[Closed] Anyone driven the 1.0 Ford Focus EcoBoost? Motorway advice

I've got a 1.0T Fiesta Ecoboost, the 125bhp version.

I've only used it a few times on the motorway and it's fine. I've only had the thing for a couple of months and haven't driven it fully loaded though. Plus I guess the Focus is heavier.

Get some test drives in.

Yeah I've got test drives booked for over Easter.

The focus is 125 bhp and produces the same power as the 1.6 125 petrol.

I would love the 1.2 turbo Seat Leon but again the focus is far cheaper.

[i]It does worry me however that it won't hold up ton the motorway mileage or when the car is full.[/i]

You are going 6 miles...

I'd spend less and buy something a bit bigger - £5k will get you a decent Focus/Astra sized car.

toyota aygo only a 3 cylinder 700 cc engine 4 adults and two big suitcases on the passengers knees drove great at 70 on the motorway to catch a plane. and then did another 250 miles with no problems at motorway speeds.

Read about this car tonight while waiting to get my hair cut, in top gear mag or what car. They were happy with it but mpg was way down from expected. Why buy a 1.0 focus, you can get better cars for £9k.

That's 12 miles everyday of the year though.

I meant more power wise than durability.

What "better" cars can I get? Some examples would be great.

I'm talking family hatchback with good mpg and low tax.

The 1.0T ecoboost is zero tax isn't it ? 🙂

Think on the Focus it's £30 after being free for the first year.

Forget the low tax incentive and buy off new.

Sorry Mj72, what does "off new" mean?

Can you offer some alternatives to the Focus?

Why is low tax a stipulation ? Yor going to pay high to get that. Company stipulation ?

Whats the torque curve like on the 1l , a torque figure is meaningless - esp if the torques at 6k rpm.... the mpg isnt so hot . Ive only had one as a hire around a city in a fez, it seemed good at that but i didnt get to stretch its legs.

My workmate has one but said it's 100bhp? I've been in it but not driven it. Feels like the engine is much bigger than it is, she does 15 motorway miles each way. She said she'd buy another but the spec in hers is basic (wind up windows in back) which seems to bother her more than the engine size.

[quote=King-ocelot said]My workmate has one but said it's 100bhp?

There are 100 and 125 bhp versions available.

Yeah I'm Looking at the 125bhp version.

Low tax is just for my pocket really. It's a personal purchase.

At 12 motorway miles a day I wouldn't be worrying about motorway capability.

I do more than that in a VW Up! And the only thing I don't like about it is driving in strong winds as it's basically a high sided ride on lawnmower.

Great car btw, love it. But I have zero interest in cars beyond a means of transportation.

I'd go with the Fiesta or Focus, depending on what's available at what price. They'd both be fine.

It's a famy car so has to be focus sized.

The alternative is to buy a Juke/Quashqui

(haven't driven it) but the power's certainly more than enough, my old 80bhp focus estate would motorway cruise at <redacted> without any fuss.

It's going to be more about the gearing for motorway use I reckon- my dad has a 1.6 petrol focus and it's desperately in need of a 6 speed box, it revs fairly high at 70 and man do you know about it, it's like it's being towed by a massive wasp. Weird combination of revvy motor and low ratios

I see the 100bhp only gets the 5 speed box, the 123 is supposed to cruise at 70 at 2500rpm, redlines at 6500rpm which sounds just fine to me.

Wouldn't neccesarily choose it to tow a caravan but on paper it's ideal for you.

Yeah the 125 has the 6 speed gearbox.

I have to say it sounds an amazing little engine.

I don't see the point going for the 1.6 other than for the automatic gear box.

I drove a 125 version from Southampton to Yorkshire and back. I didn't know it was a 1.0 till I got to Yorkshire as it was more than powerful and torquey enough. Not to sure what it would be like fully loaded though. The only real down side was the size of the tank which is really small I got just over 400 miles to it but it is something like 45 litres of so.

Someone must have driven one fully loaded.

What is it like on hills?

1.0 100bhp Fiesta is fine on the motorway

How does it fair with the car and boot full?

There has been reports of the expansion hose to the engine fracturing and causing the coolant to escape and kill the engine on these. Ford has changed the 'plastic' hose to a 'rubber' version, as seems to break through vibration. If you do look at these 1ltr engines, make sure it has been changed, as no recall was issued yet. Friend has the 125 fiesta and seems to like it. Another who works for Ford bought one and a Focus version and says the fuel economy is pretty crap. Personally I see small engines being stressed and in the long term wont last the time of a larger engine, such as the 1.6 focus. Non turbo and less stress, although you will pay for this with higher VED rate for it.

So you'd rather have the 1.6 125 engine?

What alternatives to the focus would people recommend?

How about the 1.4 turbo Astra?

I used to have one and thought it was great. It was very refined and quiet with a nice little engine rasp when you stick your boot down. Quite rapid as well. Economy all depended on the terrain. It would do 50mpg+ in flat areas at sensible speeds but drop to mid to high 30's when used in hill areas or when used to 'make progress'. Tax was £30.

Don't confuse the new turbo engines with the old non turbos. The new ones blow the others away in all areas. The 1.0t has won loads of awards for a reason, it's ace.

I'd also be interested which much better cars you can get of the same age and mileage for the same price. I get the feeling this is where the STW Brains Trust recommend a 10 year old 150,000 mile BMW or VW T4 as the sensible alternative.

It will depend on the motorway, my old 50 mile motorway round trip would average about 30, acceleration was never an issue. Considering trucks etc. chug along just fine don't worry too much about power and acceleration.

I love the 1.0 ecoboost engine. I wouldnt own one outside warranty though.

I've not driven one but I would be pretty certian it will be perfectly fine. I say this because I used to have a MK1 Focus with at 1.8l Zetec normally aspirated engine. Nowhere near 125HP, or the torque, but it handled many a 350mile mostly motorway family trip to the southwest with no problems at all at typcial real-world motorways speeds. It didn't have blistering accellaration by any stretch (i'd expect the ecoboost to be better there), but easily handled typical motorway speeds.

Just because it's a small engine don't think its going to be 'stressed' and unreliable. I'm sure the engineers have designed the stress levels to be well within what is required for a perfectly reliable engine capable of many hundred of thousands of miles. Managing stress in mechanical parts is a basic and fundamental part of design engieering. And at the end of the day 125bhp is not alot at all in the grand scheme of things and well within the capabilities of modern materials and engine design. Look at one of the worlds most reliable enignes - the Honda Vtec in the Type R's - twice the capacity, twice the power, another few thousand RPM red line capability (alot more challenging from an engineering viewpoint) and no engine is more reliable.

I recently had a new Focus as a hire car and it is easily as good, if not better than any of its competition (i've pretty much driven them all as hire cars over the last year or two) - it certainly drove better than the rest of them, certainly anything out of the VAG stable - in fact i'd say its closes rival is the Hyundai i30!!

Your reliance in designers is admirable wobbliscott.

Id be interested in real world high milage to see what its really like , having had poorly designed vag group shite before and the resultant wear killed the engine dead.the designed Bore clearances increased which lead to low oil pressure when cold , which lead to worn rings which lead to burning oil all the time, ( well documented flaw in that engine)

And of course seeing all the poorly designed emissions bodges the "engineers" put on cars because accountants say they cant fix it propper.

In the grand scheme of things car engines are very reliable now. There are hundreds of thousands of engines manufactured every year - thousands of component parts per engine (so thousands of opportunities for failure). So millions of units out there (not counting derivative engines used in other applications), and the overwhelming majority of them are very reliable, despite many being abused by their owners and drivers. Nothing is 100% reliable, but they're very close. Due to the wonders of modern global comms and the Internet we get to hear of the small percentage that do fail, but don't hear of the millions that lead perfectly reliable and boring lives.

We have a 2001 Smart car; the engine is 599cc, 3 cylinder, 61bhp, which makes it a reasonable precursor (in concept) to the Ecoboost. I had to rebuild the engine at 60k due to exactly what [b]trail_rat[/b] describes; stuck rings, oil in cylinder burning hot, then burnt valves - apparently, that's normal for the engine (designed, built and badged by Mercedes). Hopefully the Ecoboost design takes that kind of experience on board.

I'm considering buying a Focus, but will want to carry kayaks on the roof sometimes. Ecoboost sound mostly good except the Ecoboost mpg seems very sensitive to extra load.

Your reliance in designers is admirable wobbliscott

This ^.

Call me a cynic, but the basic and stupid design faults on the last few cars I have owned (bar the yaris) have been major cause of faults, breaks and costly repairs. Partly engineered to require bigger parts being replaced at more profit (abs/stability unit fault in vw/Mazda/ford anyone? ) and partly crap engineering (bulb replacement in a Megane? Boot strut mount in a Touran? Etc) and partly ever more complexity to meet emissions, economy and power.

