Super Fuel Economy Package on 2011 Fiesta

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.

Yes but letting all cars be judged vs ONLY their peers in the current market is letting the market drive YOU, not YOU driving the market. Thats a case of letting the market tell you what you need and bending over and dropping 20g for it.

With the exception of you trying to call ME ignorant AGAIN (which im getting tired of, and which IS different from the generalized lack of knowledge and perspective which I called ignorant), the rest of your post sounds pretty much exactly like the part of my post you decided not to quote. How about that?

Knurled wrote:

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.

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.

it "doesn't compute" b/c you're putting words in his mouth. he said it rides better than an '80s honda and is fun to drive. not impossible, you know.

SVreX wrote: 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.

Mazda dealers in my area have plenty of manual 2's in stock. smaller outside, bigger inside. 2-300 lbs lighter. cheaper. clutch pedal.

just sayin'.

Vigo wrote:

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.

Yes but letting all cars be judged vs ONLY their peers in the current market is letting the market drive YOU, not YOU driving the market. Thats a case of letting the market tell you what you need and bending over and dropping 20g for it. With the exception of you trying to call ME ignorant AGAIN (which im getting tired of, and which IS different from the generalized lack of knowledge and perspective which I called ignorant), the rest of your post sounds pretty much exactly like the part of my post you decided not to quote. How about that?

So you think we should be comparing ourselves to car that are no longer sold?

For the most part, nobody is competing vs. used cars, we are competing against other new cars. Where you think it should be otherwise seems, well, odd. Since there are very few cars on the market that can get 40mpg, why is it so bad to advertise that? Especially ones that are not hybrid nor diesel. Sure seems like something to brag about.

As for ignorance, you still want to compare a Fiesta- which is faster, bigger, safer, cleaner, and more refined to a 20 year old civic that gets about the same fuel economy? Seriously? Well, then, my buddy's '55 Giulietta TI that gets 55mpg is better than a civic, especially since it's a 4 door sedan.

Then again, my buddy and I have agreed that there's no way the argument can be won- you are obviously right in your own mind.

Eric

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

I more than doubled the spring rates on my RX-7 (with attendant suitable damping) and it rides better that way. It's quite stiff but it doesn't crash over bumps.

My VW, on the other hand, has a fairly compliant suspension, and on smooth roads it's great - you don't notice little wobbles in the road like you do in the Mazda - but holy crap. If it's not topping the suspension out, it's bottoming it. Sometimes both at the same time. I'd love to do a SuspensionCam of this one interchange, it bottoms the suspension so hard that the INSIDE drops...

Anyway. The only way you have good ride AND good handling is to have oodles of suspension travel, which is kinda freaky to drive unless you have something with the track width and wheelbase of a truck, and this precludes being small. Look at the RX-8's wheelbase for an example (it's limousine-long)

So you think we should be comparing ourselves to car that are no longer sold?

We should be comparing the cars that are sold to the cars we want to buy and own, whether they exist or not. If you have ever modified a car, this should be a simple concept to grasp. Manufacturer or Market X offers you a product. Do you A: take their marketing drivel as gospel and bend your product requirements to fit their product, or do you B: Tell them thats nice, but here's what id like even more.

Proactive or reactive? Sure, you and I modify our cars to make them closer to what we want, but few people are willing to do that with new cars (us included), which means you try as much as possible to get what you want, right out of the box, even if that means you dont buy anything immediately because nothing is a good enough match at the moment.

As for ignorance, you still want to compare a Fiesta- which is faster, bigger, safer, cleaner, and more refined to a 20 year old civic that gets about the same fuel economy? Seriously?

Can you tell me where i said 20 year old Civic? Let me answer that for you: you CANT. Because i never said it. You're pulling things out of your ass to throw at me because you got all butt hurt about what you READ INTO my use of the word ignorant. I mentioned saturns, sure, mazda3s, camrys, but no civics. You're seriously misreading or not reading everything that ive said, and then making up something to have a fight with me about.

Where is your retort to the things ive ACTUALLY said? Your made-up 20yr old civic argument doesnt address the fact that my 2004 mazda3 was a modern, heavy, safe car and still got 42mpg.

Here, let me REPOST what i ACTUALLY said in this thread:

However i dont think the 40mpg number is really bragworthy... But they're not competing against precedent.. they're trying to sell to a consumer base who still thinks 25mpg is pretty good.

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 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.

So let's be straight:

I didnt call out ANY ONE PERSON. I didnt walk up in this thread and say HEY YOU, YOU'RE IGNORANT! Not to you or anyone else.

