RE: PH Blog: It's time to focus on the triple
Discussion
Mr E said:
Wattsie said:
Mr E said:
C.A.R. said:
That engine would make a lot of sense in the Fiesta, no?
Or a fiesta with a more interesting body and a bit of flair. They could name it after some sort of feline, or even as sportswear brand.Sorry mate, but they both sound rubbish.
As a disclaimer, I do have associations with FMC but am not an employee. I've been driving the 125ps 1.0 for 3000 miles now. My thoughts (and to answer some Q.):
1) The performance is excellent. The light weight means the acceleration is at least as good as the old 1.8 Zetecs were. The noise is interesting (and worth listening to) and the turbo delivery is the right side of "naughty" to give a decent perception of speed.
2) One of the most significant benefits is the huge improvement in handling brought about by having significantly less weight over the front axle. I'm not clear why testers haven't picked up on this but the handling is very neutral and the steering almost has a RWD feel to it. It's a positive revelation over the previous Focus.
3) The economy improves significantly over the first 2000 miles. This is recognised by the engineers.
4) Unfortunately, and this is true for all new Fords (and probably everything else), the headline economy tests requires precision engineering and mapping. Economy outside the narrow envelope of the test is compromised. At 70mph on the motorway I currently achieve 44mpg. 56mpg (or whatever) is achieved at a constant 57mph (I think). Those that think they could tune the engine for more power with the same economy are, I'm afraid, wrong. This is better than I was achieving with the old 1.6 Focus. If you do a lot of in town driving then the stop-start will definitely help. This is pretty imperceptible - it's programmed to stop the engine at a precise point on the crank (I've forgotten where, sorry) such that the subsequent start is completely free of vibration.
5) I'm not at all clear where concerns about reliability arose from. The cam belt runs through the oil and is sealed for 100000 miles. The engine is essentially thought to be maintenance free to that point. All Fords are engineered for 100000 real world miles.
Happy to answer other Q.
1) The performance is excellent. The light weight means the acceleration is at least as good as the old 1.8 Zetecs were. The noise is interesting (and worth listening to) and the turbo delivery is the right side of "naughty" to give a decent perception of speed.
2) One of the most significant benefits is the huge improvement in handling brought about by having significantly less weight over the front axle. I'm not clear why testers haven't picked up on this but the handling is very neutral and the steering almost has a RWD feel to it. It's a positive revelation over the previous Focus.
3) The economy improves significantly over the first 2000 miles. This is recognised by the engineers.
4) Unfortunately, and this is true for all new Fords (and probably everything else), the headline economy tests requires precision engineering and mapping. Economy outside the narrow envelope of the test is compromised. At 70mph on the motorway I currently achieve 44mpg. 56mpg (or whatever) is achieved at a constant 57mph (I think). Those that think they could tune the engine for more power with the same economy are, I'm afraid, wrong. This is better than I was achieving with the old 1.6 Focus. If you do a lot of in town driving then the stop-start will definitely help. This is pretty imperceptible - it's programmed to stop the engine at a precise point on the crank (I've forgotten where, sorry) such that the subsequent start is completely free of vibration.
5) I'm not at all clear where concerns about reliability arose from. The cam belt runs through the oil and is sealed for 100000 miles. The engine is essentially thought to be maintenance free to that point. All Fords are engineered for 100000 real world miles.
Happy to answer other Q.
Riggers said:
I'm sure that in everyday mixed driving you'd actually get somewhere in the mid-to-high 40s, but a 1.6 would be more like high 30s. Also - and this is really my main point - you'll enjoy yourself more in the 1.0-litre car.
I used to get 39-42 mpg from my 1991 Honda CRX 1.6VT back in the 90's, and have lots of fun. OK, that was a two + two legless people car, but I would like to see this Focus get anything more than 40 mpg with more than 2 adults on board - can you imagine how it would struggle with 4+ adults, luggage and a roof rack.
Riggers said:
MrBurt said:
Stitch is spot on. We need real world MPG figures and drive reports before we consider this to be a great step forward. I have been reading some poor MPG reports for the Fiat twin air lately and that was viewed as a game changer went it first came out. I watch with interest as the wife's mini is due to be changed, but I will be sticking with diesel for now.
Fair enough. But that's not really my point - my point is that, whether it actually achieves anything like the MPG figs claimed, it's still fun - and fun that claims to be green. I think, as car enthusiasts, we should be applauding that.In April this year I had a week with a VW Passat Bluemotion. A 1.6 turbo diesel in what is now a fairly huge car (longer than my Dad's Merc 300E, W124). Frankly the economy over a week of truly varied driving was amazing, and the performance really quite good. Another guy I know has the higher performance version of the latest Golf 1.4 TSI, also bloody brilliant.
Full marks to Ford for these Eco-Boost engines, especially the smaller ones in the Focus. If they can do 50mpg (let alone 59) and deliver decent real world performance I reckon that's great. I love throbbing V8s and tyre ripping grunt as much as any petrol head around here, but now and then most of us need a reliable "daily driver" that (ideally) has great economy, handling and enough performance to make us smile a bit. :-)
GroundEffect said:
Actually, the press have found the combined figure wholly achievable.
Really???Nobody but nobody thinks that the EU figures represent real world.
This is taken from the business link website.
How the figures are calculated
The figures are meant to serve as a useful means of comparing the relative economy and CO2 emissions of different vehicle models.
