By on October 30, 2013

2014-Ford-Fiesta-1-liter-EcoBoost-engine-

The U.S. EPA has released its latest fuel economy ratings and the 2014 Ford Fiesta SE with the 1 liter 3 cylinder EcoBoost engine and a 5 speed manual transmission had the highest mpg rating of any non-hybrid gasoline powered car, 45 mpg highway, 32 city and 37 mpg combined. Both three and five door models had the same rating. Interestingly, Ford will still offer the Fiesta SFE (Super Fuel Economy), which actually gets poorer gas mileage than the 1 liter EcoBoost SE, 30 city/41 highway.

In addition to being offered in the U.S. Fiesta, the 1 liter EcoBoost is available in five different European Fords. The turbocharged triple now accounts for 32% of Focus and 26% of Fiesta sales in Europe and Ford has doubled production of the Cologne, Germany assembled engine to 1,000 powerplants per day.

2013 and 2014 EPA ratings for city, highway and combined:

GASOLINE
Chevrolet Spark: 30/39/34
Ford Fiesta SFE: 32/45/37
Nissan Versa: 31/40/35
Smart Fortwo: 34/38/36
Scion iQ 36/37/37

DIESEL
BMW 328D 32/45/37
Chevrolet Cruze: 27/46/33
Mercedes-Benz E250 Bluetec: 28/45/34
Volkswagen Golf 30/42/34
Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagon: 30/42/34
Volkswagen Passat: 31/43/35

GASOLINE-ELECTRIC HYBRIDS
Ford Fusion Hybrid: 47/47/47
Honda Accord Hybrid: 50/45/47
Honda Insight: 41/44/42
Honda CR-Z: 36/39/37
Lincoln MKZ Hybrid: 45/45/45
Toyota Camry Hybrid: 43/39/41
Toyota Prius: 51/48/50
Toyota Prius V: 44/40/42
Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid: 42/48/45

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

107 Comments on “Ford Fiesta SE 1 Liter EcoBoost EPA Rated At 45 MPG...”


  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    Deadweight, thormark, and Silvy….

    3, 2, 1, go…

    • 0 avatar
      Windy

      Why are there no diesel electric hybrid autos in major production? The diesel is at its most efficient when run at a steady speed and load which has made them the go to solution for the most efficient production of power in every thing from WW2 submarines to municipal power plants for islands and other locations to far off the grid to make hooking into the national supply not an economic solution. Most freight trains in the USA today are diesel electric.

      Given the huge advances in small diesel engineering over the last ten to fifteen years coupled to the advances in electric motor and alternator design and production from a logic standpoint a car designed on these principals would seem to be something that if not yet in production would be in advanced R&D and getting lots of media coverage.
      Perhaps the best and brightest here could enlighten us as to why they are not seen as a category of hybrid automobile today?

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Cost.

        Hybrids and diesels are both more expensive than gas powered vehicles. A diesel hybrid would cost even more. VW has previously stated that a clean diesel hybrid doesn’t make business sense right now.

        There are other factors that probably could have work arounds, but the cost seems to be the biggest hurdle. The rise of GTDI engines doesn’t help diesel’s case either.

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          The stacked cost premium is the big one, but diesels also do not like the frequent start-stop regimen that gives gasoline hybrids a good chunk of their fuel savings.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I thought that too, but don’t some of the VW Bluemotion diesel engines in Europe have start-stop technology?

            As a rule though I agree, diesels perfer to idle over being turned off and on repeatedly.

          • 0 avatar
            bludragon

            Start stop is now a common option for diesels in Europe.

            I think the real reason is that hybrids run Atkinson cycle gas engines. This likely means a diesel is not actually going to be much more efficient.

      • 0 avatar
        Chocolatedeath

        BMW and MB both make the diesel hybrid for Euro consumption but not for sale here in the US. My guess is that you wont see it for a while is price. Both are more expensive historically than gas alone and combining both would add about 5 grand to any vehicle. This combo is what i suggest Ford use for Lincoln to differentiate itself from Fords. You would also have to make a specific transmission to insure smooth motions. To me if Mazda added their Skyy Acitv tech to the CX9 with this combo it would get hwy mileage that would make a compact car blush. This combo to me makes alot of sense in a Crossover due to packaging and weight.

      • 0 avatar
        05lgt

        Would a Deisel Hybrid with the MG set as seen in the new Accord answer any of the issues? (other than cost, which is a deal breaker anyway)

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          It could work quite well, if you’re willing to forego stop-start and let the diesel idle when it’s offloaded from the drivetrain. NVH might be a concern, but you could also make it a nonturbo diesel which would reduce the thermal load.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Modern diesels in US EPA friendly configuration do not like to idle and extended idling causes more DPF regeneration which sucks up a lot of fuel. So shutting down a diesel is preferred over idling nowadays.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Correct.Mullaly has been the inspiration for some pretty dramatic failures over the years the Boeing Dreamliner being one. A 1 Litre engine no!!!

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          my understanding is Mr. Mullaly oversaw the 777 development. It is a very successful aircraft. He has been at Ford the past however many years now? He could not have been involved with the 787, at least the latter years of its development.

  • avatar
    anti121hero

    My 1999 saturn NA twin cam 1.9 gets right about 45 mpg

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      In the EPA cycle? My car gets 20 mpg in the EPA cycle, prior to adding a larger supercharger I was able to knock down 25-26 mpg under the best of conditions. Even with about 190-200 more HP than stock the penalty on the highway has only been 2 to 2.5 mpg under the same ideal conditions so I’m still bettering the EPA cycle by 2 mpg.

      • 0 avatar
        anti121hero

        45 actual. I have a habit of counting my miles to judge how far I can go because I owned a Ford truck before it and the gas gauge never worked on it. I didn’t believe the guy that I bought the car room that it got as good of mileage as it does, but it’s literally blown my mind, especially considering that I’ve heard single cams get better mpg. I. I at about 134000 miles and it burns about a quart between oil changes, I’ve got some ideas in mind to help circumvent the problem from getting too much worse

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          My 2013 Verano Turbo with 6-speed manual saw a hand calculated 37 mpg with the cruise set at 70 mph on hilly PA-80 for 1,000 mile round trip. And that includes below freezing temperatures to 45F and and a few runs up to 100 mph. Now with 12,000 miles break-in, half of that with Trifecta Tune.

          • 0 avatar
            Tosh

            Did you say “hand calculated”? Reminds me of the engineer who suffered from constipation. He worked it out with a pencil…

    • 0 avatar
      aristurtle

      My wife’s Saturn DOHC burns about a pint of oil in those same 45 miles.

      • 0 avatar

        that Saturn DOHC oil-burning problem was a royal pain. Those were lousy engines. I had a ’93, and I liked most everything else about the car, but even the ’98 engine I replaced mine with hated to rev.

        http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the-truth-about-saturn/

        • 0 avatar
          anti121hero

          The early years of the dohc weren’t so hot but they made a lot of improvements over the years, and yeah I its an automagic they never like to Rev too much on these cars, I prefer the manual

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        @aristurtle

        I have a 1.9 DOHC and yes it will burn oil but that seems overly excessive. My issues were never that sever but I was loosing a quart every 500 or so, my mechanic identified oil leaking from the valve cover and replaced the gasket. I’ve only driven the car about 600 miles since the fix but so far I haven’t noticed much oil missing on the dipstick, might be wise to check and rule out as an issue on your wife’s car.

        • 0 avatar
          aristurtle

          I’m exaggerating, but only slightly. It goes through about one quart per tank of gas.

          I’ll look at the valve cover gasket, though. I’ve got to go elbow-deep in the thing soon anyway to replace the cracked radiator. (Turns out it cracks on the plastic side tank on the side, just above the transmission cooler port, same place, for everyone, after ~150K or so).

    • 0 avatar
      dolorean

      I’ve owned and loved these cars and never once, regardless of transmission choice. did I ever get 45 mpg or 35 mpg driving like Gramma. Crying horse-hockey here. Must have been downhill from Monarch Pass with it in Neutral and a strong tail wind.

    • 0 avatar
      05lgt

      you wouldn’t happn to have undersized tires on that saturn, would you? counting miles per punped gallon is no more accurate than the odo.

  • avatar
    brettc

    45 MPG is impressive from a gas-only engine. However, I’d be worried about merging into traffic with an engine like that. Of course I haven’t driven one so I can’t make a definitive judgment.

    Car and Driver drove one in 2012 and the engine is apparently rated at 123 hp/148 ft-lbs so maybe it would be okay combined with the Fiesta’s low weight. The scary thing is that Ford’s 1 litre Turbo engine has similar power to a Nissan Sentra or a Toyota Corolla. Will be interesting to see how this does when it goes on sale. It will definitely be good for their marketing department. That is assuming that people will actually be able to obtain 45 MPG in the real world.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @brettc – The 1.6 that’s in other Fiestas is rated @ 120 hp and 112 lb-ft, so with 3 more hp and 30 more lb-ft of torque, this engine should be noticeably punchier than the standard engine. I’d say it makes a compelling case for itself based on those numbers alone, with the increased fuel economy being an added bonus. Looking at this another way, the Focus’s 2.0 I-4 has only 1 more lb-ft of torque (146) to move a car that weighs around 400 lbs more than the Fiesta.

    • 0 avatar

      That Fiesta gets one of the worst ratings for reliability from Consumer Reports.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        @ David Holzman – truedelta gives the 2012 Fiesta’s good marks, with the 2011s being the problematic ones.

        • 0 avatar

          I will have to check that out.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            You will see initial quality tail off at the end of the 13MY as plant management at Cuatitlan was shaken up in anticipation for the 14MY. As for the 14MY’s initial quality, I think it will be one of the better launches Ford will have in recent history. The program took a big delay to ensure supplied parts had a healthy PPAP pedigree. (This is for North America, not Europe)

      • 0 avatar
        ClutchCarGo

        IIRC, CR dings Ford models on reliability for problems with MyFordTouch. While these are real problems, I don’t place software problems on the same level as mechanical problems.

        • 0 avatar
          Silvy_nonsense

          Agreed. I drove a Focus a few days ago with normal SYNC (but no MyFord Touch) and SYNC worked great. I was impressed. It seems kind of dumb for Consumer Reports to drag down the reliability ratings of entire model lines based on problems with an optional item.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            According to Consumer Reports most recent reliability index, every single Ford and Lincoln vehicle having an ecoboost motor, no matter the cylinder count, has much-worse-than-average reliability, and the motor is a big black dot.

            It’s time for the Ford apologists to drop the tired, worn excuse of “[I]t’s all the fault of MyFordTouch!”

            Ford has big problems with ecoboost motors & transmissions, amongst electronics & fit and finish – period.

            Ford & Lincoln were 26th & 27th, respectively, out of 28 brands per CR’s recent reliability ratings.

            Cue the “but, but, but Consumer Reports hates Ford!” crowd.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Ford’s decline in CR directly correlates with the cancellation of the Panther. Coincidence? I think not…

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            DW:
            I’m almost convinced the interior trim issues being a result of a more global supplier base and launches that get rammed through. Plants can ‘hide’ fit and finish issues to get launch teams out of their hair.

            The transmissions are mostly auto-tragic issues. My rental Fiesta was a commuting grattle filled annoyance.

            I’m still not sold on ecoboost being a really significant issue due to the fact a turbo charger is present. Everything I saw could have been attributed to the fact that more complexity = more problems.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            tres – I always appreciate your candor on this topic, especially given the fact you have credible knowledge as to the inner workings of Ford QC & supplier issues.

            Despite the allegations by a few that I harbor some irrational ill-will towards FoMoCo, I actually genuinely hope they get their shit together before many of the people who have recently bought & are currently buying their products feel burned by lack of reliability/durability, and decide to not purchase future Ford products.

            In other words, I hope Ford succeeds long-term despite my belief that their current reliability issues are going to make that task increasingly difficult.

            I watched this phenomena affect General Motors beginning with Roger Smith’s tenure, which ultimately caught up to it in the form of decreased market share, large financial losses, mass layoffs of American employees, and ultimately, a painful bankruptcy.

            Quality & reliability issues have a way of stealthily setting up automotive manufacturers for sudden erosion of market share & revenue in subsequent years, and often during times where they can least afford either.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            DW:

            You are right. If Ford screws up this resurgence via their restructuring, it will be painful.

            Unfortunately for us all: if they do mess it up, it will be minimized due to the nature of the length of car ownership.

            Ford may have American employees, but Toyota definitely employs more Americans via their robust supply base. Ford is the automotive version of Home Depot, globally sourcing to the lowest bidder, except they resource when it bites them in the ass (CR has documented this). I have a factory floor full of ex Mexican production that makes parts that used to leak flammable fluids all over customer vehicles until they came back state side.

            I hope every OEM carves out a niche and keeps it, AND makes ethical decisions along the way.

    • 0 avatar

      I would not worry about merging at all, provided the transmission permits me to rev the engine where the power is. Same power loading as my current car. Now it could be somewhat challenging when you load 3 lard-butts into the little box, but nothing insurmountable.

      • 0 avatar

        It’s always a good idea to avoid loading 3-packs of lard butts, football players, and sumo wrestlers into cars with small engines. Although not as bad as loading six-packs. Of course, if the car got really sluggish, they could get out and push, or just carry the thing.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      The Fox feels more responsive than the 1.6L Sigma, even when paired with the standard transmission. It’s torque surprised me.

    • 0 avatar
      gnekker

      I don’t understand this numbers. According to the product brochure and a consumption calculator that I found on the web (http://www.markporthouse.net/rangie/fuelconsumptionconversion.htm#), Fiesta with this engine have 44/63/54 mpg rating (City/Highway/Combined). I don’t know if EU measurement method is so much different?
      Btw, no need to worry about merging with this engine. I tried it and it is pretty fast for such small car.
      And I didn’t feel any of 3-cilinder idle vibration that was so annoying in Toyota Yaris with 1 liter engine

      • 0 avatar
        bumpy ii

        The EU fuel economy test is much more generous than the EPA regimen.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        I assume the EU numbers are calculated using the Imperial Gallon instead of the US Gallon. Converted, they’d work out 37/52/45 MPG. On top of that, the EPA testing is a little conservative, as the numbers tend not to be hard to beat.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The EU test cycle is aggressively gamed by the automakers.

        Where applicable, you also have to be sure to convert imperial MPG to US mpg (multiply by 5/6.)

        On the whole, you can expect the EU fuel economy ratings to be about 20-30% higher than the EPA cycles. Despite all of the complaints, the EPA test is one of the more accurate ones.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      Why is merging going to be a problem? I often drive an old Lancer with the old 120HP 2.0 engine and a 5-speed stick. This Lancer is heavier and has less torque than the new 1.0L Fiesta. Merging the Lancer into traffic is not an issue at all. Downshift into 3-rd and go. It will reach 80mph in no time. Likewise, I never had this issue with a Prius, at least when there was only one passenger.

  • avatar
    Prado

    ‘EPA Rated MPG’ has zero credibility to me. I’d wait for independant test results to see if this smaller engine can actually get 45mpg in the real world, or if it ends up getting worse highway mpg due to spending excessive time in boost.

    • 0 avatar
      rudiger

      Yeah, after the ‘let’s-fudge-the-EPA-numbers-on-the-C-Max’ fiasco, there’s surely going to be some fallout for any fuel mileage claims made by Ford.

      I sure wouldn’t want to buy any Ford on the expectation of achieving the EPA numbers, especially any Ford where fuel mileage is a paramount consideration (like the C-Max and, now, anything with the 1.0L EcoBoost engine).

    • 0 avatar
      rem83

      Fuelly has 8 ’13 MY cars that are from international users. Assuming the ’14 MY isn’t much different, looks like EPA ratings are spot on with the user reported average @ 36.9 mpg.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        I don’t believe Ford deliberately fudged the numbers on the C-Max. It’s too easy to disprove. More likely, some corporate drone from Sector 7-G was ordered to “get that marketing campaign stuff out!” and figured it was similiar enough to the Fusion Hybrid and called it a day.

        • 0 avatar
          rudiger

          Maybe it started as an honest mistake, but when the numbers came out so much in favor of the C-Max (as opposed to its main competitor, the Prius V), it’s unlikely that anyone at Ford looked too closely at how the Sector 7-G drone arrived at them (“wink, wink, nudge, nudge”), making it more a crime of omission rather than commission.

          Regardless, someone at Ford surely knew (probably more than one person) that the C-Max EPA numbers were exaggerated and went ahead with them, anyway. It’s enough of an error to not trust anything Ford says about their products’ fuel mileage.

  • avatar
    burgersandbeer

    The numbers quoted for the Fiesta SFE in the body of the story and in the list of EPA ratings are inconsistent. Looks like the 1.0L ecoboost numbers were used for the SFE in the list.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    How long is this POS supposed to last with its constant turbo spooling, drivers pushing it just to keep up with traffic, heat, heavy traffic etc, I’ll take a Mazda 2 4 cyl instead!

    • 0 avatar
      AlternateReality

      I want to like Ford, I really do… but all I think when I see that picture is, “they look so nice and shiny before they catch fire.”

      As a recent Ford owner, I have essentially zero confidence in the manufacturer’s ability to pull this off, even in the diminutive Fiesta.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      As a general matter, I don’t see “constant turbo spooling” as a problem as far as longevity goes. My 11-year old Saab turbo is not a paragon of reliability and has over 110K miles, but the turbo has been fine. Because the car has a boost gauge, you can see what the turbo is doing. The ECM is obviously programmed to operate the engine at large throttle openings and low rpms, using a lot of boost (the car has automatic). By running the engine as unthrottled as possible and at a slow a speed as possible, fuel economy is improved . . . and, I have to say, it works.

      Running a lot of boost is what allows these small, turbocharged to have such fat, nice torque curves.

      As to whether Ford can pull that off? Well, who knows. Say what you will about Saab, but having introduced turbocharged engines very early (in the early 1980s, IIRC), they had a lot of experience and institutional knowledge in the technology, which up to that point, had been widely used only in diesels.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        To be fair, your Saab motor was larger than 1 liter, has more than 3 cylinders, and most importantly, was manufactured by a company that was able to achieve relatively reliable FI motors, which is something that Ford has not demonstrated it has the technical ability to achieve thus far.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      Ford vs Mazda reliability sounds like a toss up to me. Mazdas are famous to rust up north. To sleep well, I’d take a Yaris. What worries me more is the real world fuel economy. Ecoboost engines in the trucks and Ford Fusion do very well in EPA tests, but in real world they can be quite thirsty.

  • avatar
    Jeff Weimer

    All Chevy has to do is offer the Cruze Eco manual transmission in the Sonic to match that, with a 1.4L turbo and 132 HP. The Cruze gets 42 MPG (and beats that real world consistently for me) largely due to that transmission, so 3 more MPG in the lighter Sonic should be a breeze.

  • avatar
    WaftableTorque

    Nothing to do with Ford per se, but I’m disappointed at the packaging efficiency of I-3′s. From my line of thinking, the future is some sort of hybrid or PHEV configuration, so you’d think someone could tuck a carry-on suitcase sized engine discretely into the car as a generator. But looking at how unwieldy even 10,000W home generators are, maybe it’s a pipe dream.

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      How is it any different from any other in-line engine, aside from being shorter?

      The suitcase trick was with the bare engine block. No oil pan, not even the cylinder head.

      Given that the most efficient hybrid powertrain layouts require the engine to be mechanically coupled to the drive wheels in some way, expect the combustion engines in such vehicles to remain in more-or-less their normal locations – in which case, the shape and size of an inline-three is not a problem, and the shorter length when installed transversely allows a motor/generator between the engine and transmission.

  • avatar
    EX35

    Has anyone done a longevity study on ecoboost turbos? If it can’t last as long as the equivalent nonturbo engine, who would buy such an economy car?

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @EX35 – because the overwhelming number of people who are either the first or second buyers of a car (and are really the only ones a car manufacturer cares about) will not keep the car long enough for it to be an issue. I don’t think manufacturers have much incentive to design a car that will last much more than 150k miles.

      • 0 avatar
        BigOlds

        Yes they do. Resale values push back up the system like a clogged drain. Toyota (and maybe others?) have actually paid out over resale values. Initial owners care IF they are the new car every x years types. And if they are the keep it forever types (like me), then I assure you I care since I get rid of cars at 200,000 miles.

        FWIW, all my cars, foreign and domestic, have gone that distance with little drama, unless destroyed in an accident.

        • 0 avatar
          tjh8402

          @ BigOlds – Like you, I also keep my cars a while. I’m 29 and only on my second car…I kept my first to 270k miles and only parked it when it required $3k in engine work to keep running. However, I’m pretty sure you and I are the exceptions. I don’t have any hard numbers to back it up, but my guess is that the overwhelming majority of people who are either the first or second owners of a car get rid of it by 150k miles (especially if you exclude commercial light duty truck buyers).

          My point is that there’s no real incentive for a manufacturer to worry about it’s resale value after 150k miles since those don’t really impact their bottom line (well past the point of any leases or CPO’s).

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            “owners of a car get rid of it by 150k miles ”

            My understanding is that is about the median mileage that a car arrives at the crusher with.

            Keep in mind that a car with 150k miles that is 15 years old and spent those years driving into Manhattan every day is going to be vastly different from a 7 year old car, with 150k miles, that does 20k a year on rural highways.

        • 0 avatar
          darkwing

          I agree with your logic in general, but do you think it applies to bottom-of-the-range cars like the Fiesta?

          I think they’re made to be disposable, for two reasons. One, I imagine the average buyer is very price-sensitive, and they’d prefer a cheaper product than paying more for overengineering. Two, new cars like this seem like the prime competition for used cars.

        • 0 avatar

          VW is doing extremely well despite relatively poor reliability and durability. Perhaps at a certain point does not really matter.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      There is nothing inherently unreliable about turbo engines. Saab found out in the 80s that their turbos were outlasting the rest of the engine so it is not an inherent limitation or weakness. What matters is the overall engineering of the sum of the parts – like for NA engines that is the difference between 250K trouble free miles or oil leaks at 50K.

      • 0 avatar
        EX35

        SaabCentral seems to indicate that 900 turbos could be expected to last around 120K on average, with some failing in the 60-80K range. I happen to know of a few people whose 9000 turbos went out around 100K. I am hoping Ford engineered their turbos to last at least 150K.

        • 0 avatar
          BigOlds

          Here’s something else to consider.

          Today, in the US at least, turbos are relatively uncommon and fairly expensive to replace. However, if they become more common, one could expect the aftermarket/replacement parts costs to come down. Now, if the replacement cost is mostly labor, then that’s probably more sticky.

        • 0 avatar
          DC Bruce

          The big durability problems with early turbos were associated with “hot shutdown.” After an hour on the freeway, a Saab driver stops at a rest stop and shuts down the car. The turbo is, of course, very hot and has neither cold intake air nor circulating oil to cool it down. The oil in the bearing cokes, and the bearing fails. People were advised to idle their engines for a minute before doing a hot shutdown to mitigate the coking problem.

          More modern turbo setup have a water cooling jacket around the bearing or other heat sinking, and the problem is pretty much absent. The turbo in my 100K mile ’01 Saab is still going fine . . . even if lots of other things aren’t. We never did any idling to cool the turbo before shutdown.

          • 0 avatar
            geozinger

            FWIW, my 1987 Dodge Lancer with 2.2 turbo had water cooling all the way back then. I never had a problem with the turbo, ever, in 10 years/160K miles of driving. For several years it was our only car, and it regularly took trips from Georgia to Ohio and back, never missing a beat.

            I bought the car new, and maintained it better than average, but not meticulously. I did have an issue with the head gasket, oddly enough caused by a leak in the coolant line that led to the turbo. But that was the only major issue I had with the engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Halftruth

      There was an interesting article published here on TTAC that spoke to just that.
      Ford testing a V6 econoboost and putting some sick amount of mileage on it in a short amount of time. They then pulled engine apart and it looked like new.
      Went around the world in all climates and they literally beat the living hell out of it.. and it stood up. Pretty impressive. It was called F150 Torture test or something.

  • avatar
    taxman100

    You left out the new Mitsubishi Mirage that is rated at 37/44 city/highway, and 40 mpg combined with the CVT. Fuelly.com shows the avg for the 2013 Mirage is over 42 mpg.

    My brief research has shown it actually does better than the EPA ratings, and small turbos usually do worse. Cars like this I like to keep a very long time as a commuter and run-about, so a turbo is a big negative for me.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Get used to seeing this engine a lot. Ford is planning 1.0 to 1.5 liter versions of this design that will find their place in just about every Ford small to mid-size vehicle in the next few years.

  • avatar
    ash78

    I’ve spent most of my life trying to rebuild broken families of hamsters that have gotten hooked on crystal meth. And now Ford is encouraging them with all these new job opportunities in engine design.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Impressive, but when does this 1.0L 3-cylinder Fiesta go on sale?

    Just went on the “Build your own” configurator on Ford’s US website; the only engines available on the 2014 Fiesta are the 1.6L Ti-VCT in the S and SE and the 1.6L GTDI EcoBoost in the ST. The 1.0′s nowhere to be found.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    Driving like belligerent, spoiled *ssholes, my old coworkers and I got 30 miles per gallon (mostly city) driving in the Fox engine Fiesta.

    The more conservative, mature drivers of the same fleet were averaging 45-47 mixed.

    It still has the tractor-like 5 speed standard transmission. It’s a little noisy, but not a bad experience. I could not fathom how horrible it would have been with the DPS6 Getrag dry dual clutch.

    If I had an obscene commute and sacrificed my enjoyment for the better of the world like the truck police of TTAC would want me to do, I would buy this penalty box global pile of cheap *ss parts.

    For all the nay sayers about packing: the engine bay of the Fiesta looks roomy with this mill inside of it. It’s very strange. I can’t imagine heat being much of an issue unless suppliers and engine plants get drunk and can’t put heat shields on correctly.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Please tell me they are taking the Powershift DCT out back to put it out of its misery. The 9 speed developed with GM can’t get here soon enough. Even the current, lazy, 6 speed, Ford/GM unit would be an improvement over the travesty the DCT has become.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        I wouldn’t know anymore. Sorry, man. But my life is so much better for it.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I understand. I know people that can’t even enjoy themselves at the Detroit Fall Beer Festival because they are stressing about the F-series launch. A bourbon barrel aged stout should at least offer some of relief.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Heh, and that launch is healthy. They could always be stuck with Transit. It’s a nightmare.

            Edit: now I’m thirsty.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I’ve heard. He’s had to put out fires on that launch. I remember the phrase, “wobbly sh*t shed,” while descibing where the Transit was a few months ago. He is a proponent of the E-series over the T-series though.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Hahaha

            The Transit has some merits. But it isn’t as simple and durable as a hammer like the E series is. If I would have had to launch with Ford of Europe again, I probably would have jumped into the Missouri river without a life vest. Tell him to quit being a b*tch and be glad he wasn’t on B299N.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    How is this gonna affect Mullaly’s legacy at Ford? I mean he got them through the tough financial times, but now they’re in a product reliability abyss and it will take another few yrs to get out of it, does this mean he stays put? If he bails he would look like Captain Schettino.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      He needs to get the F-150 launch right. If Ford gets that right, other problems don’t hurt as much.

      Hopefully, the MFT issues will be solved with the next, more physical button freindly version.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        Last I knew, MFT will still contain the same shitty hardware. So it will be a reboot, slow machine. You never know with P552, they may stop being so damned cheap for a name plate that will sting.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          The different platforms I’ve used MFT in for the last 6-10 months have been very stable. I only had a reboot on a rental Taurus. Once I unpaired 6 or 7 phones and had the rental car company replace the almost cracked in half SDNav card it was fine.

          I still don’t like the HVAC controls with the haptic feedback fake buttons. Those ruin everything.

      • 0 avatar
        Volt 230

        If only putting in a few buttons would help, but when your whole turbo engine line-up is in question, how do you fix that? even the venerable Mustang is slated to have these turbos in them!!

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          On the MFT front, it has gotten better. I have been through the many of versions. It is stable now, and I think its a good interface in vehicles with the manual HVAC buttons. Once they move to the next interface, it should get even better. Ford probably should have stayed with the system I have in my 2010 MKT. If they added the better resolution MFT screen and kept all the existing buttons, they wouldn’t be in this mess.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          As far as the turbo engines go, they better get a grasp on the issues. There have been too many QC problems. I really enjoy the 2.0T, but it can’t knock or hesitate like I know it has for some people.

          The new 9 speed and 10 speed should be an improvement over the current 6 speed they use in most products. The F-150 will be adding another Ecoboost motor eventually. The Mustang looks like it will be adding two. They better get those right.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    Impressive, but I’d still take a base Prius (not Prius C) over this. The Prius seats four adults comfortably, gets 45-48mpg average (not just on highway) in real world, and the performance is adequate.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @Jacob – The base Prius is more expensive to buy and has absolutely zero fun to drive quotient. If this drives anything like the Fiesta I had as a rental, this will actually be a nice ride. While the Fiesta isn’t exactly a Miata or a BMW, having driven it as well as a Prius, there’s no comparing the two. The Fiesta drives 1000x better than the Prius.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    I thought I’d never see a return to 20 second 0-60 times and the death of “no replacement for displacement”. Thanks CAFE.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Try cutting that number in half, and then shave a little more off. As someone who commutes in a decade-old crapwagon, I’d love to own something that quick. Hell, I can’t remember the last time I saw 30mpg either.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    As someone who works as a powertrain engineer (non automotive), the more I read on this, the more I have to say that this is a brilliant little engine, 3 cylinder engines have inherent advantages over 4 cylinder engines that make them a much better choice, less friction, less rotating mass, a 120 degree offset crank (this is huge), easier to package, this engine uses a unequal weighted flywheel and pulley instead of a balance shaft. Bravo Ford.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Whatever, I just paid $3.02/gal for gas. At those prices, I’m buying a V10 Ram.

  • avatar
    manbridge

    So it gets the same mileage as my lightened POS commuter 1990 Celica which I got for free. BFD.

    But I’m sure it will last for 23 years being easily worked on by the average guy with hand tools needing nothing more than an alternator replacement…….. HA!

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Jack and Derek:

    Below the TTAC logo are a series of highlighted stories, These haven’t rotated in a LONG time, Isn’t it about time this story:

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/03/want-to-save-gas-dont-buy-american-announcing-the-true-heroes-and-true-villains-at-the-pump/

    …comes off the home page permalink top row? It is over 18 months old now and smacks by the headline of the old regime.

    Maybe the data is the same, but can I politely ask then for an update at least?

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    I just drove one of these cars in Germany about 2 months ago. I’m not sure how I feel about it.

    It certainly made enough power. The car was plenty quick. More than the numbers would have you believe. I think it has to be that turbo. It certainly is much quicker feeling in the butt than a 4cyl VW or Opel Corsa. And I don’t remember exactly, but want to say for the week I averaged 5.2L/100km (on the computer…I know, I know)….so 45mpg on the dot.

    On the other hand, it had 2 big downsides in my opinion. 1) 3 cylinder engine. This was the 2nd I’d ever driven, after a Polo 3 cyl a few years earlier. I won’t lie…I HATE these things. They are rough, and they sound, frankly, terrible. You could just always feel the vibration in the cars (both the Ford and the VW). And revving them…I really don’t even know how to describe it. There is nothing aurally pleasing at all.
    2) The turbo lag on the motor is wretched. I don’t have loads of experience beyond VW 2.0T and BMW I6 turbos, but those things you can’t even tell they’re turbocharged. In the Ford, there was a definite 1 second or so lag before the turbo kicked in. And off boost the engine has nothing there, then WHAM. I would give it too much gas to compensate for the off-boost lack of power, then snap my neck when it kicked in. I don’t know about Ford’s other turbo engines, but if they’re all like this, no thanks. This car was nowhere close to any 4 or 6 cylinder gas or diesel turbos I’ve ever driven.

    So, for those who don’t care, want MPG with some decent pep, don’t care about 3 cyl feel or sound, maybe it will work. On boost it definitely feels peppier than small 1.6 or so non turbo 4s. And the mileage is definitely better.

    But for me, I can’t say I’d pick a car with this engine. It just feels way too unrefined and the turbo lag for me was maddening. Feel vs a VW 2.0L gas or diesel turbo is miles ahead. I would say if MPG is king get the VW diesel any day over this. But I suspect the cost difference in the engines is huge, which might not be worth it over the Ford.

    A great engine for people who don’t care about engines and just want top MPG in gasoline with still some decent get up and go. For the rest of us, no way.

    Otherwise I loved the car. This and the Polo are definitely my favorites in this class. Lot of fun to drive. If they could eliminate that turbo lag, would really improve it (can’t fix the 3 cyl I guess)


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India