Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - iFocus
Hi,

We’re considering getting my wife a new used car. Our budget is £11,000 and we have decided on getting a C-Max.

She only does around 6-8k a year so it’s Petrol territory only and we’ve narrowed it down to either the 1.6 125 or the 1.0 Ecoboost. But I’m put off by all the horror stories on the Ecoboosts.

But are they really that bad? Considering Ford install them across the range and have done for nearly 7 years?

Thanks,

Craig
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Finguz

I wholeheartedly recommend the 1.6 Ecoboost, a friend swears by the 2.0 Ecoboost in his ST and we love the 2.3 Ecobeast in our RS. I've never owned the 1.0 though, so can't say much about that one I'm afraid.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - SLO76

I wholeheartedly recommend the 1.6 Ecoboost, a friend swears by the 2.0 Ecoboost in his ST and we love the 2.3 Ecobeast in our RS. I've never owned the 1.0 though, so can't say much about that one I'm afraid.

Despite the Ecoboost badge they’re all completely different motors. The 1.0 is all Ford’s own work and has a poor reputation for longevity, later cars are supposedly better but there’s still too many cases of problems flagging up. The 1.5/1.6 is basically the old belt driven Yamaha designed Zetec Se with a turbocharger. Long lived and sweet revving it’s s good engine. The 2.0 is a chain driven Mazda L series with a turbo, again little to fear from well maintained examples. I personally wouldn’t buy a 1.0.
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - skidpan

Pretty sure that you cannot get the 1.5 Ecoboost in the C-Max. The 1.6 the OP refers to is the N/A one. We tried one many years ago and it was poor (we loved the same engine in the Puma). However, at the time the 1.8 was also available and while it was only about 5 PS more powerful it drove way better.

Before buying the 1.6 N/A have a good long test drive.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - iFocus

Pretty sure that you cannot get the 1.5 Ecoboost in the C-Max. The 1.6 the OP refers to is the N/A one. We tried one many years ago and it was poor (we loved the same engine in the Puma). However, at the time the 1.8 was also available and while it was only about 5 PS more powerful it drove way better.

Before buying the 1.6 N/A have a good long test drive.

I have the 1.6 125 N/A in my Focus and I like it, we’ve driven all 3 cars and ruled out the 1.6 105 as it is slow, but the 125 is adequate. If we do get an Ecoboost then it’ll be 2014 onwards. We can’t find many 1.6 Ecoboosts in our price range however.
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Finguz

The 1.6 EB C-max is a great buy. Imho, the 1.6 NA is flat.

www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?sort=price-desc&am...6

Three there.

Dropping to 2013 gives you a few more.

www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?sort=price-desc&am...6

Although if you're happy with the NA, it would make sense to save some money and go for one of those.

Good luck.

Edited by Finguz on 16/03/2018 at 10:29

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - iFocus
All those cars are a significant distance from me! But thanks anyway.

Locally there is only 1 Sigma Ecoboost and that has 60k on it for £9k which is a little pricey.
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Manatee

I think that buying one used is a different proposition from buying one new.

Some of the used ones will have had problems already, others may have been more or less abused (low oil/coolant, poor servicing or whatever). So I would steer clear of a known weak engine.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - S40 Man
My wife has a Focus (14 plate) 1.0 (125 ps) ecoboost. We've had it from 40k, it's now on 60k and has been trouble free.

Its nice to drive, it's powerful enough without being super fast. Economy is good for a petrol, around 42 mpg mixed driving.I did manage 70 mpg over. 35 miles but that was very feather footed driving.

There is a good 5th gear video on YouTube comparing 1.0 to the old Ford 1.6 lump I showed her that and she was convinced.
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - iFocus
I have found this car in budget locally:

www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/20171206184...h

Does anyone have any input on it?

Thanks
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Engineer Andy

I wholeheartedly recommend the 1.6 Ecoboost, a friend swears by the 2.0 Ecoboost in his ST and we love the 2.3 Ecobeast in our RS. I've never owned the 1.0 though, so can't say much about that one I'm afraid.

