Biker16 Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/focus/2016/2016-ford-focus-se-ecoboost-i3-first-test-review/ This EcoBoost puts the emphasis on ECO Not including the performance-oriented Focus ST and Focus RS hatchbacks, the standard Ford Focus is available with two engine options: a naturally aspirated, 2.0-liter I-4 or a turbocharged, 1.0-liter EcoBoost I-3. We spent a couple weeks with a pair of 2016 Ford Focus SE sedans with the 1.0-liter EcoBoost three-cylinder engine, one with the standard six-speed manual transmission and the other with the available automated six-speed dual-clutch manual. The standard 2.0-liter emphasizes power, but the optional 1.0-liter EcoBoost focuses on fuel economy rather than performance; the 2.0-liter engine is rated 160 hp at 6,500 rpm and 146 lb-ft of torque at 4,500 rpm, but the turbocharged three-cylinder engine is rated 123 hp at 6,000 rpm and 125 lb-ft at 3,500 rpm. That power tradeoff brings a significant increase in fuel economy. The 2.0-liter engine and five-speed manual combo is EPA-rated 26/36/30 mpg city/highway/combined—26-27/38-40/30-31 mpg with available six-speed PowerShift (dual-clutch) automatic. In comparison, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost with the six-speed manual is EPA-rated 30/42/35 mpg and 28/40/32 mpg with the available six-speed PowerShift automatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Nevermind Edited July 25, 2016 by fuzzymoomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Cliff note version: don't buy the 1.0 Ecoboost with automatic; if you are going to do it, get the 6 speed manual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) The 1.0 automatic transmission is not a dual clutch (Powershift), it is the 6F15 transmission Edited July 25, 2016 by MKII 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) I didn't even realize this was available with an ATX, I thought it was manual only. I saw this tested on Regular Car Reviews which might be more interesting to see than to read. I have to say I love the back to basic FE of this Focus, it's like the Escorts I grew up with, which were also very quiet and comfortable rather than buzzy and course. Edited July 25, 2016 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 The 1.0 in the 2015 Focus was manual only. The automatic was added for 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibinubu12 Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 The 1.0 automatic transmission is not a dual clutch (Powershift), it is the 6F15 transmission This magazine hasn't had much credibility with me in a while, this destroyed what little they had left. There is no possible way to confuse the DPS6 and the 6F15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) The way that guy was spinning his head around, I started getting dizzy watching that video, had to shut it off. Edited July 25, 2016 by transitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 The 1.0 automatic transmission is not a dual clutch (Powershift), it is the 6F15 transmission That was what my first reply said, but I'm not in the mood to argue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 As is, it seems like the Focus is too much car for the 1.0. If the next gen Focus loses some weight, then the 1.0 would work very well for most buyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) As is, it seems like the Focus is too much car for the 1.0. If the next gen Focus loses some weight, then the 1.0 would work very well for most buyers. I test drove one, I was pleasantly surprised with it. Edited July 25, 2016 by fuzzymoomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 As is, it seems like the Focus is too much car for the 1.0. If the next gen Focus loses some weight, then the 1.0 would work very well for most buyers. It seems to me non owners & USA car journalists have an issue with this combination, but actual owners are very satisfied. As noted from all the USA car journalists and from non owners in the comments section. I find it humorous how this combination messes with this crowds panties. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 It seems to me non owners & USA car journalists have an issue with this combination, but actual owners are very satisfied. As noted from all the USA car journalists and from non owners in the comments section. I find it humorous how this combination messes with this crowds panties. Performance expectations from the 1980s have come a long way. A newer focus can put roughly down the same 0-60 times as a 1998 Mustang GT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Performance expectations from the 1980s have come a long way. A newer focus can put roughly down the same 0-60 times as a 1998 Mustang GT I had a 93 Explorer with 160 hp and thought it was perfectly fine. Now my 300+ HP MKX seems a bit slow at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 I had a 93 Explorer with 160 hp and thought it was perfectly fine. Now my 300+ HP MKX seems a bit slow at times. I think part of it