I alluded to a an approach of many consumers to car buying that is not knowledgeable enough about technology or history to really put manufacturers' claims into a proper context. This means that they are more likely to be impressed and persuaded to spend money based on beliefs that are not based in reality.

Look up ignorant and you will see "uneducated" and "lacking knowledge". Those are not necessarily condescending or an attack on anybody. I feel you've put a very negative tone in my mouth that was not there to begin with, and responded to this assumption in an equally negative way.

As for whether or not you need to win the argument that wasnt here until you were, well, i guess that ball has been in your court from the beginning. Keep going if you want to. But PLEASE actually read my posts first.

Wading into this mess is a little tricky, but, I'd like to know what cars fit the following quote:

"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"

Which cars were getting 50+mpg in the '50s?

I think that I would much rather have the manual. I could put the garden edging on the front and hyper-mile to make up the difference.

Im guessing its possible to get better mileage hyper-miling the manual than than auto.

Of course in my insight the manual is purported to get like 20 more mpg than the auto.. and what do i get? the same mileage as the auto. But its so high i dont care

DWNSHFT wrote: Cool, so OK, what's the SFE package? The Super Fuel Economy package includes "side tire deflectors, underbody shields, lower grill blocker, cruise control" and T-rated tires on 15" wheels. It's only available on the mid-level SE with the twin-clutch transmission.

So I actually found a Fiesta on the lot with the mysterious SFE package. [I say that because it took four different dealerships to find one.] According to the Monroney sticker the SFE package includes low-rolling resistance tires and cruise control. No mention of the aero stuff. I didn't have a chance to visually check for the aero bits but I will keep my eyes open for another one and check then.

Do you think low-rolling resistance tires could really change highway mileage from 38 to 40, or 5.3% This would be a solid data point for the improvement, if that's the only change in the car.

David

If tires alone could give you 5.3% better fuel economy, I would be scared of those tires and the bowling balls that died to create them.

The grill block, aero tabs, underbody tray, and tires should easily account for a 5% jump (frankly, I'm surprised it isn't more, though I suppose it might be in real world use vs. testing); I doubt the tires are worth more than ~2%. Personally, I'd dump those LRR tires at the first opportunity and suck up the drop in FE.

I want to drive the Fiesta, 500, CRV and V6 Stang. Which saying a lot about those since I hate modern cars.

Well, to add a little insight to this discussion, I just picked up a Fiesta SE hatchback about a month ago. So far I have about 1600 miles on it. It has the 5-speed manual, as the fact that the 6-speed has no manual shift mode was a deal breaker. ANYway, with the engine being new and not fully broken-in, I have been averaging 35.25 mpg (my calculation, not the on-board computer's). I do about 80% freeway driving, but I also live in LA. When not in traffic, I go about 70-75mph and usually have the AC on. I traded in my R56 MINI Cooper S for the Ford, and, honestly, except for the lack of turbo power, the Fiesta is a better car for me. Now THAT is saying something...

That aside, one of the reasons that the 6-speed gets better mileage on the fwy is the final gear ratio. I spin about 3000rpm at 70. The automanual spins around 2700-2800. However, it is also tuned to return the best mileage, so it is not particularly entertaining. With the stick, I can still wind this sucker out (likes high revs) or short shift it to get good MPG. Win-win for the manual.

Long story short, I think the SFE is a waste of money. Go manual and you will be happier.

I think one thing people are missing is the difference between 20mpg, 40mpg, and 60mpg.

The jump from 20 to 40 makes a large difference to people. The jump from 40 to 60 (or if you consider something like a diesel jetta, 50) is negligible compared to the COST of obtaining that mpg rating. I average around 35usmpg in my barebones 96 honda cx (no options, not even power steering). Of course, it rattles more and rides worse than my 1990 Suzuki Swift (now THAT says something lol).

Basically, what I am getting at is the Mazda 2 (I'd prefer it cause it is lighter) or Fiesta are dang near perfect. I'd only be spending ~$100/month on fuel, and I travel 600kms per week, all while cruising in the comfort of a brand new car. That's good bang for the buck!

All the hate around the 6 speed seems to center on the shifting. The fact that it doesn't have a manual mode does suck, but there is one unanswered question:

Has anyone developed any kind of aftermarket tune to let it rev?

It will easily rev to red line. Just step down hard on that right pedal. Trust me I know. The "hill assistance" mode has some interesting programming and "low "is just a blast. I wouldn't say the ride is "cushy", in fact it is firm. I went from a 2000 ZX2SR , a fun car to drive and could get 40 mpg if you took it easy. But it was a tin can compared to the Fiesta. I recently took an 880 mile trip. 90% interstate cruising at 75 mph and got 39.5 mpg. The ZX2 "might" get 34 mpg.