Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost Dyno

[tweakmonkey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aai4qtJ-C4U&feature=youtu.be


Stock, 127 hp/127 ft-lb @ the wheels. From a 1.0 3 cylinder. Pretty damn good if you ask me! That motor could replace the 4-cylinders in tons of cars and they'd benefit, plus it only weighs 200? lbs and I'm guessing there's even room for tuning.

Imagine all the little cars you could swap this engine into, like my 1850 lb 2001 Insight

 

[ElFenix]

torque line, rather than curve. that thing's flat.

 

[KentState]

Best part is that you can brace the car with your foot while doing a dyno run.

 

[jlee]

torque line, rather than curve. that thing's flat.

Generally flat torque curves on little turbo motors mean that the power has been tuned down to keep it from being peaky.

Meaning there's likely a fair amount more on the table.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yeah it'd be nice for quite a few cars. Wonder how it compares to the engines Lotus has been using in the Elise. Also would make for a nice drivetrain to stick in some older vehicles

I wonder if it could fit in one of these: http://www.eliomotors.com/#store

 

[jlee]

Yeah it'd be nice for quite a few cars. Wonder how it compares to the engines Lotus has been using in the Elise. Also would make for a nice drivetrain to stick in some older vehicles

I wonder if it could fit in one of these: http://www.eliomotors.com/#store

The Elise has more power, less torque, and is more peaky:

 

[996GT2]

Wonder how longevity will be on such a highly stressed engine. 150 HP/L sounds good, but how will it fare after 100k miles?

 

[jlee]

Wonder how longevity will be on such a highly stressed engine. 150 HP/L sounds good, but how will it fare after 100k miles?

That's not really that stressed. Equivalent of ~250whp on a 2.0, which isn't much.

The Mercedes CLA45 is making 355hp out of a 2 liter turbo motor: http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/class/class-CLA/bodystyle-CPE

 

[996GT2]

That's not really that stressed. Equivalent of ~250whp on a 2.0, which isn't much.

The compression ratio is 10.5:1, high for a turbo motor, and max boost in stock form is 20 PSI, which I'd say is pretty decently stressed for a car that's designed to be an everyday driver/commuter car. This isn't exactly an STI or Evo that we're talking about here...

 

[iamwiz82]

That is an M plate car. That means it's a test mule for Ford. It may or may not be modified from stock. I wouldn't trust a dyno from one, that is for sure. The exhaust is not what will come from the factory, from the looks of it.

 

[Mark R]

This engine has been out in the UK for a while.

Scary numbers of reports of head gasket failure at low miles. One case of someone having 2 head gasket replacements during the 50k mile warranty, and then a 3rd failure just out of warranty leaving them SOL.

This engine runs crazy boost (20 psi), and the head and cooling system is so small that you get significant heat-soak just climbing a hill.

EGTs are so high that there isn't an exhaust manifold as such - the manifold is part of the head casting so that it can be water-cooled.

 

[shabby]

The compression ratio is 10.5:1, high for a turbo motor, and max boost in stock form is 20 PSI, which I'd say is pretty decently stressed for a car that's designed to be an everyday driver/commuter car. This isn't exactly an STI or Evo that we're talking about here...

15 years ago this was true, but times are changing and manufacturers are figuring out how to extract every bit of efficiency out of engines . Mazda is running 13:1 compression on 87 octane gas, sleep on that.

 

[Yuriman]

This engine has been out in the UK for a while.

Scary numbers of reports of head gasket failure at low miles. One case of someone having 2 head gasket replacements during the 50k mile warranty, and then a 3rd failure just out of warranty leaving them SOL.

This engine runs crazy boost (20 psi), and the head and cooling system is so small that you get significant heat-soak just climbing a hill.

EGTs are so high that there isn't an exhaust manifold as such - the manifold is part of the head casting so that it can be water-cooled.

I wonder if the exhaust manifold is watercooled for that reason. On the Gen1 Insight, Honda watercooled the exhaust manifold to try and get the engine up to operating temperature more quickly (get the water temperature up), as it greatly improves fuel economy on shorter trips and reduced wear on the engine.

 

[996GT2]

This engine has been out in the UK for a while.

Scary numbers of reports of head gasket failure at low miles. One case of someone having 2 head gasket replacements during the 50k mile warranty, and then a 3rd failure just out of warranty leaving them SOL.

This engine runs crazy boost (20 psi), and the head and cooling system is so small that you get significant heat-soak just climbing a hill.

EGTs are so high that there isn't an exhaust manifold as such - the manifold is part of the head casting so that it can be water-cooled.

Not surprised. Like I said, the engine is highly stressed and is so small that there isn't much room for cooling. The entire engine block fits onto a sheet of A4 paper.

I don't see the point of having such a highly stressed engine just to eek out a few more mpg, especially at the cost of reliability. Honda squeezed 130hp out of their new 1.5L DOHC motor for the Fit and it's quite close to the Fiesta for MPG (32/45 Fiesta vs. 33/41 Fit).

Car and Driver tested the Fit at 8 seconds 0-60 and 16.2 sec for the 1/4 mile. They also tested the Fiesta 1.0L Ecoboost, which did 0-60 in 8.3 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 16.7. I'm not really sure I believe that the Fit actually makes 127 whp given that it's slower than a Honda Fit to 60.

Basically, to sum it up, the Fiesta Ecoboost weighs the same as a Honda Fit, costs more, but has half the cargo room, is slower, and has a potentially much less reliable motor.

What's the point?