Yes they are clever bits of kit, yes they do generally work well, but no I expect all of them to have 'issues' designed in by accident or purpose.

Just buy one Op.
This could go round in circles for days, & you'll end up with an old Octavia.

These little engines do impress, and I'm sure will be ok in the short term, but long term I have doubts, they're working very hard to produce that much power & heavily relying on the turbo, which will fail at some point.

You're not doing many miles, I'd stick with a naturally aspirated 6 speed petrol.

Its an admirable engine and I'd loved it when I drove a Fiesta with it in. Its a Ford though and Ford being Ford there will be corners cut somewhere or something will throw up something at somepoint.

Fords = Great design/ideas, costed down by Accountants.

So budget in for a turbo at somepoint. The coolant pipe issue should have been recalled/sorted. (This killed the engine or turbo didn't it?).

I don't understand the reliability worries. It's 125 bhp per litre. Nothing different to a 2 litre 250 bhp petrol turbo, which have been around for ages.

and whose engine is that Sir?

I think that's basically reasonable tbh, it's a smaller engine working hard to achieve the results a bigger engine could do lazier, that's always going to be more stressful. Though I imagine Ford's engineers [i]have[/i] thought of that.

Flipside- It does an extra couple of miles to the pound and costs less to tax than a 1.6 zetec which seems the obvious comparison, that'll easily pay for a turbo replacement in 60000 miles (pessimistically) even if you buy a goldplated one from Ford. (

which will fail at some point.

As will every other part on a car.

Still waiting to hear what can be had at the same age, price and mileage that's better.

Though I imagine Ford's engineers have thought of that.

Yes but they only have to worry about all the ancilleries lasting 3yrs and 60,000miles before it becomes someone elses problem.

Nothing different to a 2 litre 250 bhp petrol turbo, which have been around for ages.

Well how about:

3 cylinders
A cambelt that runs in oil. That's a rubber belt [b]NOT[/b] a chain.
Variable oil pressure.

I've taken one to bits BTW.

From what I hear the biggest complaint is the lower than expected MPG when pushed a bit hard.

Hth
Marko

Hora- that's true of everything they build, yet mysteriously their engines don't all explode at 60001 miles. You seem to be assuming that they're approaching this flagship motor (and its turbo, which seems to be just another transient overboost borg warner deal? Which is well proven) with totally different, substandard engineering compared to everything else they do, which is just Hora-ey.

The twincharged version is getting almost 180 brake on what reportedly is the same base engine so if that's the case it has overheads for miles.

MIL has the 125hp engine in a Focus which is now 3yrs old. Only driven it a short distance but I was pretty impressed with it.

I drove one for 3 weeks last year as a hire car, it took me 2 weeks to realise it was only a 1L engine, the performance was great even fully loaded.

The fuel economy on the other hand... my van has a better mpg! Granted I wasn't driving deliberately economically, but I wasn't thrashing it either.

I must admit when the hire company gave me the keys I said 'I've got to drive 600miles this weekend'.

She assured me greatly. I was really really impressed. I got approx 35mpg av. (but I like to hold onto gears/don't change up for optimum).

I had one as a courtesy car a few weeks ago. It was nice to drive, if lacking oomph. I was expecting it to do mega mpg but was disappointed to discover that it's fuel consumption was worse than our 2l tdci smax. Given that the effective tax saving over a year amounts to 50p a day I'd not be joining a queue to buy one.

Went to Germany last year and the hire car was a 1.0t Focus estate...had 4 adults, toddler, luggage and pram...it was properly loaded as in full. Acceleration was blistering but the wee beast was motoring along at 120mph in places...didn't seem too bothered. It was much faster unladen but it wasn't a slouch.
I've got the First with same engine and it seems to be very good...I do a bit of motorway but not a huge amount and it is fine...really like the cruise control...it has a bit of poke if needed as well.

The new smaller engines are pretty impressive and that's coming from someone who sees capacity and lots of cylinders as a good thing.

I've not driven that Ford engine, but the new BMW 3 cylinder engine is a peach even if it does sound a bit like a diesel at tick over. At times it was hard to believe that it had half the cyliners and capacity as our 330.

The 1.4 TSI Golf (138bhp) that I drove was bloody good too. The shut down to two cylinders was undetectable as was the switch back to four.

