Need Oppo's Opinion

"Vimto" (smudgey) 05/12/2015 at 09:08 • Filed to: None

0

35

So lets say you’re comparing the Ford Fiesta 1.6L SE to the Fiesta SFE, which packs a 1.0L I-3 turbo. You calculate that with a 6 mpg advantage, it would only take 3 years to recover the $995 cost of the engine upgrade because you drive over 30,000 miles a year.

So, at that point, you have a three year old car with 90,000 miles. So, I ask you, oppo, which engine do you think is going to be stouter and more reliable in the long run, far beyond 90,000? The simple, NA 1.6 or the boosted three cylinder, which Ford repeatedly claimed they stress tested it with higher boost pressure and it did fine in the Antarctic or something?

(I’m referring to the 5-speed 1.6, not the awful automatic.)

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:13

1

In all honesty, the interior is likely to start to fall apart before the drivetrain in either. But on the othe hand, the fiesta makes a great entry level rally car. So at that point, I’d pick the turbo because rally cars need turbos to do that misfire/backfire antilag fun.

Vicente Esteve > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:14

1

The 1.6 is probably the tougher choice, but the 1.0L is the MUCH cooler power plant as well as the most fun. The issue is, it’s only available base with little equipment.

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:16

0

if I was a betting man I’d say the 1.6 4 cylinder will be more reliable than a 3cyl turbo that’s going to vibrate and cook itself to pieces.

pip bip - choose Corrour > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:17

0

1.6

Vimto > Vicente Esteve 05/12/2015 at 09:17

0

Well, I’m going to option the car with as few options as possible except the sunroof, so I don’t mind that aspect of it.

Party-vi > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:18

0

So you’re asking what is going to last longer, a regular engine, or an engine with extra parts and air being forced into it to make more power? I think you’ve already answered your own question.

Vimto > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 05/12/2015 at 09:20

0

What makes you say that? Obviously anecdotal but I’ve owned several recent Fords and none of them have hard particularly fragile interiors.

Vimto > Party-vi 05/12/2015 at 09:22

2

I’m just kind of trying to affirm that Ford’s ‘torture tested’ advertising is mostly just hot air. With every Ecoboost motor they put out, more so with the 2.7 and 3.5 but not excluding the 1.0, they are quick to say that they took it to Africa, had elephants shit on it, turned up the boost pressure and then drove it for 150,000 miles problem-free.

Cé hé sin > beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard 05/12/2015 at 09:25

0

This three doesn’t vibrate particularly though and as it’s not boosted to any enormous extent either should last the life of the car.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:28

0

Neither! Hatch or death!

In all seriousness turbos will wear out eventually, now whether the savings in gas would have evened out the cost or not I couldn’t say.

KirkyV > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:29

2

This car has a strange growth on the back. Might be cancerous.

(European, Fiesta saloons make my eyes go funny.)

GUYMANDUDE > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:31

0

I think you will only see a savings in gas if you stay out of the boost, which you probably won’t if you are like me. The NA will probably have more low end torque which will be better as a computer car as that is where you will spend your time. Also linear torqe will be better in traffic. I’d go NA. IMHO.

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > Cé hé sin 05/12/2015 at 09:33

0

the extra moving counter weights in the cam gears help prevent it from vibrating yes. but that’s extra moving parts. It’s direct injected for extra carbon build up in the pistons. and turbos are turbos, the oil will get hotter than the 1.6 and it will provide more wear and tear than the 1.6

I’m not saying it will be unreliable, just that my money is on the 1.6 for being cheaper and more reliable in the long run.

Also the 1.6 has more useable torque in the mid range right? most reviews I’ve read say the ecoboost is a bit peaky. I’d have to drive them back to back for me to have an opinion on which is better to drive.

Vimto > GUYMANDUDE 05/12/2015 at 09:39

0

Before I say anything I’m not trying to pile on you, just going to specify a bit.