However, you should bear in mind that the fuel consumption figures quoted are obtained under standard test conditions. It's unlikely that you would achieve these figures under 'real life' driving conditions, where different weather, driving and vehicle conditions might apply.
Riggers (quite rightly) stated that all the EU figures do is allow a comparison/benchmarking between one car and another.
The manufacturers map and test the cars in such a way as to make sure that they achieve the best figures possible.
ETA = just read the post by the guy from FMC (thanks for a balanced response).
For comparison, I achieve 41/43mpg at 70/75 mph cruise.....................................
in my BMW 730D
Edited by Stitch on Friday 6th July 08:21
Stitch said:
Riggers (quite rightly) stated that all the EU figures do is allow a comparison/benchmarking between one car and another.
Problem is the test is skewed so far from reality, that engines are being developed which score fantastic in the NEDC test yet are far from efficient in the real world where people don't take 2'50" to reach their motorway cruising speed from 50 km/h, and tend to drive at that speed for awhile, too...And that means competition is being distorted to the extreme. In the Netherlands, where registration taxes are now wholly based on CO2 emissions according to the standardised test, you'd pay 40-50,000 euro on top of the net price if you wanted a Ford Mustang, and nothing at all for a Lancia Ypsilon Twin Air. Thing is, if you happen to drive on Autobahns for 90% of the time, chances are the Mustang might actually use less fuel (I kid you not)...
900T-R said:
Stitch said:
Riggers (quite rightly) stated that all the EU figures do is allow a comparison/benchmarking between one car and another.
Problem is the test is skewed so far from reality, that engines are being developed which score fantastic in the NEDC test yet are far from efficient in the real world where people don't take 2'50" to reach their motorway cruising speed from 50 km/h, and tend to drive at that speed for awhile, too...
59mpg I don't know what kind of voodoo the Ford folks at Dunton and Dagenham (and the various other Brit technology partners involved in the project) have invoked to create this machine"
Well, you don't know simply because the engine was developed at the engine factory in Cologne (at the same time with VW work on the 1.4 TSI). After the supercharged/turbocharged 1.4 was ready, Ford put the triple on ice.
Now ideea why it brings it back and sells it as "british, from Dunton/Dagenham".
Well, you don't know simply because the engine was developed at the engine factory in Cologne (at the same time with VW work on the 1.4 TSI). After the supercharged/turbocharged 1.4 was ready, Ford put the triple on ice.
Now ideea why it brings it back and sells it as "british, from Dunton/Dagenham".
ajb101 said:
I find this quite interesting actually.
I refer to the reference that it 'is economical because it's a 1.0.'
Because it has only 3 cylinders, those cylinders will need to be bigger to attain the 1 litre status. More surface area, means you can fit more fuel in it to achieve reasonable power.
Is there a trade-off in size of piston vs. number of pistons between this 1.0 and the 1.6 engines that have gone before... I'm not an expert/knowledgeable enough.
Essentially, just because it is a 1 litre doesn't implicitly make it more fuel efficient, its all the other gubbins that support those 3 cylinders that will determine that.
You also get a break in efficiency due to reduced friction of internal componentry... is this negligable? I don't know.
I don't really know what my point is here... just that it's interesting.
Surely the surface area will only effect mechanical efficiency between the cylinder wall and the piston rings, the volume would determine the amount of the fuel air mixture. I realise I've simplified it, but am I missing something?I refer to the reference that it 'is economical because it's a 1.0.'
Because it has only 3 cylinders, those cylinders will need to be bigger to attain the 1 litre status. More surface area, means you can fit more fuel in it to achieve reasonable power.
Is there a trade-off in size of piston vs. number of pistons between this 1.0 and the 1.6 engines that have gone before... I'm not an expert/knowledgeable enough.
Essentially, just because it is a 1 litre doesn't implicitly make it more fuel efficient, its all the other gubbins that support those 3 cylinders that will determine that.
You also get a break in efficiency due to reduced friction of internal componentry... is this negligable? I don't know.
I don't really know what my point is here... just that it's interesting.
I'm interested to know why people seem to be getting such poor mpg figures.
I always get 55-57mpg from my '99 1.2 clio and that's on hilly b roads. It would be more on flat a roads. I never let the mpg affect safety. It's all about hypermiling safely and I find it quite a challenge!
I used to enjoy driving a decent rwd car but now i have a fwd turd mobile, maxing the mpg is the only enjoyment i get from driving...
Maybe when fuel becomes a bit more expensive, people will start driving economically?
mpg calculated by brimming every tank and resetting odo. How accurate is that?
I always get 55-57mpg from my '99 1.2 clio and that's on hilly b roads. It would be more on flat a roads. I never let the mpg affect safety. It's all about hypermiling safely and I find it quite a challenge!
I used to enjoy driving a decent rwd car but now i have a fwd turd mobile, maxing the mpg is the only enjoyment i get from driving...
Maybe when fuel becomes a bit more expensive, people will start driving economically?
mpg calculated by brimming every tank and resetting odo. How accurate is that?
mcdk2 said:
I'm interested to know why people seem to be getting such poor mpg figures.
mcdk2 said:
It's all about hypermiling safely and I find it quite a challenge!
You answered your own question.Not many of us are into hypermiling...
I find I generally get about 10-15% off the official combined figure. Good enough for comparisons.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff