1.0 Ecoboost 123Ps Or 100Ps

[bjs2013uk]

Hi,

I am looking at purchasing a brand new Ford Fiesta Titanium in the next couple of weeks but I am really unsure on what engine size to go for - 123PS or 99PS. I do a lot of driving about town and not a lot of motorway driving at the moment, however this could change in the near future.

Please could someone explain the suitability of both engines, i.e. what are the benefits, drawbacks and what type of drivers are they best suited to?

Also are there two variants of the ecobost engine, in terms of turbo charged and non-turbo charged, I am slightly confused!?

Thanks very much in advance!

[FOCA]

As far as im aware they are identical turbo 3-cyinder engines but with different maps

I have heard reports that the 125PS is "peaky" and needs to be revved to get the best from it, and cannot be driven in a high gear round town etc, and that the 100ps version is "torquier" and better at lower revs, even on the dual carridgway in a high gear etc

Of course, when "redlining" it through every gear the 125PS would be quicker, but for normal, road use, you may be better off with thev 100PS, but this is open to debate

[jimbo20fiesta]

There is also the 80PS (non turbo) version of the engine - because of this it is not called an "Ecoboost"

Jim

[DieselPig]

Go to a dealer explain the situation and go for a test drive.

[bjs2013uk]

I did test drive both, the sales assisstant who came along on the test drive was emphasising the use of higher revs on the 125 but he stated that he could personally not tell the difference between the 100PS and 125PS. I couldn't really tell the difference either but this may have been due to the short test drive that I went on. I did find both suitably quick at pulling away and accelerating. However I am planning on keeping the car long term, so I don't know whether to go for the 125.

Anyone else with any views on the two different engines to help me decide?

Thanks

[Steelie600]

Personally I think a low capacity engine turbo'ed to death to get economy is a false economy. Yes they will get massive mpg if you drive like miss daisy. But if you drive them even slightly quick the fuel economy drops through the floor. And if youve a pancheant for speed youll be lucky to get 20mpg!!

For my money id go higher capacity, as it will be easier to drive than a 1 litre and ultimately provide better economy when driven normally.

But of the two id get the 125 as if you get the 99 youll only wish you had the 125!

[FOCA]

Well sometimes less is more and though the 125PS has more "on paper" power the extra bit of flexibility of the 100PS means its a bit more tractable and for example requires less downshifts for climing hills etc

Ive found the Bluefin power/ torque graph for the 125PS (they did not have one for the 100PS to make a direct comparison) and if you look at the stock turque curve it makes about a healthy 175Nm (133ft-lbs) at 2k, but under 2k the torque "drops off the cliff" or "dissapears" (almost a vertical drop) which means for any practical purposes, the revs must be kept above about 2k for the car to accelerate at all, and 2-1/2 - 3 for it to "shift" - i dont know the exact speeds, but around town i would be surprised if you could use more than 3rd, and climbing hills will almost always require downshifts

So because the 100PS is a bit more flexible than the 125, in some situations and for some drivers it is better than the 125PS

Bluefin power/ torque showing how the ecoboost 125PS is "gutless" below 2k -

http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/curves/10%20EcoBoost%20125PS.pdf

This is not a criticism of the engine - these are amazing little engines lightweight, compact, advanced, efficient- expect to use the gearbox though

[cuke]

Hi, I suggest that you compare the power/torque with the engine it is replacing. Then you will find it is perfectly drivable below 2k.

[Willy]

Personally I think a low capacity engine turbo'ed to death to get economy is a false economy. Yes they will get massive mpg if you drive like miss daisy. But if you drive them even slightly quick the fuel economy drops through the floor. And if you've a pancheant for speed you'll be lucky to get 20mpg!!

For my money id go higher capacity, as it will be easier to drive than a 1 litre and ultimately provide better economy when driven normally.

But of the two id get the 125 as if you get the 99 you'll only wish you had the 125!

I'm getting 40 to the gallon and drive it like my old focus ST. Its amazing how good the fuel consumption is for a turbo'd petrol engine.

To the OP if you love driving then you'll get bored of the 100hp and want something with more power so get the 125hp version ;)

[KennyJ]

@FOCA If I remember correct the 100 has a max of 170nm. The dyno show that the 125ps has170nm at about 1700revs.

I own a 125ps and it can acc from much lower revs.

Until we see a dyno of a 100ps nobody can tell where the difference is.

[bjs2013uk]

Thanks to everyone that has replied so far!

I am still a little torn between the two! However I have found the following website that compares the two engines:

http://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/Ford-Fiesta-EcoBoost-100PS-Review-361

(Sorry if I'm not allowed to post external links)

Sort of makes me think the extra premium for the 125bhp isn't really worth it in my instance.

[minnis]

I vote a blind test drive. As in, you don't know which ones which, not driving while blindfolded! :p.

I did the same when I bought a new bass amp. I was too focused on "ooh, that ones more powerful!" Then I was blindfolded, plugged into several amps, and actually picked the one with the nicest tone.

Its all well and good the 100 being better on paper, but if you don't know which ones which, you won't be biased. If the 100 is the better car, you'll realise then.

[bigmunkynutz]

Great Suggestion Minnis, I have the 125ps and it's rapid when booted but is happy to pootle in 4th just over 30 mph, its got plenty of get up and go sat in third at 30 when you put your foot down it accelerates quickly to 60+

[cuke]

Hi, the majority of tests I have read on the 100ps state that it is quicker than the figures suggest. Car Magazine write, "a healthy spread of power and torque (125lb ft from 1400-4000rpm) and pulls more strongly from low revs than its rivals". What Car say "the 99bhp Ecoboost petrol is the pick of the range. It pulls strongly from
low revs and revs smoothly and eagerly. In fact, it’s so strong that there’s little point in upgrading to the 123bhp Ecoboost." These new engines are based upon diesel technology thus they have 'diesel like' qualities in the way they drive. I know my own car isn't the same but it'll pull from 30mph in 5th easily and very smoothly and shows what the ecoboost can do...

[Will.I]

I can see I'm about 8 years late to this party (oops) but I've just bought a 69 plate 1.0 Ecoboost 99bhp (in a Fester) and I have mixed feelings. I did consider the 123bhp version, but I was slightly worried that such a fierce mapping/turbo on such a small engine would have it waving the white flag quite soon. Hence I stuck with the 99 and overall I'm not disappointed with it's acceleration or speed. I just wish I could squeeze a few more mpg, but I'm doing less miles anyway now so I'll get over that! 

The background: coming from a TDCi engine that gave me 60-70mpg, I was disappointed at a little over 40mpg in the ecoboost. However I realised that I was spoiled with the fuel economy of a diesel and couldn't realistically expect that from a petrol. So, putting that aside, I found the ecoboost to be a lot more nippy than the diesel (99bhp from only 90), for a much smaller engine with one less cylinder, and that DID surprise me. I actually like the "tinny roar" that's so characteristic of the 3-pots when you rev them. I find it very versatile as I drive around town and also long distance/motorways and I especially like that I can do 80mph (shh don't tell the rozzers) in 6th gear and the engine is barely having to make an effort at 2.5k revs. It's taking me a while to get used to having to rev it more to get the torque out of it, but I'm managing to balance fast with sedate driving to get a half decent mpg. Definitely a happy customer!

[Eric Bloodaxe]

49 minutes ago, Will.I said:

I can see I'm about 8 years late to this party (oops) but I've just bought a 69 plate 1.0 Ecoboost 99bhp (in a Fester) and I have mixed feelings. I did consider the 123bhp version, but I was slightly worried that such a fierce mapping/turbo on such a small engine would have it waving the white flag quite soon. Hence I stuck with the 99 and overall I'm not disappointed with it's acceleration or speed. I just wish I could squeeze a few more mpg, but I'm doing less miles anyway now so I'll get over that!

 

Hi Will,

Your main concern seems to be fuel consumption, I think? There are loads of threads on that on here. Most people seem to report mid-40s irrespective of power output, with a few who struggle to get over 35 at one extreme and a very few who get 60 at the other. Best I've ever seen from a tankful (on a gentle touring holiday) was 53, normally I'm also on mid-40's.

 

 

 

 

 

[Will.I]

1 minute ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

 

Hi Will,

Your main concern seems to be fuel consumption, I think? There are loads of threads on that on here. Most people seem to report mid-40s irrespective of power output, with a few who struggle to get over 35 at one extreme and a very few who get 60 at the other. Best I've ever seen from a tankful (on a gentle touring holiday) was 53, normally I'm also on mid-40's.

