anyone bought an ecoboost Fiesta yet (non ST)?

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

Thanks. What would I do without you? Please fix my WRX/Fiesta comparison as well, as I only stated that they were not direct competitors which must be a bad way to say it. Maybe you can 'fix' that statement as well.

"And despite a relatively small 12.4-gallon gas tank, the Fiesta still had a quarter of a tank left after our 350 miles--and an indicated total range of 482 miles"

wowzers. I wasn't impressed by the 40mpg until I realized that 115 of those miles were spent in the city.

Vigo wrote: 16s @ 83? Yeah, not adding up somehow.

Heavy torque management in the lower gears, and/or peak power is in a 5 second "overboost" mode?

Knurled wrote:

Vigo wrote: 16s @ 83? Yeah, not adding up somehow.

Heavy torque management in the lower gears, and/or peak power is in a 5 second "overboost" mode?

I don't know about the torque management but it pulls fine at the low end. First gear is LOOONG! I bet that the times are directly related to gearing. The overboost is supposed to only affect torque and is said to last 15 seconds (or the vast majority of the quarter). It moves along nicely for what it is.

I like the idea of a non-hybrid that can hit 40 mpg mixed.

alfadriver wrote: Why would anyone expect track numbers for the 1.0l?

Why would someone own an old Alfa?

Because they do is the answer. Anything after that is irrelevant.

Just for comparison. My 1.6 DSP6 will easily exceed 40 mpg. I once drove 424 miles getting an indicated 40 mpg at an average speed of 60 mph. So the 1.0 should easily exceed that.

singleslammer wrote: I like the idea of a non-hybrid that can hit 40 mpg mixed.

My friend's '12 Fiesta sedan will do that. Another friend's '13 2.0 Focus sedan almost does that (37mpg mixed), and will do 41-42mpg highway with the cruise set to 80 and the A/C on stun.

But if you want a wee little engine that relies on the turbo to do the same thing, suit yourself

I had a 12 Focus and it would get 34 on the highway at best.

HiTempguy wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Why would anyone expect track numbers for the 1.0l?

Why would someone own an old Alfa? Because they do is the answer. Anything after that is irrelevant.

There's a difference between expecting one and seeing one.

I would expect an ST to be at the track. I would not a 1.0. could see them, but it's far more likely an ST will and a 1.0 will not. Performance vs. fuel economy- which is more likly a track car?

Knurled wrote:

singleslammer wrote: I like the idea of a non-hybrid that can hit 40 mpg mixed.

My friend's '12 Fiesta sedan will do that. Another friend's '13 2.0 Focus sedan almost does that (37mpg mixed), and will do 41-42mpg highway with the cruise set to 80 and the A/C on stun. But if you want a wee little engine that relies on the turbo to do the same thing, suit yourself

I still have not gotten 40. 38.1 is the best I've gotten for my 35 mile commute drive. Not that 40 is much of an improvement to that.

I'd like the Fiesta ST chassis with this motor, and a much lower price tag (FiSTs are pretty pricey in Canada).

In reply to ZOO:

Just get the 1.0L and put on ST suspension take offs. It will get you 90% there.

Can you get the Recaros in the base model car? I have ridden in and driven a friend's Fiesta ST, and it is an EXCELLENT car. One of a very few cars I would consider for my next DD.

If I could get the base model car for 87 octane/FE/simplicity, with those excellent seats and a good suspension/tire package, I'd be a very happy camper.

Trying to build on the Ford site only shows 1.6L cars, and no Recaro option:

http://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/specifications/engine/

EDIT: Didn't realize the 1.0L only came on the SE, not the S or Titanium.

I friend of my at work has had one for about 6-7 months now and he really likes it. Recently put the FRPP suspension and 15 x 6.5 aftermarket wheels on it and I think 195/55/15?? Anyway, last time he and I talked, I think hs average was 45-47mpg mostly highway with a best of almost 50mpg, but he really had to try hard to get that in the hills of Tennessee. He said his mileage has dropped with the FRPP suspension becasue it is much more fun to drive. Also confirmed what everone says about the gearing...L---O---N---G.

