By on April 12, 2013

Well, we were wrong. Turns out the 1.5L Ecoboost engine is a four-cylinder engine, but the intent remains the same. According to Reuters, it offers a way for Chinese buyers of the Ford Mondeo to get a tax break due to displacement.

Meanwhile Automotive News reports that the 1.5L engine will be offered alongside the 1.6L engine in the 2014 Fusion, until the 1.6L is gradually phased out. Power numbers should be similar to the 1.6L, but the engine will be lighter, thanks to changes like an exhaust manifold integrated in the cylinder head. This should also result in better fuel economy compared to the 1.6L engine.

In Europe, there will still be a 1.0L 3-cylinder option, and Ford apparently still believes that more power and displacement can be wrung out of the three-cylinder engine. We’re just not going to get a taste of it – yet. In Europe, where CO2 levels still matter, the 1.0L and its 125 grams of CO2 per kilometer, are a welcome addition.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

18 Comments on “Ford 1.5L Ecoboost Is Actually A Four Cylinder...”

  • avatar

    If you have to have a car with such a small amount of torque and power, I’d actually vote for a diesel to be here instead – or a Compressed Natural Gas version. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to simply mass produce more Ecoboost 2.0-L instead of having smaller engines? Build the cars around the 2.0 instead.

    • 0 avatar

      It would be, but Ford needs the 1.0, 1.5, and 1.6 to meet emissions targets and fuel economy standards around the globe. If its cheaper but they don’t move any metal, who cares?

      I want to see a diesel Fusion wagon as much as the next guy. However, they closest we are going to get in the US is the next Edge, with a smaller ecoboost V6 if we are lucky.

    • 0 avatar

      the 2.0 is way too powerful for most smaller cars (remeber, outside the US most cars barely go over 100 hp unless they are Camry size, and Camry is considered huge in most of the world).

      What I don’t understand why the effort to have a 1.5 and 1.6 liter. the weight saving can’t be that great to justify extra tooling, development, testing. Yes a 1.2 liter 3-cylinder (use the 1.6 with one cylinder deleted) would be the next logical step. Again, in the rest of the world there are many small cars with not that much power requirement. Just for the fact that they mostly use manual transmission requires less engine power.

      i think i missed the part how much hp they all have, but the 1.6 l with ecoboost sure comes close to a 2.0 suction motor

      • 0 avatar

        I wish they would have put the 1.6 in the Focus i think the 17 extra hp would have been the difference between the sluggish response at highway overtake. having said that I do admire the 2.0 fuel economy i regularly hit between 36-38mpg (40 under certain circumstances) granted my commute is 90% highway so this is a huge factor

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Right. In London, on top of the exorbitant parking fees, you have to pay a daily fee if your vehicle doesn’t meet the emissions standards set there…

  • avatar

    Two big liters means no tax break.

  • avatar

    If it is rated at 177 hp, maybe two will fit under the hood. 354 would be pretty sweet.

  • avatar

    Maybe this one won’t catch on fire.

    When it gets down below 0.95 liters, Ford can sell it in New York City.

  • avatar

    Maybe it’s about advertising. Ford can claim better MPG and hide behind the EPA when challenged w/ comparatively poorer real world MPG than the competition. Naw.

    The maxim may state “your actual mileage may vary,” but experience says people have to learn not to trust the Ford admen.

  • avatar

    Any word yet on whether this new engine might find its way under the hood of either the Fiesta or Focus?

  • avatar

    Oh goody, another egoboost POS that will drink fuel.

    This kind of backwards thinking didn’t work on the Taurus or the jacked up Taurus…I mean…Explorer.

    The smaller engines will be drinking fuel in these porky appliances.

  • avatar

    It kinda sounds to me like they’re trying to free up 1.6 supply for other vehicles such as the Escape.

    Where is the 1.6 built now? They’re going to be using capacity in Romania to build the 1.5. Also I’m sure they didn’t like losing the EPA crown to the Altima. I don’t know why people are so upset about the change. The 1.6 will still be available with a manual transmission. I for one applaud Ford for not resting on their laurels. Look how long they have stuck with motors in the past. 2.0 sohc and 2.3l 4cyls come to mind, along with the vulcan. The only thing that worries me is the clutch controlled water pump. They’re definitely going after every last bit of efficiency they can get without resorting to exotic technology. The integrated exhaust manifold should have been on the 1.6 from the get go.

    Disclaimer: Not a big Ford fan, but my Mother just bought a 2014 Fusion and loves it. She’s had Ford after Ford after Ford. Her last Fusion went 4 years without a single fault. Ford has already tackled much of the MyFordTouch issues. My remaining gripe is still the powershift, but I would buy a manual, so it doesn’t really affect me.

    • 0 avatar

      Editing didn’t seem to work.
      Obviously the powershift comment doesn’t apply to the Fusion (but you guys know that).

    • 0 avatar

      Your mother is very lucky to have a 2014 Fusion. As for laurels, no danger there, Ford hasn’t seen any for decades.

      The 1.5 promises to be just as remarkable a work of Romanian craftsmanship as the 1.6 has proven to be.

  • avatar

    Oh man finally they offer an engine without the dangerous gobs of HP/TQ that the outrageously large 1.6 has.


  • avatar

    As said in the article, 1.6 liters is an arbitrary size limit utilized in a number of countries for taxation purposes. A 1.5 liter engine would help move a lot more units.

    The 2.0 turbo already makes more torque than common family cars can put through the front tires. As such, in smaller cars, the output is dialed back by traction control so badly that the 1.6 already produces similar performance below 60 mph.

    A 1.5 would be more than enough for a family car that doesn’t have to go faster than 80 mph…. and should give a 120+ mph top end. Fuel economy in traffic and at idle should also be much better… though how good it will be under load at said 80 mph is anybody’s guess.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • jack4x: “Mimicking the film industry, establishment gaming journalists dependent upon access continued giving...
  • JMII: For sure. A more reasonable but still nearly impossible task would be wireless charging parking lots. Vehicles...
  • aja8888: I wonder how many times the CEO had to read this garbage to make sure he didn’t stumble over the...
  • aja8888: I don’t need it, thank you. and I understand that it’s free (paid for somewhere in the pricing...
  • SoCalMikester: the SEC should investigate high value companies that make nothing. not too sure the saudis would even...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber