1.0T EcoBoost engine diferrences between 100,125,140HP

[T.K.]

What's the deal with the 95ps one (the new baseline 1.0 engine model)  then? What's different between that one and the others nowadays? 

[Eric Bloodaxe]

8 hours ago, T.K. said:

What's the deal with the 95ps one (the new baseline 1.0 engine model)  then? What's different between that one and the others nowadays? 

Good question. This is quite an old thread, started when the 100/125/140 were wet belt cam drive. I assume (but am not 100% sure - can anyone confirm?) that the 95 is a chain cam like the revised versions found in the other models, which are mostly now mild hybrid also.

Performance on the 95 seems to be marginally down on the old 100 and emissions are worse than the 125 mHEV, which is notably quicker, only costs around £700 more at list, and is available from the base Trend model upwards.

The VW group 1.0 turbo range also starts at 95ps and I suspect the Ford offering is mainly for marketing reasons.

 

[dtulip8]

3 hours ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Good question. This is quite an old thread, started when the 100/125/140 were wet belt cam drive. I assume (but am not 100% sure - can anyone confirm?) that the 95 is a chain cam like the revised versions found in the other models, which are mostly now mild hybrid also.

Performance on the 95 seems to be marginally down on the old 100 and emissions are worse than the 125 mHEV, which is notably quicker, only costs around £700 more at list, and is available from the base Trend model upwards.

The VW group 1.0 turbo range also starts at 95ps and I suspect the Ford offering is mainly for marketing reasons.

 

Yes the 95 is the newer type of engine, reduced to 95 for emissions reasons I think. Can’t have it in the ST-Line models now, but there did seem to be quite a large number of 95ps St-Line editions registered on late 69 and early 20 plates before the hybrids came in.

[Eric Bloodaxe]

1 hour ago, dtulip8 said:

Can’t have it in the ST-Line models now, 

It was still showing on the latest (28 September) price list (standard ST-L only, not the X), but I notice Ford seem to have stopped pushing that version in their "Upgrade and Save" advertising and now the 125 is being promoted. Might be just "while stocks last" - we'll see if it disappears from the next price list (seems to be a new list every few weeks at the mo!😀)

[dtulip8]

Ah so you can, but not in the X. And you can’t have the 125 non-hybrid auto on the regular but you can on the X. And like you say it’ll probably change again next week, argggh!! 

[T.K.]

Ah, right then. Thanks lads I was just wondering as I just bought an St line with the 95 HP engine. 

It's surprisingly nippy, to be perfectly honest. I'd rather had the mild hybrid but this one was available with massive price reduction, and I could pop my ford family discount on top. I can only say I'm happy. 

I was wondering if it could ever *handle* a chiptine、or if I'd have to change the transmission or driveline to handle the torque, as I heard that was an issue for the old 100 engine.

[Eric Bloodaxe]

1 hour ago, T.K. said:

I was wondering if it could ever *handle* a chiptine、or if I'd have to change the transmission or driveline to handle the torque, as I heard that was an issue for the old 100 engine.

Don't know if anyone's doing a remap on that version yet? The problem was with the old IB5 gearbox, the Mk 8 has the 6MTT215 which is stronger so you should be fine if you do get round to a remap.

[T.K.]

1 hour ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Don't know if anyone's doing a remap on that version yet? The problem was with the old IB5 gearbox, the Mk 8 has the 6MTT215 which is stronger so you should be fine if you do get round to a remap.

Aight thanks mate, but I'll wait it out a year or so anyway, just to be sure 🙂 and by then I'd expect there to be a verdict! Until then、just gonna enjoy my car as it is. Call me extreme, but I might buy some mud flaps 😂 jkjk

[st line x 140 driver]

8 minutes ago, T.K. said:

Aight thanks mate, but I'll wait it out a year or so anyway, just to be sure 🙂 and by then I'd expect there to be a verdict! Until then、just gonna enjoy my car as it is. Call me extreme, but I might buy some mud flaps 😂 jkjk

do they make it go faster what spec - let me know 

[Bradderz1980]

So basically. I have the 140ps fiesta mk7 standard engine code is the YYJB. The head gasket blew and I need a new engine I’ve managed to get hold of a focus engine M1DD 125ps would this be suitable for my ecu power 

[RayC333]

I realise this is an old thread but I find the subject interesting, especially the fact that the 140 version has a thicker head gasket than the 100 & 125 (1857022 1,05mm vs 1771609 0,70mm).

This thicker gasket would marginally lower the compression ratio which seems to be at odds with achieving the power increase 🤨

Maybe the piston crowns are different to compensate for that?

 

 

[unofix]

3 hours ago, RayC333 said:

This thicker gasket would marginally lower the compression ratio

Yes that's true, but would it not also increase the cylinder capacity by a gnats whisker ?

[KenM]

A thicker gasket on its own would change the compression ration ratio but not change the swept volume without changes to stroke or bore.

[Eric Bloodaxe]

16 hours ago, RayC333 said:

This thicker gasket would marginally lower the compression ratio which seems to be at odds with achieving the power increase 🤨

This and similar threads seem to have been running for ever!

Normal reason for dropping the CR on a turbocharged engine would be to permit higher boost pressure.

[RayC333]

I find it interesting that a boost pressure increase outweighs the reduction in compression ratio. 

I've not had a lot to do with turbocharged cars or tuning for performance. Maybe I'll do some self education 😀

[Eric Bloodaxe]

2 hours ago, RayC333 said:

Maybe I'll do some self education 😀

I doubt you need much education after your heroic efforts with the ecoboost, Ray, but I think you'll find plenty (maybe too much!) about turbocharging on the internet.

Not the issue it once was with modern engine management systems, but back when I was a lad you might typically find an engine which had a CR of, say, 10:1 when normally aspirated would have it reduced to 7.5:1 when turbocharged to reduce pre-detonation at high boost pressures.

The downside back then was pretty weak performance off boost. This road test of a Saab 99 Turbo is interesting. It was claimed at the time to have reduced the turbo-lag issue but reading it through modern eyes it perhaps hadn't! 

    https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/december-1978/54/road-test-saab-turbo/

 

 

[RayC333]

18 hours ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Might typically find an engine which had a CR of, say, 10:1 when normally aspirated would have it reduced to 7.5:1

This road test of a Saab 99 Turbo is interesting. 

 

Yes, and that example follows your rational of lower CR when using Turbo boost.

What drew me to this old thread was another thread talking about an increase in CR when a cylinder head is skimmed to remove damage/distortion.

Of course this increase is fairly small but not insignificant. 

Don't tell anyone (especially unofix) but I still haven't given up on the old ecoboost... yet 😉

It's become a bit like triggers brush in the Fools & Horses TV series; not much left of the original 😄

 

 

[unofix]

4 hours ago, RayC333 said:

but I still haven't given up on the old ecoboost... yet

oh no !!!

Saints preserve us 🤣