Seems some of the higher powered, larger capacity Ecoboost engines in the Focus RS and Mustang have issues with head gasket failure - check out videos on YouTube for more (I'm no expert on the subject - just reporting what I've found). This is in addition to the well-documented issue with the 1.0. None that I can find as yet with the 1.6/1.5, (as SLO says) as its based on the very reliable Yamaha derived 1.6 N/A engine.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - V4 Heaven
I have driven a 1.0 Ecoboost but I found it too slow. I must say that I'm tempted by the 1.6 Ecoboost Focus in either 150 or 180bhp guise.

Has anyone experienced these 1.6s and are they generally more reliable than the 1.0s?

HJ's own advice is that problems with this model of Focus are well documented.

Thanks.
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Finguz

We have a 63 plate 1.6 Ecoboost Focus 180, just coming up on 50000 miles. We had a problem with the clutch and gearbox, but it was covered by Ford even though we were out of warranty by a year or so.

Other than that, the car hasn't missed a beat, and it goes very well indeed. It's the same engine you'll find in the Fiesta ST.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Ethan Edwards

Ford ford.....I just bought a Suzuki with the new (ish) 1.4 Boosterjet engine in a Vitara S.

A very satisfying 140bhp and I wondered if anyone else had one. It replaced a 2ltre T diesel Quashqai, and the power delivery seems very similar to me. I believe that Suzuki are going to put this engine into the new little Swift this year. Thats going to be a rocket ship! Weighing slightly more than a packet of Cheese n Onion crisps with 140bhp. I am definitely going to blag a test drive of that!

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - daveyK_UK

far to many horror stories about the 1.0 ecoboost

Ford offer no support, lots of examples of Ford blaming owners despite cars having full service history and still being within warranty period.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - bluezzr1100

I would avoid any small engine with a turbo. It is going to run very hot and is constantly being thrashed to give what is really only a mediocre performance. There ain't no substitute for cubes as the americans would say. As a new buy to be kept for a short time probably you would be ok but anything over 40 000 miles is likely to cause problems and there seems to be a lot of internet noise to suggest that these are unreliable. I would avoid any small engine with a turbo no matter what the make-just my view-could be wrong of course.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - skidpan

I would avoid any small engine with a turbo. It is going to run very hot and is constantly being thrashed to give what is really only a mediocre performance.

Have you ever driven one of the samll petrol turbo's, I suspect not, if you had you would not be making such incorrect comments.

They run at the same temperatures as non turbo engines, that is controlled by the thermostat. My 1.4 TSi's run at about 90 degrees all the time once warmed up (form the accuarte digital gauge not the analogue one)

You certainly do not have to tharsh them. Compared to larger no turbo engines they have much higer torque from revs barely above tickover. Take the Fabia 1.0 TSI we have on order, it has its max torque of 148 lbs form 2000 to 3500 rpm. The Honda Jazz no turbo has its max toque of 114 lbs at 4600 rpm. Easy to see which needs thrashing to get good performance.

We will shortly have our 3rd TSi and I would buy no other engine than a tirbo petrol. The Leon with 140 PS averaged 45 mpg over 4 years, the Skoda Superb with a similar 150 PS has averaged nearly the same. Non turbo petrols form 10 yers ago would ahve struggled to get into the mid 30 and have less performance.

I would avoid any small engine with a turbo no matter what the make-just my view-could be wrong of course.

I think you need to try one before making such illiformed coments.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Engineer Andy

I would avoid any small engine with a turbo. It is going to run very hot and is constantly being thrashed to give what is really only a mediocre performance.

Have you ever driven one of the samll petrol turbo's, I suspect not, if you had you would not be making such incorrect comments.

They run at the same temperatures as non turbo engines, that is controlled by the thermostat. My 1.4 TSi's run at about 90 degrees all the time once warmed up (form the accuarte digital gauge not the analogue one)

You certainly do not have to tharsh them. Compared to larger no turbo engines they have much higer torque from revs barely above tickover. Take the Fabia 1.0 TSI we have on order, it has its max torque of 148 lbs form 2000 to 3500 rpm. The Honda Jazz no turbo has its max toque of 114 lbs at 4600 rpm. Easy to see which needs thrashing to get good performance.

We will shortly have our 3rd TSi and I would buy no other engine than a tirbo petrol. The Leon with 140 PS averaged 45 mpg over 4 years, the Skoda Superb with a similar 150 PS has averaged nearly the same. Non turbo petrols form 10 yers ago would ahve struggled to get into the mid 30 and have less performance.

I would avoid any small engine with a turbo no matter what the make-just my view-could be wrong of course.

I think you need to try one before making such illiformed coments.

To be fair, some small capcity turbo engines (petrol and diesel-powered) are underpowered - more of a mis-match for the cars they are used in rather than 'poor technology' themselves. I think this could be said for N/A as well. I do recall 5th Gear demonstrating this once a few years ago (not that long ago) with a small hatch (possibly an i20 or similar sized car) with a TD engine that was not powerful enough when it was fully loaded with passengers (only), and the mpg dropped like a stone because it needed a lot of right foot to get it going.

I think though that manufacturers are learning their lesson on this though, although the current stupid EU emissions rules (including corporate CO2 limits and fines) and tests are hampering car manufacturers using the most appropriate engines for the size and likely use of their cars - more so for makes (like Mazda) that still use N/A engines.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - FP

"I think though that manufacturers are learning their lesson on this though, although the current stupid EU emissions rules (including corporate CO2 limits and fines) and tests are hampering car manufacturers using the most appropriate engines for the size and likely use of their cars - more so for makes (like Mazda) that still use N/A engines."

I'm not an engineer, but I would have thought that the economy of normally-aspirated engines would suffer less when they are driven harder to compensate for extra weight.

Cretainly the economy of the 2-litre petrol in my CX-5 doesn't seem to suffer unduly with four people and a bit of luggage, as I found last summer on a fairly lengthy jaunt.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Engineer Andy

"I think though that manufacturers are learning their lesson on this though, although the current stupid EU emissions rules (including corporate CO2 limits and fines) and tests are hampering car manufacturers using the most appropriate engines for the size and likely use of their cars - more so for makes (like Mazda) that still use N/A engines."

I'm not an engineer, but I would have thought that the economy of normally-aspirated engines would suffer less when they are driven harder to compensate for extra weight.

Cretainly the economy of the 2-litre petrol in my CX-5 doesn't seem to suffer unduly with four people and a bit of luggage, as I found last summer on a fairly lengthy jaunt.

Bear in mid that your 2 ltr engine has already been uprated from the 120hp in the 3 to 165hp in the CX-5, though being a larger and heavier car with a higher drag factor it still is 1.5sec slower to 60. It should be noted that both have the same torque of 155 ft-lbs, so, in theory, it should be easier to make smooth progress yours than the 3 (in standard form). Judging by the reviews of the 3 in 165hp form, it seems not to be the case in that car, though possibly in yours.

My point was more about car manufacturers deliberately de-rating certain engines to fit the corporate CO2 limits, which often has degraded (sometimes significantly) the driving experience of certain engines - my 3's mk1 1.6 petrol was modified twice by Mazda to reduce its CO2 from 172g/km in mine to 149 in the facelifted version in March 2006 (but which increased the 0-60 time from 11.2sec to ~11.7sec [I saw this in the blurb - the HJ review figure is the older one]) and again to 144g/km and about 12.2-12.5sec in the mk2 in 2009.

Similar things were done to the 2.0 petrol as well, making both not exactly quick, and even taking into account the economy at the time, sales of the 3 slumped and have never recovered. Mazdas are seen as great handling cars, but without any MPS versions, none outside the MX-5 are seen as being anything other than 'not bad' in terms of performance. I think if they could match the VAG and latest Honda engines in their new HCCI engines, then this will be a big sales boon IF they get the reliability and costs right.

