Sodium-ion energy storage in nanocellular carbon foams shows high capacity and rate retention; not an intercalation battery
Elon Musk unveils Hyperloop preliminary design study

Ford introduces more fuel-efficient Focus 1.0L EcoBoost; 99 gCO2/km

Ford Focus 1.0-liter EcoBoost 100 PS version delivers 4.3 l/100 km and CO2 emissions of 99 g/km. The 125 PS model returns 5.0l/100 km with CO2 emissions of 114 g/km. Click to enlarge.

Ford Motor Company has announced a new version of the Focus 1.0-liter EcoBoost (earlier post) that will be the first gasoline-powered family car in Europe to offer 99 g/km CO2 emissions.

The Focus 1.0-liter EcoBoost will achieve fuel efficiency of 4.3 l/100 km (54.7 mpgUS). Equipped with a specially calibrated 100 PS (99 hp, 74 kW) version of the 1.0L gasoline direct injection engine, the new Focus 1.0-liter EcoBoost also will feature Ford ECOnetic Technology including Auto-Start-Stop, Smart Regenerative Charging, Active Grille Shutter and Ford EcoMode that supports a more economical and environmentally friendly driving style. The car goes on sale in Europe early next year.

Power/torque graph for original 100 PS 1.0L EcoBoost variant. Click to enlarge.

Ford’s 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine is a transverse-mounted, inline three-cylinder turbo gasoline direct fuel injection with Ti-VCT. It uses a low inertia turbocharger, split cooling system and direct fuel injection to deliver surprising levels of performance from the 3-cylinder engine block.

Ford’s 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine (named International Engine of the Year 2013 and 2012) enables the new model to be more powerful than a first generation Ford Focus with a 1.6-liter engine from less than 10 years ago while producing 47% less CO2.

Even just a couple of years ago few people would have thought it possible that a medium-sized petrol car could break the 100 g/km CO2 barrier.

—Barb Samardzich vice president Product Development, Ford of Europe

The new model that will be produced in Saarlouis, Germany, will extend to three the number of Focus models offered with the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine, alongside the standard 100 PS version that offers 109 g/km CO2 emissions and the 125 PS (123 hp, 92 kW) version that offers 114 g/km CO2.

Introduced to the Fiesta, B-MAX, C-MAX and seven-seat Grand C-MAX last year, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine will be extended to the EcoSport SUV, Transit Connect and Transit Courier commercial vehicles; Tourneo Connect and Tourneo Courier people movers; and later the all-new Mondeo.



There is a fair bit of life in the old (gasoline ICE) dog yet.

It will be very advantageous for tax purposes in Europe.

I winder what mpg real people will achieve with it ...

Still it is very impressive - 99 Hp, 99 gms/km in an affordable package.


Available in the U.S: never. Sigh :(


99HP would have been good enough 20 years ago, when we actually had compact cars that did not weigh as much as 4,000 pounds.

Today, the lightest of cars seem to need 120HP just to get going.

Unless manufacturers find a way to shave 1000 pounds off of vehicles, this engine is going to be too small.

100HP Cars such as the tiny Mazda 2 weigh 2400 pounds, exactly the same as a 1966 Mustang. And are so slow, they have no perceptible acceleration.

The lightweight Honda Civic HF pounds in at around 2800!

And it just goes up from there. Depending on model and options of course....


But you can see the endgame in Europe now. Vehicles there are underpowered but getting 50 MPG Hwy, even by US EPA standards.

Now cut vehicle weight by 10% over the next 5-7 years, and increase HP/torque by 15-20% over that same period, and you get 5 passenger compact cars that are 50 MPG hwy, 40+mpg combined, and 0-60 in 9 seconds. Totally acceptable in US.

The real challenge is the light truck category.....Europe won't help with that.


You could ask your politicians in the USA to change the legislation. Then, you will also get underpowered vehicles and no (i.e. very few…) light trucks. Public opinion in the EU (apparently) wants to reduce fuel consumption and CO2. Legislation has changed due to that request and car manufacturers have responded. Simple!(or???) Does this make us in Europe unhappy? I would not be that much happier myself with much more power than 100 PS (I had 177 hp in my previous car). I now drive a Focus Econetic (diesel) station wagon with “only” 105 PS (but 270 Nm of torque, which is actually what counts). I get ~3.6 l/100 km (~65 mpg, US) on average – a little higher than manufacturer’s data of 3.4 l/100 km but good enough. This is significantly better than the gasoline Focus mentioned in the article and I have a much more responsive and “fun to drive” engine. I am happy all the way from the bank to the gas station. Any disadvantage? Well, the diesel is noisier at idle (but quieter at highway speeds). In addition, there is (yet) no hybrid version available (which Toyota probably appreciates). Of course, this engine will never be available in the USA. I am under the impression that diesel cars do not gain any acceptance in the USA.

