[Kal.Wiz.]

Congratulations

You have validated the faith I put in White Colour while booking my Titanium Diesel.

Awaiting more inputs from you.

[Jignesh]

Hello Saisrujan,

Congrats on acquiring most probably the first Ecoboost on T-BHP. Wish you thousands of happy & safe miles in your Diamond white beast.

Request you to post some more pictures of the car & also report the city / highway fuel efficiency figures. Further how do you find the boot space o the car? Is it enough for a couple of days outing of family for 3 / 4 people?

What you said about T-BHP official review of Ecosport is absolutely correct. It is surely a definitive & most detailed review I have seen ever.

Thanks,

[Majic]

Congrats on the vehicle, mine is expected to be delivered by Nov 5. Isn't the wheel cover coming as a part of the vehicle? Why have you not opted for it?

[coolboy007]

Originally Posted by Majic

Congrats on the vehicle, mine is expected to be delivered by Nov 5. Isn't the wheel cover coming as a part of the vehicle? Why have you not opted for it?

If you mean the cover for the spare wheel, then its not a part of Ecosport. Its sold as a separate accessory and is priced around 12k.
I personally love it without the cover, looks butch.

[DeKay]

SaiSrujan,
How are the headlamps? Do you think they're adequate for most practical purposes or would you say they could do with better bulbs?

[shibujp]

Good choice on white. I feel that the Ecosport is a car that look better in certain colors and not so good in others. I saw both a white and a black ecosport. The white one simply looked smashing while the black looked slightly disproportionate. Maybe because the grey cladding does not break the monotony in the black as it does in the white.

Drive on,
Shibu.

[penpavan]

Eagerly waiting for FE figures..

[saisrujan]

Alright, here are the FE figures for the ecoboost - using a full-tank to full-tank averaging method. I drove a total of 507km since my last full-tank and the tank took in 44.25 liters of unleaded at Shell.

So, the mileage I got is 11.45 kmpl.

Out of the 507 km, I believe I've driven about 200 km on the highway.

This figure is for generally enthusiastic driving (I have not consciously been light footed and I have tried not to cross 3000 rpm).

I don't have a split for highway / city driving - I just figured out how to use the real-time mileage meter. Yet, nothing like a full-tank to full-tank test in real-world conditions.

Good or bad? well, I'm sure I'll be happy if the mileage matches that of 1.6l NA cars. Any good bench-marks to compare with, folks? If any of you have real-time mileages for comparable petrol cars (1.5 / 1.6 liter NA engines), it would be great if you can share them here.

Originally Posted by Jignesh

Further how do you find the boot space o the car? Is it enough for a couple of days outing of family for 3 / 4 people?

Decent boot-space. Will comfortably fit weekend luggage for a family of 4.

Originally Posted by penpavan

Eagerly waiting for FE figures..

Here you go.

Originally Posted by DeKay

SaiSrujan,
How are the headlamps? Do you think they're adequate for most practical purposes or would you say they could do with better bulbs?

Headlamps are definitely adequate for city driving. They may not be satisfactory in highway driving. One factor that helps in the city is the high seating position - the glare from oncoming traffic will be marginally lesser, and any reduction, however marginal, will help in visibility at night.

[swale84]

Congratulations on the ecosport saisrujan!

I'm going to be following your thread while I eagerly wait for my car!

Originally Posted by saisrujan

Good or bad? well, I'm sure I'll be happy if the mileage matches that of 1.6l NA cars. Any good bench-marks to compare with, folks? If any of you have real-time mileages for comparable petrol cars (1.5 / 1.6 liter NA engines), it would be great if you can share them here.

My polo 1.6 gives me around 12 for a similar driving pattern. This figure will probably increase slightly as you become more attuned to driving your car and the engine sets in. I think the mileage will match your expectations.

[gsurya]

Over various posts I hv seen Ecoboost petrol giving an FE of 11-13 kmpl.. so why not one just go with the 1.6 petrol? Am sure that wont give much worse FE for a better power experience & then its also a reliable engine tested over a long period.. just thinking out loud.

[Simple_car]

Originally Posted by saisrujan

If any of you have real-time mileages for comparable petrol cars (1.5 / 1.6 liter NA engines), it would be great if you can share them.

Hi Saisrujan sir,
Heartiest congratulations for acquiring one of the most wanted cars in India.

I have a new fiesta dct with the fords 1.5 ltr engine. For the kind of situation you described, I get an FE of 12-13. It may be a little higher because its run 10k kms. I think you can expect such figures after the engine has settled down

Thanks,
Simple_car

[penpavan]

Bit disappointed I must say. Going by what Ford says, we should see better FE given that it consumes 20% lesser petrol. I thought any kind of driving in the city should result in minimum 13. Let me see what my car will return.
Am taking delivery tomorrow. Incidentally it is a White Ecoboost.

Originally Posted by saisrujan

So, the mileage I got is 11.45 kmpl.

[PrideRed]

Since there is a turbo lag i guess there would be lot of gear changes in city on Ecoboost. That should bring down FE figures.
On highway alone i guess one can expect FE figues of a 1.2L hatchback.
BTW 11.45 KM/l with 65% city and 35% highway is decent figures by petrol engine standards.
The last petrols i drove were 1.6 Ikon and 1.6 Optra. Both never used to cross 10KM/l in city(not a bumper to bumper) traffic. It used be somewhere around 12-13 on highway.
Also have seen couple of current hatch giving 11-12 on long drives with five people on board.

Let me also Bring up one more observation.
Lesser displacement doesnot always mean better FE in all conditions. Below are few instances:
1.We were on trip to Ooty on two cars, Ikon 1.6 and 1.3. Since road has lot of ghat sections, 1.3 needed lot more gear changes. End of trip 1.6 gave marginally better FE than 1.3.
2. Our friend used to have a Optra 1.8 when we had 1.6 . In city both used to deliver almost identical figures, its only on highway where gear changes were less, 1.6 delivered better FE.