has to due with tuning. I know my SHO didn't "feel" that fast till after I got a canned tune for it. Different shift-points etc. Put it into sport mode and turn off advance track and I can almost make my wife vomit because it pulls really hard. But I don't need that every day either...but its nice to know its there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 It seems to me non owners & USA car journalists have an issue with this combination, but actual owners are very satisfied. As noted from all the USA car journalists and from non owners in the comments section. I find it humorous how this combination messes with this crowds panties. I don't disagree. I've posted this before, based on how I see people drive, the 1.0 would be perfectly fine for most drivers. But as consumers, people always feel more is better. Since fuel is cheap there is little motivation to pass on the HP for the relatively small savings from efficiency. Right now I think Ford is using the 1.0 to seek out the consumers that are particularly conscious of fuel usage. If this was the standard engine it would probably have a bad reputation based on word of mouth,similar to what has happened with the DCT. But if it lost 200-300lbs and they upped the hp by 10-15, I think they would have a real winner though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 I agree with that, I think most just put half those horses to work. It shouldn't take 2 miles for someone to get up to 45MPH, but their excuse is they aren't in a hurry. My point is just be considerate and move out of the passing lane that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Although that 93 4.0L with 160 hp did have 220 lb/ft compared to the MKX 3.7 at 260 lb/ft or so. So not as bad as it looks just based on HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) As is, it seems like the Focus is too much car for the 1.0. If the next gen Focus loses some weight, then the 1.0 would work very well for most buyers. It's not too much car for the 1.0 Ecoboost. The engine is designed as replacement for the 1.5 or 1.6 I4 outside North America, which was the mainstay of Focus sales in almost every market. It's not really fair to compare it to the performance of 2.0 I4... it is not the 1.0EB's fault that Ford didn't offer the base 1.6 I4 in the US/Canada/Mexico before. The 1.5 Ecoboost is the replacement for 2.0 I4 but for some reason Ford didn't want to offer it in the Focus in North America. 1.0 EB 123hp version --> 1.6 I4 125hp 1.5 EB 180hp version --> 2.0 I4 160hp Edited July 26, 2016 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 It's not too much car for the 1.0 Ecoboost. The engine is designed as replacement for the 1.5 or 1.6 I4 outside North America, which was the mainstay of Focus sales in almost every market. It's not really fair to compare it to the performance of 2.0 I4... it is not the 1.0EB's fault that Ford didn't offer the base 1.6 I4 in the US/Canada/Mexico before. The 1.5 Ecoboost is the replacement for 2.0 I4 but for some reason Ford didn't want to offer it in the Focus in North America. 1.0 EB 123hp version --> 1.6 I4 125hp 1.5 EB 180hp version --> 2.0 I4 160hp If they offered the 1.6 in the U.S. market it would get criticized as well. Technically the performance of either is fine, but the market isn't really rational like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 It's not too much car for the 1.0 Ecoboost. The engine is designed as replacement for the 1.5 or 1.6 I4 outside North America, which was the mainstay of Focus sales in almost every market. It's not really fair to compare it to the performance of 2.0 I4... it is not the 1.0EB's fault that Ford didn't offer the base 1.6 I4 in the US/Canada/Mexico before. The 1.5 Ecoboost is the replacement for 2.0 I4 but for some reason Ford didn't want to offer it in the Focus in North America. 1.0 EB 123hp version --> 1.6 I4 125hp 1.5 EB 180hp version --> 2.0 I4 160hp The 1.5EB in the Focus is offered in two power levels 148hp & 180hp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 ROW markets outside of Europe get the 180 HP version of the 1.5 EB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) The 1.5EB in the Focus is offered in two power levels 148hp & 180hp 148hp version is more replacement for the defunct 1.8 Duratec which didn't come back when the current Focus and Mondeo went on sale in Europe. ROW markets outside of Europe get the 180 HP version of the 1.5 EB Yep... 1.5 EB 180hp replaced 2.0DI in Asia Pacific, Middle East, and Africa (I think also Russia?). I don't think Ford ever offered 2.0DI in Mk3 Focus in Western Europe. Edited July 27, 2016 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 You really need to compare torque values. 1.5 EB according to Wiki is 185 ft/lbs 2.0 NA in Focus is only 146 ft/lbs 1.0EB without over boost is 125 ft/lbs. On over-boost for brief periods, hits 148 ft/lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 The 1.5EB in the Focus is 177 ft.lb. torque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.