Official: Redesigned North American Fiesta to Sport 1.0-Liter EcoBoost

[TheBUC]

I am not sure if you are serious or if you are directly related to a Mr. Farley over at Ford. I have no idea what 2.0T EB you are speaking of but the one in the Taurus has 240 hp, and truthfully it is easily exceeded by GM's 2.0T (259 hp) as we speak for output.

We do alot of work for Ford at my shop, we reset the adaps on a new ford taurus, latter when I returned it to the dealer I spoke to the transmission tech and he was showing me the new pamphlet on it.......2.0L and 265 hp.

[spidge]

In Europe, this engine will be going into not only the Focus, but also the Fusion. I wonder how the 1.0L EcoBoost will motivate the Fusion.

[Pisswilly]

Please, someone tell me what makes Ford's Ecoboost so special? For all I know, it's turbo-charging with direct fuel injection. Why does Ford feel it's so special when VW and GM had this many years before Ford. Someone, please clarify this for me, because I want to know why Ford feels their Ecoboost is so special.

Because unlike GM and VW, Ford capitalized on the Ecoboost crap and brainwashed in people's heads how great it was and that they invented it.

[44 mpg by 2010]

Just for fun I searched the UK current fuel economy certifications for new vehicles.

There are only 88 offerrings ≤1 Liter out of 1093 gasoline vehicle configurations rated ≥33.3 mpg(US) combined using the NEDC test cycle. I have no idea how many of those 88 offerrings are <4 cylinders.

There are about 1,700 diesel vehicle configurations rated ≥33.3 mpg(US) combined using the NEDC test cycle.



BTW, there are only 82 offerrings ≤1 Liter out of 310 gasoline vehicle configurations rated ≥41.6 mpg(US) combined using the NEDC test cycle. At ≥50 mpg(US) combined there are only about 62 ≤1 Liter out of 72 gassers. Meanwhile there are 581 diesel configurations in this FE range. Ford has 3 offerings in this group out of some 25 OEMs in this F/E segment.


The smallest current UK diesel seems to be 1.1 Liters.

Based on my observations, I believe Ford has a long range plan for a path to 2025 CAFE that fills out the ABOVE 45 mpg(US) combined market sector and concentrates on a smaller number of "performance" powertrains in order to more precisely control engine/transmission development cost while gaining increased economies of scale.

As for turbo, DI, etc., sure everybody has the technology but some OEMs are at a more advanced and mature level ... with more aggressive pursuit of advancement. This is more apparent when you look at the EU offerings, both gasoline and diesel.

You tell me if I am wrong ...

[hydrogen]

Dumping a cylinder isn't innovated or gaining a competitive advantage.

[cdp326]

Why shouldn't Ford get credit for successfully marketing something they have? That's effectively what they've done.

It doesn't matter whether or not GM's LNF was there first considering it was limited to specialty/sports models. Now Ford did that too (Ecoboost SHO) but they also had it in models like the Edge, the F150, and so on. It's spread across conventional models much more quickly. In 2013 I think more Ford models offer an Ecoboost engine than those that don't. And when so equipped they get an Ecoboost badge stuck on the back, furthering the awareness of the whole thing. It's not like Ford invented the concept of a buzzword to market their "thing." Northstar is a great example mentioned above. Hydra-Matic Drive? StabiliTrak?

VW did to an extent promote their side since TDI signified "turbocharged direct injection," but it was tied with "diesel" since it was mostly diesels where both really gained ground for a while.

There are many more marketing examples too. Look on the back of a new Mazda or Nissan and you'll see a SkyActiv or Pure Drive badge, respectively, for their "green technologies." Every Honda has had VTEC for a while now but Honda still puts a big "VTEC" (well i-VTEC) sticker on the side of the Civic Si because that's performance, or it adds 10 hp.

[vcs2600]

I think most people expect that subcompact cars should have a tiny, efficient engine. The only wow factor here is the tiny 1.0 figure.

Ford's marketing genius was sticking "EcoBoost" into the #1 vehicle in the USA, the F-series pickup. Why? The F-150 has a massive advertising budget, which meant Ford has been literally shouting at people about the benefits of "EcoBoost" for the last two years. This halo effect has filtered down to the more pedestrian models, and now both Escape and Fusion are pushing 1.6 EB engines.

Many people, here and elsewhere, felt that truck buyers would never accept a turbo V6. But, Ford didn't try to sell a turbo V6, they just told you it was high tech and had great MPGs. Classic Detroit marketing. I can see why folks around here don't like Farley...

[germeezy1]

I am not sure if you are serious or if you are directly related to a Mr. Farley over at Ford. I have no idea what 2.0T EB you are speaking of but the one in the Taurus has 240 hp, and truthfully it is easily exceeded by GM's 2.0T (259 hp) as we speak for output.

We do alot of work for Ford at my shop, we reset the adaps on a new ford taurus, latter when I returned it to the dealer I spoke to the transmission tech and he was showing me the new pamphlet on it.......2.0L and 265 hp.

You are confusing the output of the previous 265 hp 3.5 V6 with the 240 hp output of the 2.0T EB.

[AMERICA 123]

Well, I for one will be curious to see how that balancing arrangement works out ..... and if it doesn't, what that does to the term " EcoBoost ".

" Power Stroke " was a great marketing term......... at one time ..........

[rjc333]

It makes them special because Ford was successful in marketing, making the customer aware of efficiency possibilities with gasoline engines , thereby creating a demand for them

Exactly. They have masterfully marketed the 'Ecoboost' moniker to the point where most average car buyers know what it is. Genius, really.....even if the technology wasn't pioneered by them. Sadly, way more people now know what Ecoboost is but wouldn't have a clue what Ecotec is if it slapped them in the face. Although I am a GM guy at heart, Ford's marketing prowess does deserve alot of credit.