My main concern with these engines the the added complexity of them in the long term (not an issue for me as whatever I choose will be a company car) but I'd be more wary if it was my money....no real evidence for this, just because really. They're also too new to get an idea of how they will deal with long term use.

The Ford MPG will be way short of the claimed too - I know all cars are, but my experience of Ford claims are pretty bad. Backed up by other guys at work.

Not sure why you'd want to buy something that's going to depreciate at the sort of rate a 1L Fiesta is in order to save £150-200/year on tax?

I'm sure it's a perfectly good car mind. My only concern would be the gearing as others have mentioned.

G

I have an aging Mk1 1.6 Focus which will need replacing soon so have been looking at these new 1.0 Ecoboost models. I don't do many miles and would be looking to run it into the ground so reliability is key rather than depreciation worries but obviously low running costs would be nice!

As above, what is the point of the Ecoboost engine if they are returning same/worse MPG as the bigger engines they're replacing? Just to save a few hundred quid a year in VED? Doesn't seem to be much benefit to the consumer (especially if they are more complex and potentially less reliable) - maybe it's of more benefit to the manufacturer so they can be seen to be producing less polluting cars?

Not sure why you'd want to buy something that's going to depreciate at the sort of rate a 1L Fiesta is in order to save £150-200/year on tax?

Agree massively, but loads of people do just this...and to save a few quid on fuel. The D word is something that most people don't consider. I know some who say that it is not even a cost of owning a car.

Depends how long you're keeping the car though doens't it?

Also - some people are aware that there's more to the issue of fuel consumption than simple cost. And yes, buying a brand new car solely for environmental reasons is not a good idea, but if you are already going to buy a car, it's a good idea to buy one that's more economical than less.

I know some who say that it is not even a cost of owning a car.

It's not a MONTHLY cost.

As above, what is the point of the Ecoboost engine if they are returning same/worse MPG as the bigger engines they're replacing?

If you drive it extremely carefully it will return better mpg. It's just that people tend not to give much of a shit in practice.

zilog6128 - Member

As above, what is the point of the Ecoboost engine if they are returning same/worse MPG as the bigger engines they're replacing? J

Realistically the 100bhp model is equivalent to your 1.6- I don't think it replaces it but they're in the same bracket. Anyway, better claimed mpg.

"It's not a MONTHLY cost."

yep its a daily/hourly/minutely cost

As above, what is the point of the Ecoboost engine if they are returning same/worse MPG as the bigger engines they're replacing? Just to save a few hundred quid a year in VED? Doesn't seem to be much benefit to the consumer (especially if they are more complex and potentially less reliable) - maybe it's of more benefit to the manufacturer so they can be seen to be producing less polluting cars?

If your 'ageing' MKI isn't chucking out big bills you'd be changing for nice shiny new sake. Not a great idea if you like throwing a bike/kit in and leaving in supermarket carparks IMO. Get PX'd when it looks expensive IMO.

Your 1.6 is circa 30mpg av? I bet with mixed driving and making good progress you'll be saving pennies on the fuel spend.

The spend outlay massively wipes out any miniscule saving over a year IMO.

Probably save something like 10%-20% on fuel bills, depending on weight of foot.

So if you spent £40 a week thats only £190 saved. Factor in full-fat depreciation of at least 1k a year versus 'who cares/lot lower' on an older car?..

If you compare it to the old 1.6 (Which I also had) the 1.0t is quieter, smoother, faster both in acceleration and top end, is as good on fuel if booted but much better is driven steadier and cheaper to tax. The old engine beats the new one in no way, shape or form.

I just bought myself a Ford Focus about a month ago. My budget was £10k so similar to yours. I wanted something with a bit more power than my previous car (a Merc C180 coupe) and tried the 1.0 ecoboost 125. It performed about the same (I guess similar power to weight ratios). I then found out that there are very few focus 1.6 ecoboosts with 180bhp. They're rare but they do exists. I went with one of those for £9800. Very efficient and very fast.

The 1 litre is absolutely fine on both motorways and town driving but if you want something faster keep your eye out for a 1.6 ecoboost.

there are 1.6 ecoboosts with 150 or 180 bhp. 180bhp is badged as zetec s, the 150 can be badged titanium (possibly other things too).

Currently looking seriously at getting one myself (changing from 7 year old NA 1.8 focus and looking for a bit more grunt)

I test drove a 1l Ecoboost Focus and I hated it. The performance seemed ok from what I could tell, but the whole car finish felt very cheap and plasticcy. I wouldn't want to spunk that much cash on one. I went with the "safe" Golf option and I've been very happy with it.

