Hi there,

I own the 2016 focus 1.0 EcoBoost ( Titanium trim) when the new focus was launched, I was there, and realized that the    2019 1.0 EcoBoost looks different than the engine under my hood .... 

is it true, or am I wrong?!

Did Ford totally redesign the 1.0 EcoBoost because of the many flaws.

I’ve seen distribution belts go around 40000miles

 

thank you for your time.

 

if this topic has already been discussed, I’m terribly sorry, I couldn’t find it.

 

 

Yes, the Mk 4 Focus does have the revised 1.0 ecoboost which has chain cam drive instead of wet belt and a reversed cylinder head, no doubt other changes as well.

The Fiesta has continued with the original set up until recently, it seems the revised version is now being fitted.

Quite a lot of reports on here about issues with the revised version though, chiefly relating to gpf and oil pressure switches.

 

 

 

The new 1.0 ECOboost has so many differences compared to the original 1.0 ECOboost that it is basically a complete new engine. Very few parts remained the same.

The primary reason to develop a replacement engine for the original 1.0 ECOboost was to reduce emissions/improve fuel economy even further. The reversed cylinder head design reduces the warmup time and the completely new internal design of the turbocharger improves its efficiency. Cylinder deactivation was introduced to meet the latest emission requirements.

On the other hand some changes were introduced to reduce costs. The timing chain for example is a cheaper solution for the wetbelts on the original 1.0 ECOboost. Like many other downsized engines the timing chain of the new 1.0 ECOboost is no longer overdimensioned and still has to prove its durability. 

The design changes also have their downsides. The timing chain makes the engine considerably noisier than its predecessor and the cilinder deactivation resulted to vibrations at certain speeds when the system is active (a known workarround is to select sport mode which deactivates cylinder deactivation). My overall opinion is that the new 1.0 ECOboost is less refined than the original 1.0 ECOboost

16 hours ago, JW1982 said:

The new 1.0 ECOboost has so many differences compared to the original 1.0 ECOboost that it is basically a complete new engine. Very few parts remained the same.

The primary reason to develop a replacement engine for the original 1.0 ECOboost was to reduce emissions/improve fuel economy even further. The reversed cylinder head design reduces the warmup time and the completely new internal design of the turbocharger improves its efficiency. Cylinder deactivation was introduced to meet the latest emission requirements.

On the other hand some changes were introduced to reduce costs. The timing chain for example is a cheaper solution for the wetbelts on the original 1.0 ECOboost. Like many other downsized engines the timing chain of the new 1.0 ECOboost is no longer overdimensioned and still has to prove its durability. 

The design changes also have their downsides. The timing chain makes the engine considerably noisier than its predecessor and the cilinder deactivation resulted to vibrations at certain speeds when the system is active (a known workarround is to select sport mode which deactivates cylinder deactivation). My overall opinion is that the new 1.0 ECOboost is less refined than the original 1.0 ECOboost

That is interesting.

From my own Data Logging on the new 1.5 engine (150 bhp version), Cylinder Deactivation definitely works in Sports Mode the same as it does in Normal Mode. I have not checked it in Eco Mode.

It is strange that it has been deactivated in Sports Mode in the 1.0 engine. 

Thank you all for your pertinent answers 🙂

I’ve got 43000 miles, I sure hope I won’t run into any trouble.

What about the carbon deposits generated by the Gasoline Direct Injection... does the problem persist with the new EcoBoost? Or did Ford start to use mixed injection in order to “wash” the intake valves?

Thank you.

 

52 minutes ago, L1V1US said:

Or did Ford start to use mixed injection in order to “wash” the intake valves?

They did on the 1.5, I'm don't know about the 1.0.

If your budget can stretch to a new model 1.5 I would recommend that you down that route. There is very little difference in fuel consumption figures and probably less in real life from my own observations and they do not seem to have suffered from some of the annoying problems that some people have reported on this forum.