[MaddyCrew]

Found this article on the BBC website. Thought of sharing it here

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130207-turbo-trouble

[naut]

Originally Posted by MaddyCrew

Found this article on the BBC website. Thought of sharing it here

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130207-turbo-trouble

Thanks for sharing Maddy. I have seen similar issues being reported on other forums with regards to the bigger siblings of the 1.0 L ecoboost in the US. Hope the ecoboost doesn't cause more damage to Ford than help it. Going by these reports, I think ford is in for trouble. The extremely mileage conscious public in india will not forgive ford if it fails to keep it's tall promises.

I think the only saviour for Ford will be the Diesel crazy market that India is. Given our love for diesel and the fact that the petrol v/s diesel pricing with the ecosport might not be as high as other cars(owing to the increased cost of manufacturing or importing ecoboost), it is highly likely that most people would go in for the oil burner. That alone can save Ford.

[oops]

Originally Posted by himanshugoswami

Oh dear ..... Looks like Ford is planning on some beige in the lower half. Hope that doesn't make it to the production models

Bang On.

As is clear from sales of Duster, Dzire and now increasing demand of Storme, we Indians have a Soft Corner for Beige in interiors of the car.

Very Good move. Some Beige gives feeling of more space.

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by MaddyCrew

Found this article on the BBC website. Thought of sharing it here

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130207-turbo-trouble

Interesting article. Let us go to other extreme and take a Honda 3.0 L V6 for comparison with EcoSport's 1.0 L 3-pot. On highway at 160 kph ( assuming EcoSport can reach that speed ), Accord will be more fuel efficient ( as its engine will be relaxed compared to EcoSport's which would be screaming its guts out ). But, but, but.... in real time scenario of our chaotic roads where 10-20 kph crawl and 50 to 70 kph cruise is norm, EcoSport will shine and will be much more fuel efficient than Accord 3.0 L.

[Nilesh5417]

Originally Posted by pgsagar

Interesting article. Let us go to other extreme and take a Honda 3.0 L V6 for comparison with EcoSport's 1.0 L 3-pot. On highway at 160 kph ( assuming EcoSport can reach that speed ), Accord will be more fuel efficient ( as its engine will be relaxed compared to EcoSport's which would be screaming its guts out ). But, but, but.... in real time scenario of our chaotic roads where 10-20 kph crawl and 50 to 70 kph cruise is norm, EcoSport will shine and will be much more fuel efficient than Accord 3.0 L.

That kind of limits who can you target as customers right? I know folks who do Pune-Mumbai over expressway 4-5 times a month for work but drive in Pune rest of the days. What about them?

[swiftnfurious]

I feel the driving nature of the people with a petrol (turbo) engine makes a lot of difference in FE. Usually people don't revv a diesel engine hard because

1. There is NO power you get beyond a certain rpm
2. The engine noise becomes too high
3. Engine feels strained at high rpms.

The petrol on the other hand fares better on point 2 & 3. Could this lead to more unnecessary revving leading to more fuel burning?

Would not the 1.0L Eco-boost give a very good FE if driven around 100 kmph?

[MaddyCrew]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

I feel the driving nature of the people with a petrol (turbo) engine makes a lot of difference in FE. Usually people don't revv a diesel engine hard because

1. There is NO power you get beyond a certain rpm
2. The engine noise becomes too high
3. Engine feels strained at high rpms.

The petrol on the other hand fares better on point 2 & 3. Could this lead to more unnecessary revving leading to more fuel burning?

Would not the 1.0L Eco-boost give a very good FE if driven around 100 kmph?

IMHO, point number 2&3 would apply for the eco-boost since it is quite literally a "small" capacity engine on steeroids.

I think the article also addresses this concern and I quote:

In practice, however, things are turning out differently. “On most turbo engines you need to have a very light foot to stay out of the turbo boost,” Winter said. “With some of the smallest turbo engines, there is a tendency to get into the throttle more, which uses more turbo boost and can result in worse fuel economy than a larger standard engine.”

Invited by Ford to co-drive in the company’s record-setting test last year of its 1-litre 3-cylinder EcoBoost engine for 24 hours, I asked an engineer on hand about fuel consumption over the course of the run, during which the car I co-drove, a Focus hatchback, averaged 107mph. The engineer said the fuel economy was worse than if we had done the run using the company’s larger, conventional 1.6-litre 4-cylinder engine because smaller, turbocharged engines respond to strain by burning more fuel. If we had driven more slowly, the EcoBoost would have bettered the bigger engine, he explained, but at full speed it was mighty thirsty.

If this is indeed the case under standard driving conditions (smooth traffic flow, better roads, cooler weather) for western countries, then I'm not so sure how it will fare under 'Indian Standard Driving Conditions' (stop-go traffic, roads/ no roads, mostly harsh weather)

I could be going up the wrong tree here but that article has given me even more reasons to be skeptical

Can we get the gurus to comment on this?

[avisidhu]

Originally Posted by MaddyCrew

If this is indeed the case under standard driving conditions (smooth traffic flow, better roads, cooler weather) for western countries, then I'm not so sure how it will fare under 'Indian Standard Driving Conditions' (stop-go traffic, roads/ no roads, mostly harsh weather).....

On the contrary, it should do quite fine in India where 100-120 kmph is the maximum you can push your vehicle 95% of the time (except for the lucky few who do periodic runs on the very few expressways we have).

