2014 Fusion 1.5 Ecoboost review

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Mechanical efficiency and fuel consumption are different things. It's fascinating to look at Brake Specific Fuel Consumption curves for different engines. This measures fuel consumption per work done (power output). Essentially, it measures how efficient an engine is at producing torque. Look at the torque peak; not the horsepower peak.

The lowest BSFC occurs at near full throttle in the 1500-3500 rpm range. That doesn't mean that that's where the lowest fuel consumption is. However, you CAN see that the engine is much less efficient at producing torque at lower engine speeds and at lower engine output (the lower left of the graph).

Engines are usually most efficient at producing torque near their maximum rated load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

Thank you for the explanation.
thumbsup2.gif


Badtlc - "Mechanical efficiency and fuel consumption are different things." My experience with fuel consumption is fact. Regardless of how or why. Therefore, I AM "familiar with that of which I speak." You then chimed in with mechanical efficiency, which I don't know much about, and never claimed to. You were correct there. But these are "different things."

2+2=4.
2x2=4.
Both are correct, yet different. I know addition, you know multiplication. Both yield the same result.

I guess I don't understand how this thread got so technical.
21.gif
 
MPG is really not that good a diesel Mercedes will beat or match it with a much more powerful motor.
 
So it maxes out at about 33 mpg at 65 mph. Not great, but not stellar either. I practically guarantee that little 1.5 is almost constantly boosting to propel a 3500 lb Fusion at 65 mph, much less 70 mph. Slow it down to 55-60 mph so it would be just under needing to boost, and it would likely achieve its 36 mpg highway rating.

Done right, a turbo engine can be entertaining while sipping fuel. Given what I've heard so far, Ford's on the entertaining side of the fence. Seems more like a EPA ploy than anything else.
 
The problem with those little motors is they really are just CAFE cheaters. Off boost they post great mileage numbers which if your 80 you might see, drive them like everything else and meh.

I mean come on back when I was growing up driving to FL my moms 96 Oldsmobile with a 3.1 did 31-33.


A new Audi A8 TDI which is a massive car in comparison will match those MPG's. Pretty much any diesel Mercedes built since the Regan administration will as well.

Unless your talking 40mpg+ its just yawn, a 2005 CDI will do 42 at cruise.
 
Last edited:
I ran the numbers on this engine in another thread (comparing EPA numbers). It does not make sense to me. You're paying extra for a more complex engine that barely gets any better MPG than the NA 2.5 motor:

Originally Posted By: stranger706
Take the Fusion for example, and compare the 1.5 EB vs the 2.5 NA motor. The 1.5 EB adds $795 to the price tag. The 1.5 EB gets 36 mpg hwy, the 2.5 NA motor gets 34 mpg hwy. If you drive 20,000 miles/ per year on the highway, like I do, then it would take you 8 years to break even on the additional $795 for the 1.5 EB motor.

Why do they even offer the 1.5 EB motor?
 
Originally Posted By: stranger706
I ran the numbers on this engine in another thread (comparing EPA numbers). It does not make sense to me. You're paying extra for a more complex engine that barely gets any better MPG than the NA 2.5 motor:

Originally Posted By: stranger706
Take the Fusion for example, and compare the 1.5 EB vs the 2.5 NA motor. The 1.5 EB adds $795 to the price tag. The 1.5 EB gets 36 mpg hwy, the 2.5 NA motor gets 34 mpg hwy. If you drive 20,000 miles/ per year on the highway, like I do, then it would take you 8 years to break even on the additional $795 for the 1.5 EB motor.

Why do they even offer the 1.5 EB motor?


More power - the 1.5 makes 6 HP and 10 Lb-Ft more than the 2.5. And it's probably got better power delivery (more linear torque curve) so it's more "fun" to drive.
 
My 2007 MS3 has a 2.3 liter DI turbo; with the Hypertech tune it makes 300 bhp and 320 lb-ft of torque while returning over 30 mpg at a 70 mph cruise. I average @28 mpg overall.
That said, it is more than a bit thirsty when driven in anger; at full throttle/high boost the A/F ratio is extremely rich in order to avoid knock- at the end of a three day HPDE the rear hatch is covered with so much soot that you'd think it was a diesel.
 
Just returned the car. I've given the car an overall 2 thumbs up.

Not just for "fun to drive" as mentioned above, which it certainly is when compared to the others in it's class. But for being very comfortable and very quiet, quite capable, achieving good efficiency and for overall perception of quality. It does not feel cheap or substandard in any way. The switchgear is nice, the shift lever has a sport mode that works, the headlights are good, and more.

I simply like it.

When compared to the 2.5, the 1.5EB pulls with significantly more authority in the 2000-3500 RPM range. In fact, that's where it's so incredibly pleasant.

We can argue about the merits of the EB engines all day long, say they are "EPA Cheaters" and so on. But the bottom line is that they are much more pleasant to drive than a weak-knee'd", normally aspirated, small 4 cylinder engine. In fact, I'd argue that they approximate the feel and torque of the classic GM V6 pushrod engines in mid sized cars. Just simply nice to drive in the real world.
 
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
The problem with those little motors is they really are just CAFE cheaters. Off boost they post great mileage numbers which if your 80 you might see, drive them like everything else and meh.

I mean come on back when I was growing up driving to FL my moms 96 Oldsmobile with a 3.1 did 31-33.


A new Audi A8 TDI which is a massive car in comparison will match those MPG's. Pretty much any diesel Mercedes built since the Regan administration will as well.

Unless your talking 40mpg+ its just yawn, a 2005 CDI will do 42 at cruise.