 

[Yuriman]

The MPG numbers do like kinda disappointing considering how much tech is in the engine.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-ford-focus-10l-ecoboost-instrumented-test-review

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-ford-fiesta-10l-ecoboost-test-review

 

[996GT2]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-ford-focus-10l-ecoboost-instrumented-test-review

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-ford-fiesta-10l-ecoboost-test-review

10.1 seconds to 60 for the Focus, 8.3 for the Fiesta.

I don't believe that this engine is even making advertised 123 hp and 148 lb-ft at the crank, much less the 127 wheel HP claimed in the first post.

How else do you explain the fact that the 1.0 Ecoboost powered Fiesta is 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the '14 Honda Fit, which weighs the same but has an engine rated for 130hp and only 114 lb-ft of torque?


Honda Fit acceleration numbers:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 sec

Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 10.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 10.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 @ 86 mph

Ford Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost acceleration numbers:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.3 sec

Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 9.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 13.0 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 11.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph

 

[ummduh]

Well, gearing, and weight, are 2 ways to explain it. I don't know of of it does, but it could.

I like the idea of the little 3 cyl, but it all comes down to reliability.

The wife just bought an escape with the 1.6,and we are already having problems with it that the dealerships admit they have no idea how to even figure out. It stumbled at a stop, and now the turbo is loud as heck where it used to be silent, and we've lost 5mpg right off the top. It runs fine and isn't down on power, so ford has no clue. We have to keep the pressure on them or they'd just blow us off. I think this is our last new Ford due to the way we're getting treated by the dealerships.

 

[Zodiark1593]

10.1 seconds to 60 for the Focus, 8.3 for the Fiesta.

I don't believe that this engine is even making advertised 123 hp and 148 lb-ft at the crank, much less the 127 wheel HP claimed in the first post.

How else do you explain the fact that the 1.0 Ecoboost powered Fiesta is 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the '14 Honda Fit, which weighs the same but has an engine rated for 130hp and only 114 lb-ft of torque?


Honda Fit acceleration numbers:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 sec

Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 10.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 10.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 @ 86 mph

Ford Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost acceleration numbers:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.3 sec

Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 9.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 13.0 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 11.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph

Different gearing ratios in the tranny perhaps, or even how long the tranny lets the motor rev before shifting. The transmission can be made so that it shifts earlier so as to attain fewer rpms, and improved MPG.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-ford-fiesta-st-instrumented-test-review

You want that one, anyway.

 

[skyking]

Well, gearing, and weight, are 2 ways to explain it. I don't know of of it does, but it could.

I like the idea of the little 3 cyl, but it all comes down to reliability.

The wife just bought an escape with the 1.6,and we are already having problems with it that the dealerships admit they have no idea how to even figure out. It stumbled at a stop, and now the turbo is loud as heck where it used to be silent, and we've lost 5mpg right off the top. It runs fine and isn't down on power, so ford has no clue. We have to keep the pressure on them or they'd just blow us off. I think this is our last new Ford due to the way we're getting treated by the dealerships.

Thanks for the report. It lines up with other things I've read; I was looking at ecoboost trucks just a little and not really loving what I find.

 

[stormkroe]

I don't believe that this engine is even making advertised 123 hp and 148 lb-ft at the crank, much less the 127*wheel*HP claimed in the first post.

How else do you explain the fact that the 1.0 Ecoboost powered Fiesta is 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the '14 Honda Fit, which weighs the same but has an engine rated for 130hp and only 114 lb-ft of torque?

This should be a lesson that peak hp/tq numbers mean very little. If it spikes to 200hp for a 100 rpm band it will be slower than the same car with a motor producing 125 hp over a 9000rpm curve.

 

[tweakmonkey]

I'm a Honda fan but there's weird stuff being said here. On the dyno there's not a single RPM where the Fit makes close to the same power. I can't explain the acceleration, maybe it's gearing? Or maybe the curve is just a lot more usable in the 1.0 and doesn't require downshifting every time you step on it etc - but I haven't driven a 1.0 or the 2015 Fit. I bet for motoring around town the turbo 1.0 would be a lot more zippy given the torque advantage.

EDIT - I tried to superimpose some dynos but need a 2015 dyno graph and removed it.

Also the Fiesta gets quite a bit better mileage from those I've seen. As for reliability and "Stressing" the engine, is there really any evidence showing these 1.0s are that unreliable? From what I read this is a fantastic engine, but again, I haven't test driven one yet... Also it's been given many awards like "International engine of the year" for 3 years now.

There's one reason I posted this up - it's to share that small turbo engines are back (or "here" in the USA finally) and aren't going away any time soon. I'd be shocked if most companies (even Honda) don't take inspiration from all the great examples out there now. F1, Le Mans, and most European cars have had turbos for years. The fat torque curve on this Fiesta would make it a lot more fun to drive than the Fit IMO. I drive a 1.6L Turbo Fiesta ST... My girlfriend drives a 2009 Fit, but I haven't tried the new ones. I still own two VTEC powered Hondas

 

[michal1980]

10.1 seconds to 60 for the Focus, 8.3 for the Fiesta.

I don't believe that this engine is even making advertised 123 hp and 148 lb-ft at the crank, much less the 127 wheel HP claimed in the first post.

How else do you explain the fact that the 1.0 Ecoboost powered Fiesta is 0.3 seconds slower to 60 than the '14 Honda Fit, which weighs the same but has an engine rated for 130hp and only 114 lb-ft of torque?


Honda Fit acceleration numbers:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 sec

Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 10.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 10.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 @ 86 mph

Ford Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost acceleration numbers:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.3 sec

Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 9.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 13.0 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 11.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph

gearing.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-ford-fiesta-10l-ecoboost-sedan-test-review

There are the 1.0T Fiesta sedan numbers.