As regards other cars being a bit 'slow, I think it shows why many are now going the TSi route such as Hyundai/KIA, whose cars had a 'worthy but slow' reputation when (I think) they used their N/A engines (but not VTEC or similar, which is what my 3 uses) in most of their petrol-engined cars. The same, as I stated in my previous post, has gone for many small and mid-sized hatches with small capacity TD engines. I think too many were focussed (pardon the pun) too heavily on fuel economy (with only one occupant an no boot load, driving sedately around) and not enough of a balance of that and on performance, particularly from a standstill and the 30-70mph range for overtaking, as well as adequately dealing with a fully-loaded car.

Some I've driven or been driven in just run out of puff and sometimes are downright dangerous when you need to put your foot down - pulling out of a junction into fast-moving traffic or onto a large roundabout on a dual carriageway, or overtaking on single-lane national speed limit roads. Sometimes doing so in such cars is no different to when my Dad used to own a 1.1 Ford Escort in the 1970s and that horrible 1.4 'lean burn' one in the early 90s.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - John F

I would avoid any small engine with a turbo. It is going to run very hot and is constantly being thrashed to give what is really only a mediocre performance.

They run at the same temperatures as non turbo engines, that is controlled by the thermostat.

I think you need to try one before making such illiformed coments.

Not so ill-informed. The coolant may well be 90C but a small turbo engine undoubtedly generates hotter spots than its naturally aspirated predecessor. These must be efficiently cooled. There is a suspicion that the head gasket and cylinder head design is not up to scratch on these 1.0 engines, unable to cope with this highly localised heat production. Some suspect that their failure can cause undue pressure in the cooling system which caused the early weak Degas hose to blow; reversing the generally accepted cause-effect theory of the resulting engine damage so commonly reported. I do wonder what, if any, modifications Ford have made to this engine since its inception.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - skidpan

I would avoid any small engine with a turbo. It is going to run very hot and is constantly being thrashed to give what is really only a mediocre performance.

They run at the same temperatures as non turbo engines, that is controlled by the thermostat.

I think you need to try one before making such illiformed coments.

Not so ill-informed. The coolant may well be 90C but a small turbo engine undoubtedly generates hotter spots than its naturally aspirated predecessor. These must be efficiently cooled. There is a suspicion that the head gasket and cylinder head design is not up to scratch on these 1.0 engines, unable to cope with this highly localised heat production. Some suspect that their failure can cause undue pressure in the cooling system which caused the early weak Degas hose to blow; reversing the generally accepted cause-effect theory of the resulting engine damage so commonly reported. I do wonder what, if any, modifications Ford have made to this engine since its inception.

You appear to be referring to Ford engines, I am referring to VAG engnes. I have yet to read about cooling problems with the current TSi range. The 1.0 ecoboost has more power than the VAG TSi but less torques, it would be interesting to try the ecoboost to see how this affects the drive.

But more than happy to saty with the TSi currently.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - madf

I doubt that a well maintained turbo petrol is any less long lived than a well maintained NA petrol.

But I suspect they are much less tolerant of poor maintenance due to higher temperatures and torque. As we all know third or even second owners often skimp on servicing..

So I would only buy a properly maintanied one: oil/filter and coolant changes as required.. Given most people NEVER change coolants and how critical coolants are to turbos....a 5 year old one or older is likely to be a ticking bomb in the wrong owner's hands.

Given Ford's propensity to ignore its own manufacturing problems - proven over years (CVT anyone?), I would not buy a used Ford one.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - focussed

Why anybody at Ford thought that a 1.0 litre, 3 cylinder motor with a block footprint the size of a sheet of A4 paper, configured to produce in excess of 100 hp would be a good idea is beyond me. Except of course if they ignore customers with problems, which is what happens - apparently.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Big John

To be fair, some small capcity turbo engines (petrol and diesel-powered) are underpowered - more of a mis-match for the cars they are used in rather than 'poor technology' themselves.

My previous gen 1.4 tsi Skoda Superb despite its small capacity and a barge of a car still has a top speed of 127mph , pulls well even at speed, cruises quietly at 70mph at about 2300rpm and has averaged 45.8mpg over 3 years and 35k miles. Doesn't feel mis-matched to me

Edited by Big John on 24/03/2018 at 23:53

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Engineer Andy

To be fair, some small capcity turbo engines (petrol and diesel-powered) are underpowered - more of a mis-match for the cars they are used in rather than 'poor technology' themselves.