I do not think this is the end game. I could imagine a 3-cylinder 1-liter diesel engine at 100+ hp as well, instead of the current 4-cylinder 1.6-liter engine. The smaller engine would not cost more, albeit that I foresee more advanced technology. Then I would add a simple parallel hybrid system – or preferably – a kinetic hybrid system (at lower cost and higher efficiency). Drivability would be on pair with a ~130 PS engine and fuel consumption (from the base level of 3.4 l/100 km) would be approximately 2.5 l/100 km (range: 2.3 – 2.7, depending on assumptions). I would not dare to extrapolate beyond this level…


Who realy needs 300+ hp, 4000+ lbs car?

With the exception of people who are grossly overweight (25% to 35% or so in USA) the other 65% to 75% could be transported very well with 100 hp, 2000 lbs vehicles.

Since overweight people have a tendency to become more numerous and heavier in USA and Canada, it seems that the need for large vehicles will be around for a long time.

On the other hand, regular size people should have the opportunity to buy lighter more efficient vehicles.

Richard C Burton

cujet; I drive a 98 Honda Civic w the 105?hp engine and a 5 speed,weighs about 2400lbs, and has very acceptable power and acceleration. Now granted add 2-3 passengers, and turn on the air conditioner, and it is perceptably much weaker, but I like most people ususally drive alone, and with a manual,I can partially compensate for the weight by keeping the revs up. Me thinks the horsepower race(and demand for rapid acceleration) is very counterproductive to good mileage.


At 179 cm and 64 kg, am I “regular size” or not? Why not reduce the size (i.e. weight) of Americans? Then, no large vehicles would be necessary and the improvement of health and quality of life for these people would be substantial. Is it that difficult? Engineers have been able to reduce the weight of the most recent generation of vehicles compared to the previous generation in spite of demands for more comfort and safety. Why could not medical doctors do the same with people?


Peter XX said "Why not reduce the size (i.e. weight) of Americans?"

Hahaha, not going to happen. They fill our food supply with growth hormones (makes chickens become 10KG birds in 3 weeks! , for more profit) and other good things. We can't help being huge.

Why not cut some weight off of the chassis instead. In much the same way the aviation industry does it. Can you imagine a 4000 pound Cessna 172? It'd never fly.


During a period of 3 years, I was able to gradually reduce my weight by some ~15 kg, i.e. ~4 kg/year. Still, my body fat percentage is some ~13-15 %. Humans are born to run; i.e. so we have been told lately by science. An endurance athlete’s optimum is in the range of 8-10 %. If this would be an ideal, I would still have some way to go but frankly, I do to care to push more. However, average Joe in the USA must be very far from this ideal.

Seriously speaking, I can agree with previous comments on this site that obesity leads to a choice of larger cars. If I was 2x heavier, I would probably prefer a larger car, simply to get in and out of the car easier. Airplane manufacturers put in fewer chairs in new planes to compensate for increased body size. So, besides the weight penalty and corresponding increase in fuel consumption, reduced number of chairs also has an impact on fuel consumption per passenger. If aircraft engineers spend so much effort in reducing weight, why should not passengers do the same? Well, perhaps with an economic incentive (that is so popular in many other cases). If my luggage is overweight, I have to pay a substantial penalty and I accept that. So, why should not overweight passengers pay extra? Airlines could have a base fee for the chair and a variable fee for weight (passenger and luggage combined, of course). This is probably not going to happen either but perhaps Ryanair, or some other low fare airline, would consider it.


About reduction of CO2 emissions, i read in an article that a french company has found a solution to reduce and to use CO2 emissions for all vehicles. They are specialist for exhaust heat recovery with amazing fuel savings up to 15%, interesting !

More informations in their websites : ; ;


Yeah, sooner or later heat recovery has to be implemented. A Swedish Company is working on a similar solution.


Modern agriculture, industrial/junk food and clothing industries, car makers and Big oïl, doctors, hospitals, drug makers and distributors and many others need more and more grossly overweight people to steadily raise their profit margins year after year.

Lean people eat less, are healthier and consume less energy, food, health care etc.

If 50+% of the overweight people reduce their (over) weight in USA and Canada, we could be in for a major economic recession due to reduced demands?

The comments to this entry are closed.