has anybody gone from a Mk 2 (1.8 or 2L petrol) to a mk 3 ecoboost ?

[shiwarrior]

Hi all

 

I am very curious if anyone has changed there mk 2 focus (1.8 / 2.0 petrol) to the 1.0 or 1.6 ecoboost mk 3 ?

 

in terms of daily drive how do the cars compare in terms of power , i.e.. up hills, pulling out from a junction or overtaking ?

do they "feel" very similar" ?

 

Cheers

 

 

[DonnyMark]

I went from a 1.6 MK2 103bhp, to a 1.5 MK3.5 Ecoboost 150bhp. The difference in power was very noticeable, especially up hills and when overtaking. The extra power and torque the turbo gives seemed huge. Pulling out of junctions not that noticeable, but once above 2000rpm it put a smile on my face for years.

[shiwarrior]

i hope you meant 1.8, as the 1.8 has 125 BHP the 1.6 has around 110 ?

[DonnyMark]

Sorry, my 1.6 must have had 103bhp, no wonder I was impressed.

[F0CUE]

30 minutes ago, shiwarrior said:

Hi all

 

I am very curious if anyone has changed there mk 2 focus (1.8 / 2.0 petrol) to the 1.0 or 1.6 ecoboost mk 3 ?

 

in terms of daily drive how do the cars compare in terms of power , i.e.. up hills, pulling out from a junction or overtaking ?

do they "feel" very similar" ?

 

Cheers

 

 

TBH the 1.0 litre is nippy but in the focus the focus is heavy so it's no to as good as in a fiesta. The 1.6 however is a different kettle of fish and a stage 1 remap would make it fun. But however the 1.0 is cheaper to run and can be mapped for more power too. Also there is the diesels which are nice if you like torque and good mpg.

[Soper81]

I had a mk2.5 with the 1.8 petrol engine. Was boring to be honest but otherwise reliable. Now drive a remapped 1.0 EB and its leagues ahead. More frugal, sounds nice and goes really well.

[shiwarrior]

32 minutes ago, Soper81 said:

I had a mk2.5 with the 1.8 petrol engine. Was boring to be honest but otherwise reliable. Now drive a remapped 1.0 EB and its leagues ahead. More frugal, sounds nice and goes really well.

Thanks

so a 1.0 ecoboost 125 without a map is underpowered?

why not just get the 1.6 ecoboost ? rather than mapping the 1L ?

 

 

how much is the remap ?

[Phil3747]

I'm on my second 1.0 125bhp ecoboost (my eldest daughter now has my first one) and I wouldn't say they were under-powered (I believe the 99 bhp one is though). Obviously it's no match for an ST, but as a daily runner it's absolutely fine...it depends what you want it to do ??

[shiwarrior]

Thanks Phil

[Soper81]

23 hours ago, shiwarrior said:

Thanks

so a 1.0 ecoboost 125 without a map is underpowered?

why not just get the 1.6 ecoboost ? rather than mapping the 1L ?

 

 

how much is the remap ?

At the time 1.6 EB was as rare as hens teeth plus bugger all tax and insurance played a big part too. Funds wouldn't stretch to 1.6 so did the next best thing. Remap was a couple hundred and transformed the already impressive drive.

[Gitfinger]

I had the Mk2.5 1.8 and swapped it for a Titanium 1.0 125 Mk3.5.  I like the 1.0 better, as it seems more responsive at higher revs and has decent acceleration (for me anyway). It handles motorways with 3 people on board no problem and hills don't seem to bother it. However, one thing I'm not to keen on, is the slow acceleration when crawling along in 2nd gear, I used to use 2nd gear in the Mk2.5, which could accelerate pretty quickly from a crawl but the 1.0 struggles, probably due to the turbo not being much use at low revs so you have to change down into first if you want any kind of decent acceleration. I've always used 2nd gear on all my cars when moving (even my 998cc Mini) and just used 1st gear for standing starts or when nearly at a stand but that might just be me being stuck in my ways?? If the ratio was slightly higher in second making the revs higher it would make a big difference (to me anyway!)

[shiwarrior]

thanks for the feedback Gitfinger

 

its good to hear peoples thoughts and opinions on this

 

not sure when the turbo kicks in on the 1L 125, but yes, that's why 2nd isn't going, the turbo hasn't kicked in yet