I current drive a 2.0T Fusion and usually manage to hit 31.5 MPG in daily driving, its rated at 22city/33hwy. I’m expecting at least 40-41 mpg from the 1.0 and 34-35 mpg from the 1.6. (the 1.6 is rated at 28/36, the 1.0 is 31/43). The 1.0 makes more torque (125 lb ft iirc without fact checking myself) at 1,400 RPM which is lower than the base engine. It is a bit of a performance boost (pun not intended) but I’m not too worried about that, I travel all over the southeastern US and just want a smaller more efficient vehicle that’s going to last

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:41

0

Not saying the interior is crap, just saying that in most subcompacts, the interior is where they cut the most costs. And if anything, I’m saying that both motors should last a long time.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:44

0

The Ecoboost’s don’t seem particularly fragile, and th small ones in particular seem quite robust. the 1.0 SFE is *MUCH* more fun to drive than the 1.6 when you’re in the boost, and when you aren’t it gets better fuel economy. It also sounds better. oooh, 0% APR, thats free money!

GUYMANDUDE > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:44

0

That is interesting. Seems like the turbo is the way to go. It also seems like you have already made up your mind.

Vicente Esteve > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:49

0

Then the 1.0L.

Hatchback would be my choice.

Vimto > GUYMANDUDE 05/12/2015 at 09:52

0

I want the 1.0L but I wanted to post here first to see if anyone was aware of a possible glaring issue, I guess that would be kind of difficult when the car has only been out for a year here anyway

Vimto > Vicente Esteve 05/12/2015 at 09:54

0

I preferred the hatchback until the facelift, now I find the sedan more attractive. The hatchback is probably more practical though even though its significantly shorter.

Vicente Esteve > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 09:59

0

I dislike the sedans taillights, but to each their own.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 10:17

0

The turbo is a potential point of failure, but in that short a time I would not expect it to go, particularly if you keep up on maintenance and drive it mostly on the highway. The benefits of the power output and torque curve are probably worth the extra cost without counting the fuel savings in a car you drive that much. As long as you’re not modifying it, the engine should be readily maintainable for as long as you are driving the car. The engineers have pretty high confidence that it will last well past the length of warranty they include and sell.

Bullitt417 > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 10:35

0

I don’t know if this carries over the the fiesta but I had a rental base level Ford Focus with the N/A engine: Miserable gutless engine - all noise no fun. I currently have a rental Ford Fusion with the base 2.5 N/A engine (The Mustang has been in the shop A LOT). Another terrible engine. No power. The thing can’t even chirp the tires yet alone pass anyone on the highway and yet only gets about 30highway mpg

On the opposite spectrum, I ordered Grandmas fusion with the 1.6L Turbo (before they switched to 1.5) and even with only 178hp, the Turbo makes things so much easier to live with. It’s not fast but it doesn’t feel slow either.

I think if you are doing 30K a year, I would go with the Turbo. It will make highway driving easier and generally just be better to live with. I understand you just need a commuter car but if my experience with the base level focus and fusion tell me anything, its to stay away from the base engine.

Party-vi > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 11:01

0

Every other company does this to their engines (probably minus the elephant shit). At the end of the day, you’re talking about an engine with extra moving parts and forced induction, and an engine with less parts to fail/break/replace and natural aspiration.

Vimto > Bullitt417 05/12/2015 at 12:27

0

I am currently driving a 2.0T Fusion and that is also a great motor. You are probably right, since Ford charges a premium to downsize the motor I’m guessing they want to go for power, fuel economy, AND refinement. Haven’t test driven any Fiestas but I’m sure its a similar case.

Vimto > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 05/12/2015 at 12:30

0

I was saying 3 years/90,000 miles because that is my break even point as far as upgrading to the 1.0 goes, any savings after that is money in my pocket - I expect both engines to easy last to that point but I was more asking for beyond that. Thank you.

Bullitt417 > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 12:45

0

Definitely test drive the Fiesta. For a while, I was debating getting a second car before I joined a vanpool (My yearly commute to work is 25K ~125miles round trip) and I looked at the Fiesta. While I was able to find a comfortable seat position, I was at the end of/ near the end of the seat travel. I’m 5’ 8.5” and mentally, this bothered me. I found myself a lot more comfortable in the Focus (not the base level one though.... that one just sucks... worst week ever: i’m currently in the fusion for 5 weeks)

Are you getting rid of the Fusion when you get the Fiesta or are you just getting another car? I’m being nosey, only because I don’t really see the benefit to go from the Fusion to the Fiesta unless its all city driving.

Vimto > Bullitt417 05/12/2015 at 12:55

0

My thought process goes as follows -

I’ve had my Fusion for 4 months, it was my rental when I damaged my Grand Marquis and I worked out a deal where I bought it from them. Its burgundy with black leather. I don’t like leather, or black interiors.

I’m kind of sick of having a big car and I want a sunroof. If I got a Fiesta I could downsize my vehicle, get 10 more MPG at least (I don’t city drive, I travel all over the southeast U.S.), get a sunroof and a light colored cloth interior.

Bullitt417 > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 13:24

0

That’s fair.. For me, the interior color does not matter much, but leather is a must. I would definitely make sure you drive the Fiesta first and drive it on the highway as well. If your coming from larger cars such as the grand marquis and fusion, there’s a good chance you may not like driving the Fiesta on the highway. And for someone who spends more time in car than I do, you need to like the car you are driving. You might like the Focus a little more, bridging the gap in size between the two, while being more stable on the highway.

Like I said earlier though, I have not driven the Fiesta; I never got past the sitting in it stage. It may be perfectly fine on the highway, but If your used to the rolling sofa that was your Grand Marquis (we had one before the thunderbird... loved it!), I can’t imagine they will be the same. Hell drive them all! Its better to be over informed imo.

Vimto > Bullitt417 05/12/2015 at 13:40

0

Definitely need to drive them before making any decisions. It won’t be my first small car, I’ve owned two Nissan Versas (one sedan, one hatch) as well as a Mazda2 and a Suzuki Esteem. I got the Grand Marquis because I wanted to experience an entirely different spectrum of the market, now I kind of feel like I’ve had my fill.

Bullitt417 > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 14:17

0

Fair enough.. Good Luck with the purchase!

Vimto > Bullitt417 05/12/2015 at 14:21

0

A small part of me wants another Grand Marquis. Only car I kept for more than a year, as you said rides like a champ, always got 28 mpg on my trips. I’m sure it would have easily done 300k miles if I hadn’t hit the oil pan jumping a curb to dodge oncoming traffic when I was lost in New Orleans. Panthers have way more soul than any vehicle still being made today.

TheTick247 > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 14:50

0

Maybe someone with knowledge can chime in on if the 1.0 has up-rated internals compared with the NA model. For example, does the 1.0 have forged rods and the 1.6 have cast? Is there a difference in the type of metal/material used on the block/head/internals such as aluminum vs iron? etc.

IIRC, there was a company that boosted the 1.0 to 300 HP and put it in a super lightweight car to set some sort of Nurburgring Ring class record without changing any of the internals (intake/exhaust/injectors/tune were non-stock). That doesn’t necessarily add up to longevity, per se, but show that it’s designed to take a lot more abuse that it does in the standard form.

While I understand the NA has fewer parts and therefore fewer failure points, personally, I’d go with the 1.0 unless there’s a very compelling reason not to.

GUYMANDUDE > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 14:57

0

Now I want the 1L. You should sell cars.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Vimto 05/12/2015 at 15:44

0

How long are you planning to keep it? In all likelihood, you’ll sell it long before it has a major engine failure. The risk of problems is slightly higher due to the additional moving parts, but there are far less advanced turbo cars from decades ago that are still plying the roads of Europe... We just have irrational fear of turbos in the US because the only people that installed them were people that went crazy and would blow things up. These are tiny turbos and the engines are designed to handle them.