Super Fuel Economy Package on 2011 Fiesta

ignorant wrote: I don't have any beef for this car. I like it a ton. I got to sit in one the other day and the interior fit and finish was top notch. It is like my current civic, just nicer and less clapped out. My beef is 40mpg isn't really something to brag about..... That car should be getting in the 60mpg range...

I have a feeling with a slight suspension drop (the thing sits in the air like a 4x4) and the manual trans it would get awfully close to that with normal driving. I was hot-dogging the auto and got 38!

Oh, and you musta missed the hell-freezes-over thread, I sold teh P71 last month

Javelin wrote: ! Oh, and you musta missed the hell-freezes-over thread, I sold teh P71 last month

No.. I didn't.. No need to rub salt in the wounds..

You know arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud.... After a while you realize the pig likes it..

yes.. I just called myself a pig.

Anyway, I like the fiesta. I love hatchbacks for their functionality and fun.

Have you driven one yet? They are quite superb! We had one as a rental over our wedding and one of the guests liked it so much he went home and bought one (really)!

Javelin wrote: ...Yes, it might "only" match them on MPG, but it does that number with an infinitely better ride, absolutely luxurious interior, and superior crash protection. PLUS it is still fun to drive, has quite a bit of room, and actually has some style...

Don't forget the enormous difference in emissions. Force a CRX to meet modern emissions and it's mileage will drop quite a bit.

if Ford wanted to get some really good economy numbers that they could brag about, they'd sell a truly stripped down version with nothing in the way of creature comforts. they sold millions of Festivas like that 20 years ago.

they'd be able to knock a few grand off the sticker price of the car which gets people looking for cheap disposable work beaters with a warranty. they'd get more people looking for better mileage just so they can brag about it. and they'd get more people looking for a cheap car that would be easy to make go fast.

the trick would be getting dealers to have them in stock instead of the more profitable models with creature comforts...

Schmidlap wrote: Don't forget the enormous difference in emissions. Force a CRX to meet modern emissions and it's mileage will drop quite a bit.

Why?

In my earlier post I said 300 miles on half tank. Actually, it was 200 miles. Still 40 mpg. Yesterday I took a drive throught the Adirondacks. This was not an economy run. Drove over the speed limit when I could, passed cars etc. 284.1 miles and 43.7 mpg per the onboard computor. This is not your usual economy car. It has many on ammenities that were formerly on more expensive cars. I originally ordered a manual transmission. This car got lost in Fords stop shipping recall. After doing some research and driving one and after the dealer had one available I went for the DSG. The transmission does shift a lot, I don't consider it hunting, and after awhile you don't even notice it. Some say the auto gets better mileage than the manual. One "glaring " fault. When the sun is overhead, the dash panel reflects onto the windshield and at times obscures vision. I will have to look into a cure for that. The car rides well, handles well . I was in need of a new car and this fits me very well. My days of working on cars are in the past.

novaderrik wrote: if Ford wanted to get some really good economy numbers that they could brag about, they'd sell a truly stripped down version with nothing in the way of creature comforts. they sold millions of Festivas like that 20 years ago. they'd be able to knock a few grand off the sticker price of the car which gets people looking for cheap disposable work beaters with a warranty. they'd get more people looking for better mileage just so they can brag about it. and they'd get more people looking for a cheap car that would be easy to make go fast. the trick would be getting dealers to have them in stock instead of the more profitable models with creature comforts...

So you'd take a tinny car that's loud, has no A/C, bare-bones interior, roll-up windows et cetera to save what? $4k up front and gain 3 mpg? Yeah, right.

The only way a brutally bare car is going to sell is if it has some virtues such as stellar economy (60 MPG?) or stellar performance, or sells under $10K. Otherwise it simply won't move off the lots. Could Ford make such a vehicle? probably, but their profit would be paer thin to nonexistent. Could Tata make such a thing at a profit? Yep. And I fully expect such a vehicle to show up in the not very distant future.

My business is in Berkeley CA. where a couple companies that sell electric vehicles have started up here and gone under. Why? Because even greenies want cars with nice stuff on them and which will have adequate performance and safety.

Nothing fuel economy related but next door neighbor across the street got the hatch in the yellow with the alloy wheels..pretty sharp car..!

Zomby woof wrote:

Schmidlap wrote: Don't forget the enormous difference in emissions. Force a CRX to meet modern emissions and it's mileage will drop quite a bit.

Why?