[spd98]

A smart move to make the Fiesta stand out again. Unanswered questions are whether that six speed auto will be a conventional one or the much maligned DCT and when this will go on sale. Ford seems to be announcing this very early given the 2013's just hit the lot and announcing a MCE with 9-10 months left in the selling year may make people wait versus buy. If they had announced this just before the Detroit show with EPA mileage testing in place, then the announcement would make more sense as they could roll out the 2014's in April or May and not skip a beat.

I agree it's early though I think thats why there are no MPG numbers.

[FORDHATER]

This may be a nice little car, but I'm really surprised they decided to revive the Fiesta name. The name brings back visions of the rusty old econo boxes of the late 70s, early 80s. Those things rusted out and fell apart so fast it made my head spin. They were meant to compete with the Chevette and Pontiac T1000, but the Fiesta made those cars look like Caddilacs or BMWs. Poor choice there guys.

[CJH]

Exactly. They have masterfully marketed the 'Ecoboost' moniker to the point where most average car buyers know what it is. Genius, really.....even if the technology wasn't pioneered by them. Sadly, way more people now know what Ecoboost is but wouldn't have a clue what Ecotec is if it slapped them in the face. Although I am a GM guy at heart, Ford's marketing prowess does deserve alot of credit.

^This. The other parts to the genius of their marketing is that they have been consistent with their message (good MPG's + HP) and have/are rolling it out to every product they sell. So if a Focus doesn't fit your needs, you can get an Ecoboost in a Fiesta, Fusion, or an Explorer, or a F150, etc.......

I really like the Aston Martin inspired nose on the Fusion, not sure I do on the Fiesta, although I don't think its any worse. Sweet little engine, though, looking forward to seeing how it performs!

[XCR440SP]

As to EcoBoost vs GM, big difference is that EcoBoost is a mass production mainstream engine (in most cases), not a limited volume high performance engine. EcoBoost recommends 87 octane (for most applications), where I'm betting the GM engine recommended premium.

That said, although others have made DI Turbos, none of the others have been in the volume and aimed at the mainstream market before EcoBoost. That said, if anyone can get credit for being first, I'd say it should be Chrysler since it seems like they had turbos on everything in the 80's (hope it works out better for Ford than Chrysler).

There's the importance of the EcoBoost brand, to make people think of it postively instead of being afraid of something that they might have had trouble with in the past. The mention of PowerStroke is a great example, after the 5.7 and 6.2L GM diesel nightmares, and heavy maintence (glow plugs anyone) of the Ford 6.9 and 7.3L, diesel was not a hot commodity, by calling it Power Stroke made it all new and caused many to give diesel another chance giving new life to the 3/4 Ford diesel truck, GM did the same with the D-Max to get back into the market.

[AMERICA 123]

True .. but I do not think it stuck to the extent VWs TDI, or Ford Ecoboost stuck in person's consciousness. I guess in that respect we are back to marketing. The VW gasoline turbos lay more silent, with less visible branding, they are omnipresent, but I think they escape the awareness - so yeah .. back to marketing.

Ok, for here in the USA..... but how does all that play 'round the globe - especially say in Europe ?????

It's not the software that is special it's the direct injection which allows ford to use less fuel plus the turbo charging which increases the horse power and torque. That is how ford gets 265 hp from a 4 cylinder engine in a taurus, they were totally engulfed in developing this technology and after many years they are ahead of the rest as far as wringing every hp from small engines.

Sigh....... It's really nice to appreciate all of Ford's fine attempts at moving the ball down the field.

The BS isn't needed nor warranted.

Although i 'like it' , it runs contrary to your posting - that most of Ford'S Ecoboost configurations are more truck like in character than any else in the biz.

Of the EU type fuel frugal gasoline vehicles recognized in the US

500 and 500C, 2012 onwards 0.9 TwinAir Turbo 85 Dualogic SAT5 60 mpg(US) combined using NEDC test cycle

fortwo coupé, Model Year 2012 fortwo coupé 71 bhp mhd with Softip & 15" rear wheels 5 AMT 56.1 mpg(US) combined using NEDC test cycle

Fiesta, Model Year Post 2013¼ 1.0 EcoBoost (100PS) Stop-Start M5 54.7 mpg(US) combined using NEDC test cycle

Yaris, MY2012 1.0 VVT-i 5-speed Manual 5MT 58.9 49.1 mpg(US) combined using NEDC test cycle

the Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost (100PS) Stop-Start is clearly the largest vehicle in this fuel economy range.


The introduction of this combination of technologies raises the fuel economy stakes for ALL OEMs active in the US market with the inclusion of the Fusion/C-Max Hybrids and the C-Max Energi.

I suspect this will up the anty forcing VW/Audi, Hyundai/Kia, Mazda, and now Honda with their newly announced 1.6L iDTEC diesel to consider their diesel options ... potentially into the 60s mpg(US) combined NEDC range, maybe higher.

OTH, one could always stick withy 40 mpg(US) highway offerrings.

Yes - and one wonders given the time lag involved here before this actually hits the street - if some other small diesel type will come along and take the claim.

And ..... some kind of eAssist - which if normally aspirated arguably could be fairly compared ie battery versus turbo......


And then really, some of the CNG product will likely win on all the numbers that really count anyway - although Ford could perhaps wack one out of the park by combining the right kind of Ecoboost + CNG or related other....