I would say psagar summed it up very nicely:

Originally Posted by pgsagar

Interesting article. Let us go to other extreme and take a Honda 3.0 L V6 for comparison with EcoSport's 1.0 L 3-pot. On highway at 160 kph ( assuming EcoSport can reach that speed ), Accord will be more fuel efficient ( as its engine will be relaxed compared to EcoSport's which would be screaming its guts out ). But, but, but.... in real time scenario of our chaotic roads where 10-20 kph crawl and 50 to 70 kph cruise is norm, EcoSport will shine and will be much more fuel efficient than Accord 3.0 L.

Even if we do not take the 3.0L extreme, comparision with a 1.5L odd NA engine should also throw mileage figures in favour of the ecoboost IMO, as far as city driving is considered.

If you think about it, having a 6th gear in the ecosport also makes a strong case for itself based on the info given.

[kopakabana]

Originally Posted by MaddyCrew

Invited by Ford to co-drive in the company’s record-setting test last year of its 1-litre 3-cylinder EcoBoost engine for 24 hours, I asked an engineer on hand about fuel consumption over the course of the run, during which the car I co-drove, a Focus hatchback, averaged 107mph. The engineer said the fuel economy was worse than if we had done the run using the company’s larger, conventional 1.6-litre 4-cylinder engine because smaller, turbocharged engines respond to strain by burning more fuel. If we had driven more slowly, the EcoBoost would have bettered the bigger engine, he explained, but at full speed it was mighty thirsty.[/i]

If this is indeed the case under standard driving conditions (smooth traffic flow, better roads, cooler weather) for western countries, then I'm not so sure how it will fare under 'Indian Standard Driving Conditions' (stop-go traffic, roads/ no roads, mostly harsh weather)

I could be going up the wrong tree here but that article has given me even more reasons to be skeptical

Can we get the gurus to comment on this?

I don't think there is any need for us to be skeptical. The record-setting test mentioned in the article was performed on a race track, AFAIK. In our day-to-day life, how many of us would test the Ecoboost on a race track? I, for one, in the last 6.5 years of ownership of my Ikon, has never driven it above 150kmph for more than 1 minute, that too only twice on an empty highway. Most of us drive our cars much below those speeds/rpm.

And don't forget, the ecosport is being tested in Indian conditions for such a long time now. I read somewhere on this thread that these test mules were supposed to complete 200,000 kms. That's substantial to know the performance of the vehicle in any given conditions.

Finally, lets not jump to conclusions. There will be nothing better than a TBHP review of the Ecosport. Now, how i wish we could have that earlier than the launch itself.

[MaddyCrew]

Originally Posted by kopakabana

Finally, lets not jump to conclusions. There will be nothing better than a TBHP review of the Ecosport. Now, how i wish we could have that earlier than the launch itself.

We should wait for the real world data/ customer data before jumping to conclusions.

Coming back to point of discussion - the point to note is that both engines were being tested in the same environment. I guess it being the race track or the regular roads doesn't really matter. From the same article:

The Chevrolet Cruze compact sedan offers a direct comparison, as the car is available with turbocharged and normally aspirated engines, both rated with the same horsepower. Consumer Reports found the old-fashioned 1.8-litre engine was nearly as quick to 60mph as the turbocharged 1.4-litre unit, and returned the same real-world gas mileage but without the added cost and complication of turbocharging. (The publication does not release its test methodology, so it is impossible to independently verify its findings.)

This is what I was trying to point out.

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by Nilesh5417

That kind of limits who can you target as customers right? I know folks who do Pune-Mumbai over expressway 4-5 times a month for work but drive in Pune rest of the days. What about them?

There is no "one-size-fits-all" car. And there is no car which plays multiple roles of a hatch-a sedan-a race car-an off roader-a people mover. People pick what suits their requirements. I, for one, will be very happy with Ecosport as my city traffic hardly provides an opportunity to open up and my highway rides are extremely limited.

[anumod]

Here is an update I got regarding launch. In April first week the booking and the test drive car will be available. Deliveries will start from April end or May. Both Diesel and petrol would be available at the same time.

[swiftnfurious]

Nobody has any info on what churned out at the dealers meet last week? Any solid dates out on the inauguration of Ford Ecosport assembly line as well? It was supposed to happen in Feb right?

[bageherath]

I spoke to my dealer in Hyderabad last Saturday, on Friday a team from Ford Chennai came to Hyderabad.

Here is the update,
1. Display vehicle's will be here by 2nd week of March.
2. Bookings will start by end March/start of April.
3. They have insisted not to take any pre-bookings till they announce officially.
4. Deliveries will start by April end.
5. Diesel and petrol versions will be available from the launch.

Also, I received a call from Ford India today, they say "Thanks for your interest in Ecosport, we will update you soon on the launch"

[bnzjon]

MPL Ford Chennai too is accepting booking amount of Rs. 50,000 against post dated cheque dated around 17/Mar (they confirm launch around 3rd week of March)

Courtesy: Rush Lane

Ford EcoSport India bookings at Rs 50,000 at Talera Ford Pune Yerwada. There is no confirmation yet regarding petrol and diesel specs or the number of variants to be launched. A Rs 50,000 booking amount will let buyers pick their preference which can be modified later upon availability of all details after the Ford EcoSport. Their is no price confirmation either at the moment.