My previous gen 1.4 tsi Skoda Superb despite its small capacity and a barge of a car still has a top speed of 127mph , pulls well even at speed, cruises quietly at 70mph at about 2300rpm and has averaged 45.8mpg over 3 years and 35k miles. Doesn't feel mis-matched to me

Never said it was, hence my use of the word 'some'...

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Avant

Interesting that in another current thread Leif (who is thinking about a new 1.0 litre Polo) has had a VW Up for six years and 130,000 trouble-free miles. As Skidpan implies, it's important not to tar all 3-cylinder engines (turbo or non-turbo) with the same brush.

If there is a pattern as to which Ford engines develop problems and which don't, it's not yet clear what that pattern is. More experiences will be welcome as time goes on.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - SLO76
There are fewer moving parts in a 3cyl engine thus fewer things to go wrong. There’s plenty of examples of longlived small capacity motors from the 1.0 Daihatsu triple in the Charade in the 80’s through the same firms later design in the Toyota Aygo/Yaris/Pug107/108/Citroen C1 to the VW UP. Loads are carrying six figure mileages after years as commuters without major failure.

Add a turbocharger to any engine however and you add stress on its components plus the oil and coolant system then has to cope with the enormous additional heat generated by the turbo. No problem If designed well and oil changes aren’t skipped or scrimped on via cheap and inappropriate oils however they don’t take neglect as well as a normally asperated motor. Look after it though and it should give as long a life as any other motor. As with many major failures I’ve encountered over the years (beyond flawed designs such as Ford’s 1.0 Ecoboost and PSA’s 1.6 HDi) it’s all too often down to poor maintenance.
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Oli rag

Information on the Ford 1.0 ecoboost is that the blck and head were redesigned from late 2014. Earlier versions(12 - 14 plates) seemed to get damaged beyond repair if there was a coolant system leak.

The previously mentioned degas hose was the main culprit of these failures. It does sound fairly alarming reading that the purpose of this hose is to release very high temp coolant / steam from the turbo area. As we know there was a recall to have these hoses replaced with a beefed up version, but that doesn't seemed to have stopped the failures, hence the redesign.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - John F

Information on the Ford 1.0 ecoboost is that the blck and head were redesigned from late 2014. Earlier versions(12 - 14 plates) seemed to get damaged beyond repair if there was a coolant system leak.

The previously mentioned degas hose was the main culprit of these failures. It does sound fairly alarming reading that the purpose of this hose is to release very high temp coolant / steam from the turbo area. As we know there was a recall to have these hoses replaced with a beefed up version, but that doesn't seemed to have stopped the failures, hence the redesign.

Thanks for this, Oli rag - seems to confirm my earlier contention that the hose failure was an effect , not the cause, of block/head problems (my bold type). Since 2014, tens if not hundreds of thousands of 1.0 ecoboosts must be piling on the miles around the world. There have been few recent reports of failure. Time will tell if they can reliably do 200,000m, which is not unreasonable to expect these days. I expect at least 150,000m from our 1.6 Zetec, designed last century.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - SLO76
“Time will tell if they can reliably do 200,000m, which is not unreasonable to expect these days. I expect at least 150,000m from our 1.6 Zetec, designed last century.”

Newer doesn’t always mean more durable. I’ve far far more faith in your old 1600 Yamaha designed Zetec SE than Ford’s latest homegrown 1.0 Ecoboost.

Thinking of other great and longlived motors that were replaced by engines that were nowhere near as tough.

Peugeot’s near indestructible 8v 2.0 HDi was replaced by the now notorious 1.6 HDi also known as the diesel of doom. These were often scrap before 60,000 miles. Later cars are better but the failure rate is still far too high.

Also the same firms old TU series petrols (from 950cc to 2.2) which were simple and robust were replaced by the joint effort with BMW the VTi motors which are murder for timing chain problems and plenty of other woe.