 

 

 

 

 

Hiya, yeah I was even a bit miffed to start with, but reading your reply pacifies me somewhat. What can I say, I was spoiled with the diesel. I do really like the ecoboost! At least I'm getting what seems like a pretty average mpg.

[Jim H]

You will probably miss the torque that the diesel gave. My previous car had the same power as my Fiesta, but I do miss the extra torque the 1.9 VAG diesel gave. Put your foot down in any gear and it just goes!! However, all you do in the Fiesta is change down a few gears before accelerating.  I have been surprised at how good the fuel economy of the Ecoboost. I was expecting under 40 mpg, but actually get 40-45mpg. The diesel got 45-50 mpg, more on long motorway journeys.

 

[Blatto]

1 hour ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Your main concern seems to be fuel consumption, I think? There are loads of threads on that on here. Most people seem to report mid-40s irrespective of power output, with a few who struggle to get over 35 at one extreme and a very few who get 60 at the other.

I've had 2 Ecoboosts so far, both the 140PS variants, a Mk 7.5 and currently a MK 8. I was getting over 52mpg on the MK7.5 and currently about 47mpg on the MK8. I think the MK8 is about 100Kg heavier than the MK7.5 so I was expecting a bit less.

Did about 30,000 miles on the first one and about 20,000 on my current one so far, and have had no problems with the engines at all.

As for someone mentioning getting into the 20mpg figures, god knows what you'd have to do to the poor engine to get that. Lowest i've seen on a more spirited drive was 34mpg but that was on some fairly hilly areas of the Peak District.

 

 

 

 

 

[Eng_Ahmad1986]

this ecoboost is really brilliant, the perfect balance between mpg and power, but remember as the quote says, its ECO-BOOST, you can have eco or boost, but you can't have both at the same time 🙂 

once I took it as a challenge to see how much mpg I can squeeze out from the ECO part of Ecoboost, I went on a highway drive , a 480 km trip, driving with speed of 90-100 Km/h , not pushing the throttle hard to climb down a hill and I let the speed decreases, and letting if the throttle completely going down a hill, accelerating very gently after each stop, I managed to get 3.6 liters/100 km, I don't know how much is that in mpg, and here I have two questions, your stated mpgs here in the forum are there in UK or US mpgs ?!! and the mpg that the car uses to show us is it in UK or US also ? very confusing for me 😄 😄 

If I decided to use the BOOST part most of the time then I would sadly get 8 to 9 litres/100 km 😞 

so its like your having two engines, a small 3 cylinder one for the eco driving, and a 4 cylinder 1.6 or even bigger for the spirited driving, and you can cycle between the two engines easily by just manipulating your driving style .

this ecoboost is truly amazing , its a technological marvel 🙂 

mine is mk8 fiesta ecoboost 100ps automatic.

 

[Blatto]

2 hours ago, Eng_Ahmad1986 said:

I managed to get 3.6 liters/100 km, I don't know how much is that in mpg

That's about 78mpg in imperial Gallons (the ones we use in the UK) or about 65mpg in US gallons.

Pretty impressive values though. I managed about 63mpg over a 70 mile trip in my MK7.5 140 a few years back but that was staying below 55mph all the way.

 

[statts]

Hi

Mine is a mk7.5 from 2014 on a 64 plate 125bhp. I am averaging 36.2mpg but not using it very often although I have done 900 miles in 2 months despite lockdown.

Engine does not get warm enough so stop/start doesn't engage but hopefully when the outside temperature gets warmer it might!!!

I was in the same position do I get 100bhp or 125. I looked at a Titanium 100 but after driving one I decided I wanted a 125 Titanium X with all the extras which I have apart from nav but don't need it.

I have had my car for the last 3 years 8 months and think its brilliant apart from fuel economy but it is just something I have to live with.

Hope this helps

[Jim H]

54 minutes ago, Blatto said:

That's about 78mpg in imperial Gallons (the ones we use in the UK) or about 65mpg in US gallons.

Pretty impressive values though. I managed about 63mpg over a 70 mile trip in my MK7.5 140 a few years back but that was staying below 55mph all the way.

 

I am very impressed by those figurers. They are as good or better than a diesel. The best tankful average I ever got with my diesel was 57 mpg from Dover to Home, approx 300 miles. I did a similar journey in 2019 in Fiesta, didn't write the down figurers or refill at end of journey, but my records show 48.9 mpg for that tankful (400 miles).