Going by the above data i would rate 11.45KM/l as decent FE.

[saisrujan]

Originally Posted by swale84

My polo 1.6 gives me around 12 for a similar driving pattern. This figure will probably increase slightly as you become more attuned to driving your car and the engine sets in. I think the mileage will match your expectations.

Thanks for sharing. That's a good comparison - the polo is at least 100 kg lighter, and has lesser coefficient of drag. I'm not that disappointed.

Originally Posted by gsurya

Over various posts I hv seen Ecoboost petrol giving an FE of 11-13 kmpl.. so why not one just go with the 1.6 petrol? Am sure that wont give much worse FE for a better power experience & then its also a reliable engine tested over a long period.. just thinking out loud.

So, I'm not too far off with my driving style. BTW... if FE is such primary concern, I would have gone for the 1.5 TDCI (no 1.6 option on the ecosport, remember?). I've driven 500km in a week because it's a new car. Otherwise, I expect to drive less than 150km a week under normal circumstances.

Originally Posted by Simple_car

I have a new fiesta dct with the fords 1.5 ltr engine. For the kind of situation you described, I get an FE of 12-13. It may be a little higher because its run 10k kms. I think you can expect such figures after the engine has settled down

Thanks for sharing. Again, the fiesta is about 130kg lighter, and will have less drag. So, that's a good comparison.

Originally Posted by penpavan

Bit disappointed I must say. Going by what Ford says, we should see better FE given that it consumes 20% lesser petrol. I thought any kind of driving in the city should result in minimum 13. Let me see what my car will return.
Am taking delivery tomorrow. Incidentally it is a White Ecoboost.

Well, I guess you'll have to "reset your expectations". Your comparison should be with another engine that delivers 125 bhp and 170 Nm of torque - the closest is probably the Hyundai Verna (123 bhp and 155 Nm of torque but weighs 10% lighter, and has lesser coefficient of drag). If the mileage of the ecoboost matches that of the Verna (reports say it's between 11-13), you've got what was promised.

Well, a wise man once said that the biggest factor for FE is the driver. So, maybe it works out. Never-the-less, the mileage isn't a "deal-breaker" for you, otherwise, you would surely have opted for the diesel.

Originally Posted by PrideRed

Since there is a turbo lag i guess there would be lot of gear changes in city on Ecoboost. That should bring down FE figures.
On highway alone i guess one can expect FE figues of a 1.2L hatchback.
BTW 11.45 KM/l with 65% city and 35% highway is decent figures by petrol engine standards.
The last petrols i drove were 1.6 Ikon and 1.6 Optra. Both never used to cross 10KM/l in city(not a bumper to bumper) traffic. It used be somewhere around 12-13 on highway.
Also have seen couple of current hatch giving 11-12 on long drives with five people on board.

Let me also Bring up one more observation.
Lesser displacement doesnot always mean better FE in all conditions. Below are few instances:
1.We were on trip to Ooty on two cars, Ikon 1.6 and 1.3. Since road has lot of ghat sections, 1.3 needed lot more gear changes. End of trip 1.6 gave marginally better FE than 1.3.
2. Our friend used to have a Optra 1.8 when we had 1.6 . In city both used to deliver almost identical figures, its only on highway where gear changes were less, 1.6 delivered better FE.

Going by the above data i would rate 11.45KM/l as decent FE.

I agree with everything you say. Considering the additional weight and drag, and considering the FE will improve over time (engine run-in, and driver run-in ) I think the ecoboost engine will deliver what it promised.

The technologies (turbo-charging, variable valve-timing, direct injection) are geared to delivering low-carbon emissions (eco) and improved performance (boost) and of-course refinement. Design improvements to deliver higher FE have been compromised (low friction piston assembly, but the car has more drag. The engine weight is low, but the car is heavy, hopefully for a good reason).

The turbo-lag is livable. It's not like the 110bhp duster, where you're greeted with a dead response at 1500 rpm. I can potter about in higher gears at as low as 1000 rpm. In bumper-to-bumper traffic, I stay in 2nd, slip the clutch and use the breaks to control speed. I only have to downshift if I need to quickly close a gap, and it's not something that has to be done all the time.

My frustration with the turbo-lag was due to my earlier car - the 1.1 liter i10. That engine had enough torque on offer even at 800 rpm (provided I'm driving alone). I'm learning to change my driving style now that I have a much heavier car and every passing day makes the turbo-lag less of a bother.

[penpavan]

Yes, although not a deal breaker, I'd have been happy with 13+ in the city, given its design for better FE theme.
I think I will travel the same road as you because I also drive the IRDE 1.1 i10 which is very good city engine. Love its torque.
Let me see how I will feel the EcoSport.

Originally Posted by saisrujan

Well, I guess you'll have to "reset your expectations". Your comparison should be with another engine that delivers 125 bhp and 170 Nm of torque - the closest is probably the Hyundai Verna (123 bhp and 155 Nm of torque but weighs 10% lighter, and has lesser coefficient of drag). If the mileage of the ecoboost matches that of the Verna (reports say it's between 11-13), you've got what was promised.

Well, a wise man once said that the biggest factor for FE is the driver. So, maybe it works out. Never-the-less, the mileage isn't a "deal-breaker" for you, otherwise, you would surely have opted for the diesel.


My frustration with the turbo-lag was due to my earlier car - the 1.1 liter i10. That engine had enough torque on offer even at 800 rpm (provided I'm driving alone). I'm learning to change my driving style now that I have a much heavier car and every passing day makes the turbo-lag less of a bother.