The auto blogs are atwitter over the latest salvo in the MPG wars -- it's great to be able to write "MPG wars", by the way -- this one coming from Ford regarding the coming Fiesta Ecoboosted 1.0L turbo (manual transmission only).
Apparently the EPA ratings have been published, and they look like:
32 mpg (US) city
45 mpg (US) highway
37 mpg (US) combined
Ford marketers now believe fuel economy is a "feature", so you'll have to pony up extra for those MPG, unlike in the good old days of the 80's & 90's when most companies' entry level cars also typically got the best mileage in their line-ups (owing to light weight & modest engine output more than anything).
Here's what a 45 mpg highway rating costs:
Quote:
|
It's priced as a $995 "SE Manual EcoBoost" package, and added to the regular Fiesta SE you'll pay $17,240 in sedan form and $17,840 for the sportier hatchback. Both prices include Ford's mandatory $795 destination fee
|
Read more from GCR:
2014 Ford Fiesta EcoBoost Priced, 45 MPG Highway Too
That puts the Fiesta's highway rating 1 MPG higher than the Mirage CVT (44), 5 less in the city, and 3 less combined.
Ford must have really set the top gear WAAaaaay up there (numerically way "down there") to aim for 45 on the highway.
The Mirage manual beats the Fiesta in the city as well (at 34 mpg) but loses out on the highway at 42, due to too-low gearing. (Although in a recent
comparison of the manual vs. CVT M irage in city driving, I saw 48 MPG from the 5-speed with very basic ecodriving techniques on a cold, blustery day.)
But then seriously, who's going to cross-shop a $17,000-$18,000 turbo compact against a 74 hp, $14,000 entry level subcompact?
The million dollar question, though, is: how believable are Ford's EPA ratings? You would think they would play it more cautiously after getting burned over their C-Max ratings blunder. A 45 MPG EcoBoost rating doesn't sound very cautious!
(See also, from MirageForum:
2014 M irage 1.2 vs. Ford Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost - which has better mileage/fuel economy? )