Ford's 1.5L turbo engines are shit boxes

[MWmetalhead]

It's nice that they are actually doing a recall (unlike the Ford Focus transmissions of early to mid 2010s vintage).

That said, I'm not surprised a 1.5L three cylinder, direct injection, turbo engine is suffering from cracking issues. This is why the stringent fuel economy standards many politicians support are not such a great idea.

Would not surprise me if the repair to be applied in this instance fails to permanently remediate the issue.

The dopes at Consumer Reports gave the Bronco Sport high marks, too. What morons! That said, they correctly graded the full scale Bronco harshly.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/busin ... 242533001/

[Deleted User 9015]

That said, I'm not surprised a 1.5L three cylinder, direct injection, turbo engine is suffering from cracking issues. This is why the stringent fuel economy standards many politicians support are not such a great idea.

When my wife was shopping around she took a look at that three-cylinder piece of shit. We had escapes in the past. When we met, I had a V6 Escape! Not even out the driveway at Suburban I was like "no way". Ford has become such a shitty brand for cars/suvs.

[Honeyman]

I thought that new electric Mustang was supposed to be great....no?

[zzand]

One of my co-workers has one and hates it. Says he gets nowhere fast and plans for extra driving time because it is so slow

[kager]

Maybe Ford should have tapped Kubota for 3-cylinder smokers?

Hopefully Ford's vents are still going strong...

[MWmetalhead]

The 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo Ford makes is a decent engine, has been used on most Ford Edge models forever, and is available as an upgrade on the Escape.

If I were to buy or lease an Escape, that's the engine I would choose. Definitely wouldn't have to worry about acceleration. With FWD on a car with the Escape's weight, I would suspect fuel mileage would be around 23 in the city and 30 freeway with that engine.

The previous generation Escapes had slower 0 to 60 times than the current generation.

Turbos can go bad once cars start putting in higher mileage (or even medium mileage). If acceleration performance declines markedly all of a sudden, turbo failure is a possible culprit.

[Circle Seven]

One of my co-workers has one and hates it. Says he gets nowhere fast and plans for extra driving time because it is so slow

Does your neighbor have the 3 cylinder engine or the electric mustang?

[TC Talks]

Name any new revolutionary technology that was perfect out of the box.

Engines today are incredible for performance and efficiency. To blame regulations is a bit petty don't you think?

By 2030, so many global markets will be EV only, it's ridiculous that any manufacturer is putting effort into internal combustion at all these days. They'll never hit a profitable life cycle of the technology.

It's like designing a better Rotary phone when cellular is emerging.

[MWmetalhead]

There is nothing "revolutionary" about 3-cylinder engines.

As far as true EVs go, I agree the technology will get much better with time. The charging infrastructure has a long way to go in most areas of the country before EVs gain mainstream acceptance here.

Renault and Ford have stated they will sell only EVs in Europe by 2030. Volkswagen has set a goal of 2035. I think 2035 is realistic for EVs to command at least 50 percent market share of new vehicle sales here in the U.S. I, for one, am interested to see if sales of fossil fuel powered used cars are helped or harmed by that transition.

For now, I think hybrid technology, especially the regenerative braking version, is a compelling option. Stick to the manufacturers that have offered it for a long time (Toyota, for example).

It's like designing a better Rotary phone when cellular is emerging.

...kinda like "HD Radio."

[zzand]

he has a gas engine in the terrible Eco Sport

[MWmetalhead]

Ah, it's an Ecosport. That explains it. That vehicle either has a 1.0L (yes, you read that correctly) 3-cylinder turbo or a 2.0L naturally aspirated four cylinder. The naturally aspired 2.0L is a much better motor than the turbo charged 1.0L, which indeed is a shit box of an engine. Ford has discontinued the 3-cylinder 1.0L turbo, I want to say beginning with either this model year or 2021. Even with the 2.0L, the 0 to 60 time is probably near 10 seconds. That time is not uncommon for the subcompact CUV class. The new Toyota Corolla Cross comes in around 11 seconds, for example.

Prior to the supply chain issues, there were probably good deals to be had on the Ecosport in this part of the country. I bet some folks, even without A/Z plan, have been able to buy them for $18,000 or $19,000 new. Even at that price, I still wouldn't want one. If that were my budget, I'd spend it on a reliable late model used sedan instead.

[TC Talks]

Now, an outstanding 3 cylinder is Toyota's 1.6 liter... Especially in this little rocket.

https://www.drive.com.au/news/2023-toyo ... e-outputs/

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

The 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo Ford makes is a decent engine, has been used on most Ford Edge models forever, and is available as an upgrade on the Escape.

If I were to buy or lease an Escape, that's the engine I would choose. Definitely wouldn't have to worry about acceleration. With FWD on a car with the Escape's weight, I would suspect fuel mileage would be around 23 in the city and 30 freeway with that engine.

The previous generation Escapes had slower 0 to 60 times than the current generation.

Turbos can go bad once cars start putting in higher mileage (or even medium mileage). If acceleration performance declines markedly all of a sudden, turbo failure is a possible culprit.

Let's not give Ford too much credit. The 2.0 turbos have been around in European vehicles like VW and Saab since the 90s.

[moldyoldie]

The 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo Ford makes is a decent engine, has been used on most Ford Edge models forever, and is available as an upgrade on the Escape.

If I were to buy or lease an Escape, that's the engine I would choose. Definitely wouldn't have to worry about acceleration. With FWD on a car with the Escape's weight, I would suspect fuel mileage would be around 23 in the city and 30 freeway with that engine.

The previous generation Escapes had slower 0 to 60 times than the current generation.

Turbos can go bad once cars start putting in higher mileage (or even medium mileage). If acceleration performance declines markedly all of a sudden, turbo failure is a possible culprit.

I can vouch for the giddy-up provided by the 2.0 liter 4-cyl. turbo in my 2016 Escape! I bought it new and have low miles on it. The only problem I'm having is with the radio -- once in a while I have to turn off the ignition and restart to turn it on. Also, the SYNC voice activation no longer works. The panel controls are within easy arm's reach so I don't bother taking the car in.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

The 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo Ford makes is a decent engine, has been used on most Ford Edge models forever, and is available as an upgrade on the Escape.

If I were to buy or lease an Escape, that's the engine I would choose. Definitely wouldn't have to worry about acceleration. With FWD on a car with the Escape's weight, I would suspect fuel mileage would be around 23 in the city and 30 freeway with that engine.

The previous generation Escapes had slower 0 to 60 times than the current generation.

Turbos can go bad once cars start putting in higher mileage (or even medium mileage). If acceleration performance declines markedly all of a sudden, turbo failure is a possible culprit.

I can vouch for the giddy-up provided by the 2.0 liter 4-cyl. turbo in my 2016 Escape! I bought it new and have low miles on it. The only problem I'm having is with the radio -- once in a while I have to turn off the ignition and restart to turn it on. Also, the SYNC voice activation no longer works. The panel controls are within easy arm's reach so I don't bother taking the car in.

Ironically, the radio for my Saab takes 30 seconds from when the engine starts. Not a big deal but took some getting use to. The steering wheel controls also do not work consistently.