[Mark Kleis]

So what say you folks? What if the Fiesta gets a 1.0-liter 3-cylinder direct injected, twin-turbo power plant? Would you buy that?

Would you take that over the NA 1.6?

What type of power do you think Ford could squeeze out of something like that?

 

[BRGT350]

I would stick with a normally aspirated 1.6L instead of the 1.0L EcoBoost. I did not know how many people knew about the 3-cylinder EcoBoost powerplant, so this post surprised me.

As for power, I would bet the 1.0L EcoBoost would produce around 115-120hp, but unsure of torque. With only 1.0L of displacement, there is not a lot of air to spool the turbo. I also don't think it would be twin turbo because the turbo's would have to be very small. Spool up time would be faster, but I think a single turbo would work better in this application.

 

[mrbirdman330]

The answer is no, why because its a 3-Cyl Engine.

 

[LMTech]

No way!! The smallest turbo engine I would want would be the 1.4. I don't want a 1.0 3 cyl turbo for fuel economy and then put a turbo on it just to bring the power back up to the 1.6 liter level. I also don't think it would have dual turbo on a 3 cyl.

 

[Turbo]

I think a 1 Liter is a bit on the small side, even if it is turboed. I would take the NA 1.6 over that. Although, I wouldnt mind a 1.6 turbo

 

[Mark Kleis]

For those of you saying you would prefer the 1.6 - is it because your primary concern is power and performance - not fuel economy?

the 1.0-liter 3-cylinder engine is clearly intended to be a higher fuel economy option - not a performance alternative.

I guess is this setup could return the SAME power as the 1.6 does, but increase fuel economy 5 MPG city and highway...possibly a tad more. Not a bad gig if you are purchasing this as a money saver.

For an extra $1,700~, I would want my kids and such to have this option to save on gas.

 

[BRGT350]

Fun is way higher on my list of purchasing list than economy. I don't think the 1.0L EcoBoost engine will be as enjoyable as the rev happy NA 1.6L TiVCT. I like small cars due to their handling and fun-to-drive factor, the fuel economy is just an extra bonus. If an option was a 1.0L EcoBoost with Powershift gearbox, and it got 50mpg I would still turn it down to have 30-some mpg with a NA engine and manual transmission. Enjoyment of driving is my #1 factor when deciding on a car. Mileage is down the list.

For many, a 1.0L EcoBoost engine with PowerShift is a great option, but I am not interested.

 

[LMTech]

If Ford is going to charge $ 1700 extra for a smaller engine with turbo that only increases mileage by 5 mpg then I would pass on that also because of pure economics and the fun factor also mentioned by BRG350 also has to be factored in.

 

[mrbirdman330]

I've dealt with 3-Cyl engines before, they SUCK!

 

[Mark Kleis]

Interesting replies.

I think we will see it, and I think it will sell exceptionally well. An EcoBoost 3-cyl will appeal to people that are looking for a fun car that still gets good mileage, without the hybrid premium pricetag. I think the Fiesta will fill that role... and although it may not be the engine of choice for the race-crazed forum crown - I think it will make business sense.

I guess only time will tell

 

[GhiaFan]

A big plus besides fuel economy which I'm surprised no one has mentioned is weight loss with the 1.0l T. Besides hellish good fuel economy and hp of the 1.6 Ti-VCT and less weight, seems like a good match in both the Fiesta & next Focus.

 

[azulejost]

I would not be interested in an 1.0L EcoBoost 3-cyl for a Fiesta and certainly not in a Focus. I have always been concerned with fuel economy, though it is not my primary motivation in choosing a vehicle. I am only interested in B- & C-segment cars that are fun to drive with reasonable power and solid handling. Perhaps a 1.3-1.4 L EcoBoost 4-cyl would be more palatable--losing a cylinder gives me pause about the reliability, NVH, and associated issues of using not only new EcoBoost technology but also a completely new engine layout.

As you know, diesels are my thing, and instead of paying the hypothesized $1700 extra for a tiny 3-cyl I'd much rather add a few hundred more and have a turbo diesel with all of the associated torque and significant fuel economy increases. Weight is a drawback with the diesel, but its efficiency and driving dynamics greatly outweigh that concern.

 

[mrbirdman330]

^ Most well said response. Eventhough I do not like 3-Cyl Engines I would rather go with a Diesel because $1700 bucks to drop a cylinder is expensive.

 

[golf strom]

No.

Give me a 1.4L TDCi instead. I want GREAT MPG...and this engine would probably be no more expensive than the 3 cyl gas 1L ecoboost.

Simply stated there is too much complexity (2 turbos) too little mpg benefit, and too much expense for it to be worth it to the consumer.

Aside from the smug crowd that now tend to own Prisus

 

[streetfiesta]

I could see it as a cool option, but only if it can be upgraded performance wise(or they produce a performance variant). Fun factor is most important right now.

 

[erikfiesta]

I've been attracted back to small cars due to extreme highway fuel economy in certain European and Japanese market models. The handling and fun-to-drive factor is just an extra bonus.

In fact, it was the Japanese market miller-cycle Mazda2 and European Econetic Fiesta that made me aware of the Fiesta in the first place.

A 1.0-liter direct-injection Ecoboost engine coupled to a PowerShift transmission would be perfect for the USA, along with smaller wheels.

If it can come close to diesel's fuel economy without the cost of NOX-reduction equipment, I think there's more of a business case for it.

The Japanese market miller-cycle Mazda 2 returned 54MPG on the admittedly favorable Japanese cycle.

My eye is also on the Fiat 500 with 0.9-liter SGE, and Smart if they ever bring a Diesel to the USA.

 

[Ataru]

I had an 87 Chevy Turbo Sprint with a 1.0L Turbo 3 and I LOVED it!

70hp/100tq out of that little engine........of course it was pushing only 1600lbs, so it was a hoot to drive. I have no problem with a 3 cyl engine. Wouldn't be my first choice as I want a good balance of power/mileage and that's a little too much mileage and not enough power, even if they can get 120hp out of it.

 

[OmniFocus]

I'm not opposed to that being on the options list, but personally I'd prefer something around a 1.4L or 1.6L EcoBoost in a sport model.

 

[blurbyu]

If Ford wants to put a 1.0 liter Turbo 3-Cyl in a car, they are more than welcome to.
It just better get phenomenally better gas mileage and not be a high cost option. If it's going to have roughly the same output as the 1.6 NA 4-Cyl it has to have some sort of appeal.

Actually, the more I think about it, I can kind of see them using the 1.0 EcoBoost in a "SFE Model". Do something similar to the Cobalt XFE (except it's not a sucky Cobalt) and have a special model for getting better mileage. Maybe keep some of the heavy options to a minimum. No 17" wheels, less sound proofing, no power windows, no sunroof, use the SFE package aero tweaks, require the PowerShift, etc...
They should also use a Fusion Hybrid style IP to show how efficiently you're driving.

However, I'd rather they build an ST/SVT/SHO version with the 1.4l EcoBoost that produces around 170-180HP. I'm sure there would be more profit (though maybe slightly less volume) in it. Especially since it would most likely be an optioned up Fiesta to begin with. If they can do that for under $25k, I'll pull out my checkbook.

 

[Marc]

Been there, done that:
Ford Fiesta ECOnetic | Car Group Tests | Car Reviews | Auto Express