I know the later Civic VX's lean burn engines wouldn't meet today's emissions standards. It puts out a lot more oxides of nitrogen because it was designed to cruise somewhere leaner than 18:1. I don't believe the CRX, even the HF, used this technology. Drop a Fit motor with a similar horsepower rating into a CRX and it would probably leave the MPG unchanged.

epa estimates 10 years ago are also not the same as epa estimates today.

I can understand the arguments against the newer cars though,

Maybe it would have been better for the discourse if id said this in my first post, but im not arguing AGAINST newer cars in any way, im arguing against the way they are marketed. The way they tout these mpg numbers is annoying because they are marketing to ignorance.

The US car market has driven some crazy stupid E36 M3 (in lack of regulation) in the auto market. Like how if you compare a 90 Camry and a '10 Camry, the mileage numbers are probably similar but the '10 has literally TWICE the horsepower and has gained maybe ~1100 lbs.

So what they WOULD be saying if the american consumers weren't so hypocritically against being marketed to with their ACTUAL buying habits and desires, is 'We've created a new car that has way more of what you actually buy on, while still making incremental progress on MPG!'

Pushing the mpg numbers is a PR thing, not a real marketing tactic, imo.

If the car was as SLOW as the old Honda AND didn't have to meet current emissions standards (yes, the high fuel economy Hondas were lean burn, which is why the later ones were not legal in California)- it would get a lot better fuel economy.

But current "demands" for performance that few people actually use, especially from car magazines and tv shows, has really held back real world fuel economy. Performance requirement is the main reason the 5 speed is not as good of fuel economy as the auto 6.

You can complain about marketing fuel economy all you want- but there are very, very strong correlations between fuel economy as a major factor in buying new cars and fuel cost. If fuel is cheap, buyers rarely factor that in.

So then the used car market for this board is weak on small cars....

Eric

One other thing. It has 5 cup holders, more than a CRX.

alfadriver wrote: If the car was as SLOW as the old Honda AND didn't have to meet current emissions standards (yes, the high fuel economy Hondas were lean burn, which is why the later ones were not legal in California)- it would get a lot better fuel economy. But current "demands" for performance that few people actually use, especially from car magazines and tv shows, has really held back real world fuel economy. Performance requirement is the main reason the 5 speed is not as good of fuel economy as the auto 6. You can complain about marketing fuel economy all you want- but there are very, very strong correlations between fuel economy as a major factor in buying new cars and fuel cost. If fuel is cheap, buyers rarely factor that in. So then the used car market for this board is weak on small cars.... Eric

Good points.. didn't I read somewhere that suv's sold more recently due to the stabilization of gas prices..

There is a correlation there but it's only further proof of the ignorance of the consumer base as i referred to earlier..

At least the MPG factor is back on the radar.. for most of my driving life ('98-on) it really wasnt.

And at least they finally bumped the damn CAFE numbers after over a decade of opulent energy-indulgence that sowed the seeds of disaster among the companies that the taxpayers had to bailout, bailouts which were complained about by all the free-merketeers who are simultaneously against the kind of regulation which would have prevented it. LOL.

Vigo wrote: There is a correlation there but it's only further proof of the ignorance of the consumer base as i referred to earlier.. At least the MPG factor is back on the radar.. for most of my driving life ('98-on) it really wasnt. And at least they finally bumped the damn CAFE numbers after over a decade of opulent energy-indulgence that sowed the seeds of disaster among the companies that the taxpayers had to bailout, bailouts which were complained about by all the free-merketeers who are simultaneously against the kind of regulation which would have prevented it. LOL.

Why is it ignorant? Everyone buys with their budget- if gas milages hurts, then they budget for it, if not- they don't. Europeans are exactly the same- if fuel was the same price here, they would be buying cars that use more.

Just becuase YOU think FE is top prioirty does not make you right. Just means you have an opinion.

kreb wrote: So you'd take a tinny car that's loud, has no A/C, bare-bones interior, roll-up windows et cetera to save what? $4k up front and gain 3 mpg? Yeah, right.

I'd pay extra for that.

Given the kind of money I've been sinking lately, I think I already am. (Makings for this year's Engine #4 are in the back of my wagon as I type)

Knurled wrote: First you say it drives like an old Cadillac (cushy ride, luxury interior, crash protection) but then you say it's fun to drive? Doesn't compute. I WANT a bare bones interior. I liked my B12-chassis Sentra. There should be nothing but flat cardboard and flat plastic inside the car. There should be no center console.

nowadays, a car doesn't have to beat the crap out of you in order to handle well. marvels of modern technology.

also, you would have to pay more for that interior because it saves the company money to not have to design and produce that crank window assembly, and install it in your car instead of a power window assembly. and in the end you might save 1/2 a pound.

It's the gearing, stupid. No one will buy a car anymore that takes more than 10 seconds to get to 60.

This is why my '05 xB does 3500rpm at 70mph. It makes me long for a less stupid final drive ratio.

Why is it ignorant?

Well, disregarding the rest of your rant..

My original point in saying that it was marketing to ignorance is that the companies are touting these mpg numbers as if they are something to be proud of. The numbers themselves are NOT special, and they're nothing we havent been able to get for DECADES.

So giving the mpg number with no other qualifying statements is aimed at influencing consumers who are IGNORANT (by definition, not by judgment) of the fact that such numbers have been available in the marketplace for 30 years, and hoping that you impress them.

As i said in my earlier post, the kind of marketing that would NOT cater to ignorance would be to point out that unlike cars of the past that got 40mpg, this one might be roomier, better built, faster, more entertaining, less embarassing, safer, have a better radio, etc etc etc.

The rest of my post that you quoted was a separate thought expressing one personal opinion and one observation. The whole ignorant thing was in an earlier post.

Vigo wrote:

Why is it ignorant?

Well, disregarding the rest of your rant.. My original point in saying that it was marketing to ignorance is that the companies are touting these mpg numbers as if they are something to be proud of. The numbers themselves are NOT special, and they're nothing we havent been able to get for DECADES.

Relative to the CURRENT MARKET- which is all that actually matters- 40mpg is something special. Heck, I know we were getting 50+ mpg out of cars in the 50's- does that make you ignornat for beliving that the CRX HF was something special? No- it means that the HF was a great car WRT fuel economy relative to it's market.

Even moreso- when you find out that you don't give up much in terms of space, safety, and performance, it's something to be very proud of.

But if you want to compare the Fiesta to the slow, dirty, and realtively unsafe 1990 Civic, and feel that they are somehow equal- that's ignorant. (BTW- if I'm not mistaken, the current Fiesta is better performing than the CRX Si, and it also gets better fuel economy, and is safer, and is cleaner, and is bigger- seems like something to be proud of)

Eric

I've driven one. I've been on the waiting list to drive a manual hatch for 4 months. Local dealer can't get one. If he could, I'd probably buy it.

He says if I order one (sight unseen), he'll give me my money back if I don't like it when I drive it. That's kinda weird.

So, apparently all they want to sell is the auto. I'm pretty sure the price point on this car is too low, and the only way they can make a profit is to upsell them with extras. If they release too many of them without the extras, they will loose money. Supposedly, the stripped price is around $13K. No one is getting one anywhere near that price.

This is the first car that I ever heard of getting WORSE fuel economy with a manual than with an auto. You guys who say it has to be in the gearing are right- sort of.

It's not exactly the gearing, it's the shift points. The car is designed to NEVER rev. It short shifts through 5 gears, then slowly winds it's way through a very tall 5th and 6th. That way, the car never revs, increasing it's fuel economy.

It's not actually searching for gears, it is finding them all overt the place.

I found it to be a very unpleasant driving experience. However, the handling, comfort, etc was good enough that I'm pretty sure I would buy one if I could drive a manual.

But I can't.

SVreX wrote: This is the first car that I ever heard of getting WORSE fuel economy with a manual than with an auto.

Actually, in this current age of 6 speed electronic automatics and CVT's this is common.
2010 Ford Fusion 2.5L w/ 6 speed: 22/31. Manual 6 speed: 22/29
2010 Nissan Versa 1.8L with CVT: 28/34. Manual 5 speed: 26/34
2010 Nissan Cube with CVT: 27/31. Manual 6 speed: 25/30

Personally, I think the testing favors the automatics.

jrw1621 wrote:

SVreX wrote: This is the first car that I ever heard of getting WORSE fuel economy with a manual than with an auto.

Actually, in this current age of 6 speed electronic automatics and CVT's this is common. 2010 Ford Fusion 2.5L w/ 6 speed: 22/31. Manual 5 speed: 22/29 2010 Nissan Versa 1.8L with CVT: 28/34. Manual 5 speed: 26/34 2010 Nissan Cube with CVT: 27/31. Manual 6 speed: 25/30 Personally, I think the testing favors the automatics.

it's not the testing- it's other requirements. Namely "top" gear acceleration. Manuals don't get the luxury of downshifting, autos do. So they tend to be better geared for cruising, whereas manuals see high cruise engine speeds.

it's always been that way, but up until recently, autos had higher losses- the more recent ones are much more efficient.

And- one other thing to remember in the Fiesta- the 6 speed auto is dual clutch manual- not a traditional auto that requires an oil pump be constantly spun to operate.