. If it's the fuel saver model, and its FE is truly BIC, i.e. 45+mpg hwy. (or at least beat Jetta TDI), then people will buy it. With performance model already in the line up, this (SFE) should focus on doing one thing only and doing it the best it can.

[MKII]

I can't see the 1.0 Ecoboost being an added cost over the 1.6, experience elsewhere in the world is that the 1.6 is being replaced by the 1.0 Ecoboost which gives at least 20% improvement in fuel economy and a ton more torque than the 1.6 could ever manage,. I can see the engine being a perfect fit for the US fiesta but I have serious reservations for a 1.0 Ecoboost Focus. Even though it and the 1.0 EB Mondeo are offered in Europe, I think the lack of performance is a bridge too far for US buyers.

 

In my estimations, a 1.0 EB Fiesta will deliver around 35/48 mpg, enough increase to stun the market and draw more young buyers to Fiesta.

Larger versions of the I-3 are possible, that's where perhaps a 1.3 or 1.5 I-3 EB becomes more important to other larger vehicles,

the 90 lb drop in weight is worth the effort in the very least.

 

On the other side of the equation, I think Ford will shock people with the next 2.7 EB V6, the performance and fuel economy will be a home run,

that engine has broad application .in everything above Fusion and Escape all the way up to Taurus Expedition and F150.

Here the Focus price comparison Trend - Trend Sport - Titanium

 

1.0 L EcoBoost 125hp Hatchback 6 speed Manual FWD Petrol - € 16 700 € 17 200 € 18 200

 

1.6 L 125hp Hatchback 5 speed. Manual FWD Petrol - € 16 600 € 17 100 € 18 100

 

Only 100 euros extra for a IMO much better driving experience. Plus the 6 speed manual & start/stop system are easily worth the extra 100 euros, never mind

the much livelier EcoBoost

Edited February 11, 2013 by MKII

[Hydro]

The truth is most Americans rarely floor the throttle

You obviously haven't driven with me I'm good for at least 5 full throttle blast on my 10 mile drive to work. Not joking either. In order to beat some red lights in a dead industrial district at 4:30am I hit it about three times. Then at least twice on the freeway (one to get on and usually once to pass a car)

[Bob Rosadini]

Haven't been following this thread but Fox anounced they were going to cover the "myth about small engines" or something like that on the news tonite-(Monday)-don't remember if it was Fox News or Fox Business. Sounds like someone read the CR story.

[jpd80]

To be pricise, CR states that in their testing the 1.6 EB in Fusion gets 25mpg, 1 mpg lesst than its peer group average, and well below the best that get 30-31mpg in combined driving. To make it worse, the 1.6 EB is one second slower to 60mph than its peers. I will pass on the 1.6EB in my next Ford, be it Escape or Fusion.

I recall seeing those acceleration tests and the o-60 mph doesn't tell the whole story.

Apparently the 1.6 EB lead the field on the 0-30 mph times but then the acceleration slowed a bit for the 0-60 mph which kind of suggests that

either the 1.6 EB gearing is slightly off for best 0-60 times or the 1.6 EB is running out of puff - I suspect that it's both but have you noticed

the absence of a 2.5 Fusion to test the data against - the 1.6 is after all a 2.5 replacement, not a V6 replacement which seems to be

what CR is expecting. And again CR is using its secretive fuel economy test loops as some kind of gold standard to show up the EPA.

I would be very wary about reading too much into CR's conflicting fuel economy claims...

 

And finally, I agree with you regarding the future 2.7 EB, I hope Ford has the good sense to offer than engine in as many vehicles as possible.

Edited February 11, 2013 by jpd80

[Deanh]

The 1.6 Ecoboost underachieves on power and torque compared to the Ecoboost 2.0. On a pro-rata basis, the 1.6 Ecoboost should

be good for 200 hp and 216 lb ft. and In that instance, it would pretty close to being a 3.0 V6 replacement, probably making that

pesky CR back pedal on a lot of their current assertions - there's a lot left in that little engine.

 

I had some fun experiences in a Mondeo with 2.5 I-5 Turbo, I can only wonder at how that would have livened up with Ecoboost treatment,

300 hp and 340 lb ft in as many vehicles as you'd care to mention..My only hope is that the coming 2.7 Ecoboost takes that idea even further.

interestingly enough, the 1.6 will make 197 in the ST Fiesta.....

[MineralstangGT]

To be pricise, CR states that in their testing the 1.6 EB in Fusion gets 25mpg, 1 mpg lesst than its peer group average, and well below the best that get 30-31mpg in combined driving. To make it worse, the 1.6 EB is one second slower to 60mph than its peers. I will pass on the 1.6EB in my next Ford, be it Escape or Fusion. As for the 2.0 EB, CR states again that up against its V6 engined mid sized peers, 2.0 comes up short again in performance and fuel mileage. CR only averaged 22mpg in combined driving with Fusion Titanium, about same as my 2002 V6 24 valve Taurus. If I had to replace my Taurus now, it would be 2013 MY only Focus SE, and if I could wait, not look at Fusion or Escape until 2014 MY at least and see what better engine offerings they have. A 2.7L V6 would be nice putting out about 250hp, decent torque, and buttery smooth driving dynamics plus maybe 24-25mpg combined with 0-60 times in low 6's.

Can someone please help me understand how a larger displacement EB V6 of 2.7L would have more power and better mpg than the 2.0 4-cyl? I would love it, I just can't wrap my head around that. Thanks!

[MineralstangGT]

interestingly enough, the 1.6 will make 197 in the ST Fiesta.....

Good point. I was wondering the same thing. Is it a physical difference? Or tuning?

[Deanh]

Good point. I was wondering the same thing. Is it a physical difference? Or tuning?

obviously different tuning with less focus on ultimate Mileage and more on the YEHAH!

[silvrsvt]

Can someone please help me understand how a larger displacement EB V6 of 2.7L would have more power and better mpg than the 2.0 4-cyl? I would love it, I just can't wrap my head around that. Thanks!

 

 

I think the best way to explain it is much the same as the 3.5L V6 vs the EB V6....you have the "base" power, but the EB system adds another 100 HP or so if you need it in the EB V6 3.5L. A 2.7L V6 would be downsized enough to provide base power without going into the boost, thus helping with the MPG and the EB turbo would give you bigger power if you need it. I see some of the current engines as kludged together designs to get the EB system tested and then real work happens with the next gen engines.