Don't forget that gasoline has significantly lower BTU per gallon today, than in the past. So, the GM V6 that could achieve 30 highway yesterday, won't do so today.

And, I agree with the diesel comparison. My Jetta TDI got 42 MPG at 80 on trips. It was a real "bladder buster". Diesel fuel is now 20% ++ more expensive, and the diesel engine commands a big price premium over an EB. I'd compare the EB and Diesel engines favorably. Good mid range torque, pleasant to drive. Both are turbo, direct injection. They even sound similar!
 
Thanks for the review Cujet. I'm personally on the fence about these new, smaller DI/turbo engines. I could see how without a doubt they are more fun to drive then say, the 2.5 NA in our Mazda 6. We owned a 2.0T Optima for a while and the power from that car shocked me, actually was faster than my brothers old modified '07 V6 Stang. I guess time will tell if these motors hold up, I hope so as they sure are fun to drive.
 
Not sure why Ford did not use a simpler motor as this one will cost some owners latter on. That MPG is not impressive considering the complexity.

I concur dynamics are decent on Ford's but would not want to own one 150k+ miles.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Not sure why Ford did not use a simpler motor as this one will cost some owners latter on. That MPG is not impressive considering the complexity.

I concur dynamics are decent on Ford's but would not want to own one 150k+ miles.


The EB engines are absolutely tiny. The new ones have the turbo right on the head. No exhaust manifold at all. The Cat, is attached right on the turbo. So, while you say they are complex, I'd counter with the fact that they are absolutely tiny, save weight and are more simple than a V6.

Typically, turbo engines are built in a robust manner, with very high quality parts, (similar to a diesel) and last a very long time. In fact, internal stresses are not excessive on such designs, for a large number of reasons. Bearing loads, piston loads, peak cylinder pressures and so on, don't exceed typical standards. I'd argue they will last a very long time with proper maintenance and synthetic oil.

Check this out: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1080...-a-carry-on-bag
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Not sure why Ford did not use a simpler motor as this one will cost some owners latter on. That MPG is not impressive considering the complexity.

I concur dynamics are decent on Ford's but would not want to own one 150k+ miles.


There are lots of turbo Cruzes out there with 100-150k+ miles on them doing just fine. While it's not a Ford, it does show that these little turbo engines can withstand the test of time with regular maintenance. I'd also rather work on a tiny turbo engine in a large bay than a big 4 or V6 shoehorned in that space.
 
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Not sure why Ford did not use a simpler motor as this one will cost some owners latter on. That MPG is not impressive considering the complexity.

I concur dynamics are decent on Ford's but would not want to own one 150k+ miles.


There are lots of turbo Cruzes out there with 100-150k+ miles on them doing just fine. While it's not a Ford, it does show that these little turbo engines can withstand the test of time with regular maintenance. I'd also rather work on a tiny turbo engine in a large bay than a big 4 or V6 shoehorned in that space.


Same with the 3.5 Ecoboosts. They turn 5 this summer for the cars (SHO, Flex, MKS, MKT) and there are quite a few on the F150 forums that have over 100k on them.

I'm shooting for at least 150k out of mine - more like 200k. I'm 1/2 way there and no signs of stopping any time soon!
 
Originally Posted By: sciphi
rjundi said:
... I'd also rather work on a tiny turbo engine in a large bay than a big 4 or V6 shoehorned in that space.

From what Cujet wrote above, it sounds like there may not be much one could DIY anyway, besides basic maintenance.
 
The 1.5 isn't related to the 1.6? Does it also have a timing belt? That's a serious fault. I understand the 1.6 is related to the old Zetec engines that came in the Focus? Not a bad engine.

I wonder how the electric parking brakes hold up ...
 
You would trust this engine over the simple 2.4L an Accord offers with a better 0-60 time and slightly better MPG? Also more tolerant to lax maintenance?

I think this engine design/size is intended for export.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The 1.5 isn't related to the 1.6? Does it also have a timing belt? That's a serious fault. I understand the 1.6 is related to the old Zetec engines that came in the Focus? Not a bad engine.

I wonder how the electric parking brakes hold up ...


The timing belt on the 1.5 is interesting. It's oil bathed, and rated for life. In other words, there is no replacement interval. So it's the same as most timing chains in that respect. Makes sense to me, as bathing it in oil would definitely help keep it from dry rotting, especially with newer belt technologies.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
You would trust this engine over the simple 2.4L an Accord offers with a better 0-60 time and slightly better MPG? Also more tolerant to lax maintenance?

I think this engine design/size is intended for export.



Yes, the 1.5 is designed for China where over 1.5 liters gets some weird tax.

And yes I'd trust this over the 2.4 in an Accord. Honda is an average car builder, just like Ford. Nothing special with their brand of cars. They, like Ford, GM, and Toyota have plenty of f-ups along the way.

Not the same engine but I'd imagine there are plenty of Ecoboosts in F150's getting "lax maintenance" and they are not blowing up left and right.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The 1.5 isn't related to the 1.6? Does it also have a timing belt? That's a serious fault. I understand the 1.6 is related to the old Zetec engines that came in the Focus? Not a bad engine.

I wonder how the electric parking brakes hold up ...


The timing belt on the 1.5 is interesting. It's oil bathed, and rated for life. In other words, there is no replacement interval. So it's the same as most timing chains in that respect. Makes sense to me, as bathing it in oil would definitely help keep it from dry rotting, especially with newer belt technologies.


Interesting. Now if they could get a manual behind the 1.5 instead of the 100K interval 1.6 ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top