If your 'ageing' MKI isn't chucking out big bills you'd be changing for nice shiny new sake. Not a great idea if you like throwing a bike/kit in and leaving in supermarket carparks IMO. Get PX'd when it looks expensive IMO.

Someone's gotta buy them new...

I had a test drive of the 1.6 litre 182 ecoboost Focus.

If it had 180 horsepower it hid them well.

£9000 buys a lot of cars if you are prepared to go for something slightly older.

Fuel and Tax are only a small part of the running costs of a car. Buying something with most of the depreciation hit taken by someone else is a lot more cost effective in the longer term.

How about.... A newish...Panda 4x4 OP

£9000 buys a lot of cars if you are prepared to go for something slightly older.

Like what? I've actually been looking at this price range as we need to change the Mini but all the A3's or 1 Series in this price range have bigger miles and look tired. The decent Golfs have higher mileage then we'd want and there's no chance of getting a decent 3 Series Touring or A4 Avant. As someone looking at that size car what else is there that isn't getting to the age and mileage that'll start to cost?

How's about a large capacity petrol luxury barge? Crap fuel economy but if you're a low mileage driver (can't tell from your original post) it might be affordable despite crap mpg. Something like a 7 series bmw, Audi A8, big jag. This is my dads strategy and he's had some cracking cars for around £10k.

£9k for reliable, comfy?
Avensis 1.8 petrol.

Just to confirm I'm not buying new. I'm replacing a diesel because it's not getting the runs it needs and has failed 2 mot's based on emissions.

I'm going back to petrol.

I've looked at golds and would love a 1.4tsi but there are just nine in budget without high mileage.

A seat Leon would be great but again, none ins budget. I want something newer than a 60 plate and with less than 40,000 on the clock.

if the diesel isn't getting the runs it needs why do you want low mileage? if you're not doing big miles, could you go for above average mileage but younger, figuring the high mileage will have dropped back to average by the time you get rid?

So let me get this straight.

For a diesel to get the run it needs and to make it more economical you need to be doing around 12,000 miles a year?

I do 8/9 at the most so that's petrol territory right?

Not really like that. Diesel is more economical and of course it doesn't need to cost any more, just buy a slightly older one.

If you were to buy new, the extra cost of diesel would require more miles to make it financially worth it.

My diesel is an 09 and the mot guys (a family friend) says the DPF can't regen right on my short journey.

They recommended I switch to petrol

MoseyMTB - Member

For a diesel to get the run it needs and to make it more economical you need to be doing around 12,000 miles a year?

Depends on the diesel and the petrol. The difference between the nearest petrol version of my car, and my diesel, is mahoosive. Like, in the 30000 miles i've put on it, the fuel and tax saving is more than the car cost and the cost of the 4 new injectors and most of the turbo too.

Course, I could have bought a littler more economic petrol car.

I'm going to test drive the 1.0l and the 1.6 auto back to back tomorrow.

If the 1.0l came as an auto I'd buy it tomorrow.

Like what? I've actually been looking at this price range as we need to change the Mini but all the A3's or 1 Series in this price range have bigger miles and look tired. The decent Golfs have higher mileage then we'd want and there's no chance of getting a decent 3 Series Touring or A4 Avant. As someone looking at that size car what else is there that isn't getting to the age and mileage that'll start to cost?

There's loads of chance to get a good A4 or 3 series for that kind of budget if you don't mind something a bit older. I don't get the obsession with mileage on second hand cars. Condition is far more important. I'd rather have a high mileage car that has been looked after correctly than a low mileage that hasn't. We bought our 330 with 75k on the clock two years ago this summer and it's been really good so far. Full set of tyres and a new set of VANOS actuators, passed both MOT's with no issues. It's now done 88k but feels a damn sight better than my Ford company that's done 74k.

I'm not saying that there aren't shitters out there, but if you're careful you should get a car that won't cost the earth to run and has already seen the worst of its depreciation. Don't discount the A6 or 5 series either....depreciation is even worse on the bigger cars.

Well I got to the showroom to drive the 1.0l EcoBoost and it had been sold. Oh well.

I'll keep hunting.

Anybody have any recommendations other than -

Seat Leon
VW Golf
Ford Focus

" 330 with 75k on the clock "

you started so promising then came out with a low milage car that you bought to back up your statement.