ZOO wrote: I'd like the Fiesta ST chassis with this motor, and a much lower price tag (FiSTs are pretty pricey in Canada).

Or take the reasonably priced B-spec chassis updates. The spring and shock pagage is a little stiffer than the ST.

In reply to Vigo:

I generally agree that buying new generally doesn't make a lot of sense, but I could actually see taking out a lease on a 1.0 and using it for commuting duties. Lease + gas would be under 250/month, for kindof an average-ish commute, which is a pretty cheap $/mile proposition and zero headaches.

If I'm behind someone getting on the freeway- it's just as fast as the driver I'm following

I understand that perfectly. People are always SHOCKED by how slow an Insight with a dead battery pack is when i've driven people around like that, but the thing is, it's still faster than traffic! That boggles my mind (you have to go WOT in the insight when you let the clutch out to keep from stalling it) as a referendum on how ungodly, horribly, stupidly slow 'normal' traffic is, but i dont think many people understand my train of thought, that when i am WOT trying not to stall the car and STILL pass people constantly, it feels like more of a commentary on how slow everyone DRIVES vs how slow the car itself is. 95% of the time driving that car it is OTHER PEOPLE that are keeping me from going faster, not the car, and that car is so slow and so difficult to drive that it literally could not be sold off a new-car lot, period.

singleslammer wrote: I had a 12 Focus and it would get 34 on the highway at best.

Did it have the manual transmission and the computer controlled Venetian blinds in the grille?

In reply to Knurled:

Nope, auto and no blinds. It was cheap(for what it was) and used when I got it and couldn't option anything.

I'm with Vigo on the performance.

I don't expect to see a bunch of 1.0s at the track, but... people are dynoing/modding them. I would expect some of those same people to take them to the drag strip.

I don't think a 2400lb high-15 second car is boring - I just don't think it has 130whp.

ProDarwin wrote: I'm with Vigo on the performance. I don't expect to see a bunch of 1.0s at the track, but... people are dynoing/modding them. I would expect some of those same people to take them to the drag strip. I don't think a 2400lb high-15 second car is boring - I just don't think it has 130whp.

GSL-SE RX-7s weighed more, had less power, and ran high 15s.

I think someone's dyno is calibrated to "make customers happy" mode.

Where are some of you getting numbers?

Ford has the base curb weight for the hatch at 2537 for the manual and 2575 for the auto. Not 2400lb.

And that's the base curb weight.

Seems both over rated on the dyno and under rated on the scales.

Coming from the perspective of someone who has DD'd a 240D in DC traffic, and currently DD's a 2500 lb car that, when new and tuned up, might have had 85 hp...

The Fiesta is likely plenty powerful to drive normally in most US traffic, regardless of what the numbers say. I would bet most drivers who get the manny tranny 1.0 Fiesta are better at merging than the majority of owners of cars with twice the ponies.

alfadriver wrote: Where are some of you getting numbers? Ford has the base curb weight for the hatch at 2537 for the manual and 2575 for the auto. Not 2400lb. And that's the base curb weight. Seems both over rated on the dyno and under rated on the scales.

2400lb number I just pulled from my butt. I didn't realize it was so heavy. Still, there are plenty of claims floating around of way more power:

http://www.fiestafaction.com/forums/threads/42028-1-0L-Ecoboost-Dyno-Results

https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/fiesta-10-ecoboost-makes-146whp-stock/77773/page1/

Although now I realize both of those threads, as well as several more here on GRM, are using the same guy as reference, so may his post is responsible for this "myth" that that make so much power.

Vigo wrote: 16s @ 83? Yeah, not adding up somehow.

That actually is good time for a 123HP/2500+lbs car.