Silver Black Leather Navigation Sunroof Heated Seats Sync Eco Boost Certified on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford wins second consecutive Engine of the Year with 1.0L EcoBoost [UPDATE]

For the second year in a row, Ford has taken top honors in International Engine of the Year voting. As was the case last year, it is Ford's 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine that earns the automaker the accolade, achieving the highest-ever accumulated score in the 15 years that the award has been handed out.
A panel of 87 automotive journalists from 35 countries are responsible for choosing the world's best engines, and this is only the third time an automaker has managed back-to-back victories. Voters were impressed by the "Baby EcoBoost" engine's power output - 123 horsepower between 1,400 and 4,500 rpm, 148 pound-feet of torque from 1,400 to 4,000 rpm - and its compact size; Ford has demonstrated that the package is small enough to fit in the overhead bin of a passenger airplane.
Currently, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost is offered in the European Fiesta, B-MAX, Focus, C-MAX and Grand C-MAX, and Ford plans to put the engine in the Transit Connect, Transit Courier, Tourneo Connect, Tourneo Courier, Mondeo and EcoSport in short order. In North America, the Fiesta will be the first vehicle to offer the 1.0L EcoBoost later this year.

Ford UK exec says EVs are a good way to lose a fortune

Stateside, Ford execs are quick to point out the automaker's expansion in the plug-in sector. And despite a minimal presence in the pure EV space, the Blue Oval has been promoting its plug-in vehicles as part of an overall effort to boost fleetwide fuel economy. Too bad the company's UK chief didn't get the memo. There's "no point in us getting behind [EVs] and losing a fortune" - Ford's Mark Ovenden Mark Ovenden, speaking rather frankly at the Geneva Motor Show recently, said he didn't have real high hopes for substantial electric-vehicle adoption and said the company's money was better spent on smaller gas- and diesel-powered engines, the UK's Daily Mail says. Ovenden said of EV development that there was "no point in us getting behind it and losing a fortune," adding that his goal was to have variants of Ford's EcoBoost engine in 40 percent of the company's vehicles. Ford has about a 15-percent market share in the UK. The UK doesn't appear to be as kind to the EV as the US. Nissan last year cut the price of its all-electric Leaf there last year by about $4,000, while the company rolled out a promotion for the Leaf late last year, including allowing Leaf drivers to borrow a gas- or diesel-powered Nissan for free for as long as two weeks a year during the first three years of Leaf ownership. In the US, Ford sold just 229 Ford Focus Electrics during the first two months of the year after moving 1,738 units in 2013.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.