Vauxhall’s non-interference 8v 1.8 and 2.0 as used in the Carlton and Cavalier was eventually replaced by the 1.8 VVT which was prone to HGF and VVT problems among others not to mention that timing belt failure meant the engine was now scrap.

Renault’s old 1870cc diesels which were replaced by the later multi-vane turbo dci of the same size that had a terrible reputation for failure. The older motor was used in some Volvo’s and was popular as a taxi in the R21, well fit for 500k.

VAG’s bombproof 1900 PD diesels were great and fit for 500k plus if looked after. The replacement 1.6 and 2.0 diesels are murder for a host of problems.

Loads of others but you get the picture. New tech rarely improves reliability and today’s desperate drive to cut emissions is forcing manufacturers to introduce flawed new designs to meet reduction targets where in the past they just refined older designs which often stayed in production as in the case of PSA’s TU series for decades and were largely vice free.



Edited by SLO76 on 25/03/2018 at 13:42

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - concrete
Hi, We’re considering getting my wife a new used car. Our budget is £11,000 and we have decided on getting a C-Max. She only does around 6-8k a year so it’s Petrol territory only and we’ve narrowed it down to either the 1.6 125 or the 1.0 Ecoboost. But I’m put off by all the horror stories on the Ecoboosts. But are they really that bad? Considering Ford install them across the range and have done for nearly 7 years? Thanks, Craig

My daughter has had two 1.0 Ecoboost cars in a row. First one changed at 2 years with about 21K and the latest on is 18 months with about 16K miles. No problem with anything. No warranty claims, just routine services. She does use 'decent' fuel though. I know that is a bone of contention here, but it may be a factor in engine wear and performance. Hope it helps. Cheers Concrete

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - concrete

Update about Ford Ecoboost. On Radio 4 today there was a feature about the failure of certian Ecoboost engines. The failure was due to the heat the engines create which was causeing the coolant hoses to degrade or melt. A few ended up running dry with engine siezure resulting. Reluctantly Ford did eventually compensate the people involved, but not with good grace. The cars involved are the 1.0 Ecoboost built between 2010 ans 2013. The others have had a safety recall and new design hoses fitted. Most failures occured after the 25k mile mark. I don't know the current situation but hope Ford have sorted the whole problem out. Cheers Concrete

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - gordonbennet

The grace with which a car maker deals with issues that arise tells me much i need to know about which brands to avoid, and which might be decent bets for long term ownership.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - skidpan

She does use 'decent' fuel though.

So do I. It meets (or exceeds) the requirements of BS 228 (as specified by the manufacturer) and is supplied by a terminal in the UK. I normally buy it from Asda or Tesco.

If I had a car that the manufacturer said would benefit from higher octane fuel I would probably use Tesco Momentum since Asda don't appear to sell super unleaded.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - concrete

I agree GB, but I think most manufacturers act this way, otherwise they open the floodgates for claims. If you have a good relationship with the main dealer and the services record is correct you stand a better chance of receiving the benefit of any discretion there may be.

As for fuel, sorry 'decent fuel'. Not to hi-jack the thread with another discussion on the pro's and con's of various suppliers.

I, like many on the forum, am not a fuel engineer. I go by the fact that fuel has to reach a minimum standard according to BS/ISO requirements. That means of course that every fuel station complies and therefore all should be equal. However in practice I have found that different fuels produce different effects when used in certain vehicles. I cannot explain why and maybe no-one can. But I reserve the right to choose which fuel I purchase for use in my vehicles without being brought to task by anyone who thinks differently.

Cheers Concrete

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - John F

Update about Ford Ecoboost. On Radio 4 today there was a feature about the failure of certian Ecoboost engines. The failure was due to the heat the engines create which was causeing the coolant hoses to degrade or melt.

I heard that too. Not sure about the 'degrading' or 'melting', but the early hoses certainly failed, probably splitting because of pressure from early hot-spot CHG failure. Mention was made of cars which had had a sturdier hose fitted on recall, but then still suffered engine failure. Ford refused to come on the program. They should have come clean and admitted that they have had to redesign the engine. In the absence of such detailed information, we are still left wondering - and doubtful about this 1.0 engine, although apparently the factories in Cologne and Romania can churn out up to a million a year!

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - primus 1
Wasn’t the failures on the focus ecoboosts? Something to do with the coolant pipes corroding, not sure if fiestas etc were affected
Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Redcar01

My sons 1.6 ecoboost focus has just had a recall for coolant system to be replaced apparently its a 7 hour job due to number of parts to be replaced i did read 208,000 are affected 2013-2015 models various cars.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - bluezzr1100

In my view any turbo added to a small engine to obtain mediocre performance is asking for trouble. More heat. More parts to go wrong and an engine thrashed to death even under normal driving conditions. It will be working harder than a NA engine of greater capacity and must therefore have a shorter life expectancy. Unless of course some wonderful new material made of unobtainium has been created?

Edited by bluezzr1100 on 02/04/2018 at 13:34

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - Engineer Andy

In my view any turbo added to a small engine to obtain mediocre performance is asking for trouble. More heat. More parts to go wrong and an engine thrashed to death even under normal driving conditions. It will be working harder than a NA engine of greater capacity and must therefore have a shorter life expectancy. Unless of course some wonderful new material made of unobtainium has been created?

Not necessarily - to get the same performance, a N/A engine would have to rev higher than a turbocharged one. Yes, the turbo itself obviously spins at a high RPM and, as a new set of components, introduces another risk of failure, but if the design is done right (as they seem to on the VAG TSi engines in the last 5-6 years, time will tell on others), the turbo and related components should last for a long time (10+ years) if competently serviced and not thrashed all the time.

As I've said before, its often how well the engine size and turbo are mated with the car so you don't need to thrash it to make any sort of decent progress. The VVTi N/A engines are very robust and will likely still outlast the small capacity turbocharged ones, but not by as much today as perhaps 10 years ago when that tech was still being developed for ordinary (non-performance) cars. You trade off a bit off life for a easier drive. The Ecoboosts seem (to me at least) to fine as regards that, but perhaps still have some way to go to get the reliability right and real-life mpg reasonable (comparable to the VAG TSi at least) over the longer term.

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - bluezzr1100

I did a service on a VW diesel for the first time yesterday. I was impressed with the build quality. I inherently dislike German cars perhaps without having good reason. For my own cars I have taken 2 approaches-cheap and perhaps less reliable but easy to repair (Astra Mk4) and 'never goes wrong' Toyota Celica but when it does parts are more expensive. To be fair the Astra has been very good having done 100 000 miles in it and only needing routine service items over 10 years. I always service it on time-particularly oil and filter changes. For a 1.4 it is really quite perky and costs me nothing to run. The time when I will be stuck with a turbo car lies well into the future!

I will stick with NA japanese in the light of my experience with these and if I wanted a turbo it would have to be something worthwhile like a Nissan 350Z or similar. To me that is what a turbo is for but each to his or her own- it is a free (in some parts ) world.

My local garage to which I only go for MOT's used to swear by VAG but now, following several lengthy and expensive episodes they swear at them. Difficult intermittent electrical faults seem to be the order of the day, caused by cheap wire apparently. They must have caught the French disease!

My daughter and son in law both have eco-boost cars (ford and Vauxhall respectively) and to be honest so far so good. It just isn't for me!

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - aethelwulf

Fascinating debate but no one really knows the answer because that is how manufcturers want it to be. Most people choose cars on style,colour,trim levels and ignore the workings until it goes pear-shaped and they look around for support.

Well, once you have owned a Kia for over seven years ( under warranty the whole time) you won't bother with the other manufacturers unless ,of course, you are using someone else's money for you car.In seven years the only warranty claim was a failed brake light switch repaired the next day no hassle,paper work nothing. I just hope nothing nasty happens in South Korea!

Ford Ecoboosts. Are they really that bad? - argybargy

Found this whilst looking for something else. Might be worth checking if you're in the market for an Ecoboost.

http://www.fordownersclub.com/forums/topic/95740-2013-10l-ecoboost-engine-rust-problem/

 

Ask Honest John

Value my car