Why There's No Powershift Option On The Ford Fiesta Ecoboost

by Derek Kreindler

Published: May 21st, 2013

why there s no powershift option on the ford fiesta ecoboost

During the launch of the Ford Fiesta 1.0L Ecoboost, multiple outlets ran articles parroting Ford’s PR line about the lack of an automatic transmission. Apparently, Ford declined to offer an automatic or Powershift dual-clutch gearbox on the 3-cylinder Fiesta since a two-pedal option would run counter to the 1.0L’s stated mission of being both fun to drive and good on gas.

Not so, says a supplier source. According to them, there were plans to offer such a combination, but the combo was axed due to “customer expectations” not being met. What does that mean? The performance, ride and NVH characteristics were far below what was considered acceptable, and therefore the decision was made to offer the 3-cylinder with 3-pedals, and no fewer.

#Ford #FordFiesta #FordFiestaEcoboost #Product #Production

Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments

Join the conversation

9 of 72 comments

CelticPete on May 21, 2013

Eh. 1.0L is tiny man. Sure boosted I have heard it puts out 148pounds of torque. But a bog-standard 2.0L DI engine surpasses that. I guess its about 'gas mileage.' But I question if the gas mileage really amounts to anything significant.. If the engine is that small - you will always be in boost - and thus you will not get great gas mileage. I know - I drive an Audi. But I knew going in I wasn't going to get Prius mileage. Turbos work best for performance. They enable regular size engines to put out AMAZING numbers. They are crappy as gas saving devices though.

Like Reply
- See 4 previous
- Beerboy12 on May 22, 2013
  
  Two things. One is the Fiesta is a small car so a 2 liter would be to big. Second, Turbo's are about pressure differences and as such do not have to be used for "performance". It is possible to use a turbo to make an engine more efficient and therefore more economical. Low pressure, small turbo's have been used for a while now to boost low rev performance in smaller engines. This makes them easier to drive (flat torque curve) and vastly improves fuel consumption because there is no need to rev the engine to get performance. High revs are whats bad for consumption. Apply the same thinking of a big, low revving V8 on a MUCH smaller scale ;-)
  
  Like
- CJinSD on May 22, 2013
  
  You're right CelticPete. Car and Driver tested a 3 cylinder 1.0 liter Ecoboost Focus. It was pathetically slower(2.7 seconds 0-60 mph) than a 2.0 NA Focus, and it averaged 27 mpg on 89 octane while the naturally aspirated 2.0 averaged 29 mpg on 87 octane fuel. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-ford-focus-10l-ecoboost-instrumented-test-review It scored well on the European MPG test cycle though, which is probably even less indicative of real world performance than the ridiculous tests affiliated with our vapid CAFE standards. The future involves more fuel consumption in miserable penalty boxes, unless the electorate pulls their heads out of their...
  
  Like
- 30-mile fetch on May 22, 2013
  
  @Beerboy12 Then Ford is screwing something up badly with its small Ecoboost engines. Both mileage and acceleration are underwhelming, and even feather-footed Consumer Reports had such a hard time getting advertised fuel economy out of the 1.6 and 2.0 that they devoted an entire "shame on you" article to it.
  
  Like
- Tresmonos on May 22, 2013
  
  @CJinSD I can't wait to see what we'll see for real world on this mill. I agree with you on the EPA tests. My family members aren't pleased with their 2.0L ecoboost real world fuel economy.
  
  Like
- DeadWeight on May 22, 2013
  
  @tresmonos I honestly think Ford would have been better off had they stuck with the Mazda 2.5 that's in the 2009-2012 Mazda 6. That motor is - as 4 cylinders go - refined (even if the automatic its mated to is a half wit), efficient, and had adequate power and a flat torque curve, while being pretty much bullet proof reliability wise. Ford could have gleaned extra fuel efficiency from it by adding some now industry standard tricks, like putting in direct injection or mating it to a CVT (I don't like CVTs and I will remain wary of direct injection until I see a manufacturer produce one that doesn't catch carbon fouling-itis). The ecoboost "solution" not only put Ford behind the 8 ball in terms of fuel economy in the real world, but created new reliability issues where they hadn't existed before. Evolutionary and consistent incremental improvement of already good foundations is typically a smarter way to play the game than trying to re-create the wheel.
  
  Like
CelticPete on May 22, 2013

"vastly improves fuel consumption because there is no need to rev the engine to get performance. High revs are whats bad for consumption. Apply the same thinking of a big, low revving V8 on a MUCH smaller scale ;-)" Vastly? You know the model T got 25 MPG. There is nothing vast about the mileage increase with these turbo engines. There is this science called physics which plots against ICE engines. When driven with alacrity these very small engines just don't deliver great MPG in the real world . CAFE standards just mean we will all be driving hybrids/electrics in the future.. Maybe I should invest in a Battery company..

Like Reply
R H on May 22, 2013

I wonder how hard a Rocket III engine swap is.

Like Reply
Nvdw on May 22, 2013

The 1.0 EcoBoost is particularly useful in Europe where CO2 emissions are the basis for EU legislation as well as the various tax environments in the EU countries. It's 139 g/km of CO2 for the outgoing 1.6 versus 99 g/km for the equally powerful EcoBoost. Imagine how that works out in a country that charges road and/or sales tax on CO2 emissions. I guess the 1.6 works fine in the US where it easily meets CAFE and such. Apparently Ford thinks the market for compacts with automatics is so small it is the economical choice to offer the American setup (1.6/PowerShift) instead of engineering the 1.0 in such a way it takes a PowerShift.

Like Reply