Reports: 2014 Fiesta 1.0T EPA rated 45 mpg hwy, 32 mpg city - starts @ $17240 (sedan)
 

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1383051214

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:

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? )

Oh, and for you turbo fans ( <-- see that joke I made?), is it correct that you wouldn't want to be doing engine-off coasting? A turbo longevity issue?

turbo's make everything better.

However i would buy the Fiesta with the 1.6T, 200hp

Not that much of a strech.


http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/graph6238.gif

1.6 na 5 speed

Add active grill shutters and knock it down 500 revs at highway speed and I think the 1.6 na could do 45 MPG highway consistantly.

the Fiesta didnt have grill shutters? I know most of the Foci did.

It boggles my mind when there is such a simple solution to net a few MPG. Why are all automakers doing this RIGHT NOW! it doesnt even interfere with vehicle styling or performance, which were two reasons that may have stopped the eco movement

...for the same reason that LRR tires are NOT standard OEM on all cars...co$t.

they put so much effort into telling about their fleet CAFE fuel economy ratings, and here is something that would cost like $20 extra per vehicle....

It is only available with the 5spd in the SE package without any other packages. I'm glad to see it available stateside but I have to question the packaging. For example, why isn't it available on the Titanium? Even matching it with the 5spd I can forgive but not the limited options.

The active grill shutters are only available in the SFE package with the wheel covers and other cheap stuff for hundreds in markups. It looks like they avoided using them in the 1.0L Ecoboost for now.

too expensive, I rather buy a lean burnin used honda and save the $$

All new cars are too expensive for me. 5 years down the road this might be a great car to own though!

The problem is, people will start having fun with the boost and get poor mileage.

My parents have a 2014 2.0 Ecoboost Escape AWD. My father and I have no problem getting 30-32MPG out of it (way over the EPA rating). But we drive it light and stay out of the boost.

My 2.0NA Focus can get low 40s and it is rated for 34. Wonder what the real world economy would be on this when there is someone driving for efficiency behind the wheel?

I do like the idea of turbocharging smaller engines and putting in tall overdrives. Best of both worlds! My concern is that they may not be reliable in the long run.

Turbos are getting better, especially now that they are no longer oil cooled.

Will we be able to engine-off coast a Fiesta with no adverse effects on turbo longevity?

I dont think I would without an electric water pump to keep cooling the turbo while the engine is off. It wouldnt be too hard to rig up.

I think it depends on the amount of fuel that is used during the pulse. Most likely it won't be that much and only slightly more then a N/A engine would be.

I just did some stoichiometry testing on my turbo car and the center cartridge doesn't increase at all in temperature after a pulse at 14.7 A/F and pulling over and checking with a infra-red gun. The added frequency of EOC is what would determine the amount of engine oil break down and a good synthetic oil would be a must to offset it.

To be fair EOC also has to have some negative effect at the exhaust valve guide since the exhaust valve itself will run around 650*C at the center of the valves head.

Today's turbo cars are all water cooled and what Daox proposed is a very good idea and I agree a extra low voltage water pump could be installed very easily.

There have been a lot of improvements to engine-off cooling of turbochargers as well. My STi for example has a small coolant reservoir located above the turbocharger. When the engine is off, heat continues to be exchanged from the turbo to the reservoir via conduction. Turbo timers, even in high performance cars, are pretty much a thing of the past.

When I was in Europe a few years ago we rented a little Fiat diesel thingie. It looked like a tiny minivan. It had a 1.1L turbocharged engine. The turbo was the size of a large coin! It was so small and spun up so fast that its full capacity was available just above idle; if I recall correctly full boost was at 1500 RPMs. I would expect this Ford turbo will be similar. In other words it won't be something you will be able to "stay out of" during acceleration because it will spin up so quickly and easily.

I don't understand how turbos are hurt by shutting off the engine. Sure, the oil or water that cools it stops flowing, but so does the heat generation. Does a turbo continue to increase in temperature after the engine is shut down, and if so, how?

The turbo's hottest part, the turbine starts to cool when the engine is shut down. But the problem lies in the turbine transferring heat to the center cartridge. When the engine is shut off, the center cartridge will no longer have nice cool oil and coolant to cool it.

When the engine is running the center cartridge will run around 220*F due to oil and coolant flow. The turbine housing always is transferring heat to the center cartridge. But with the engine off and no circulation of coolant and oil to pull away heat from the center cartridge you could see the oil film degrade at the turbo's shaft and bearing's, if the turbine reaches extreme temperatures from very high engine load, or not enough ignition advance.
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps19fcf502.jpg

This is one of my turbo's that had some heat issues. Plus you can also see some coking at the turbine's seal.

I have not looked at the 1.0 EB, but the other EcoBoost engines (and most engines with coolant cooled turbos) have the cooling system designed to utilize convection currents to keep the coolant flowing when the engine is off. You no longer have to idle when you get somewhere to allow the turbo to cool down.

I was always told that it's because the turbo is still spinning when you shut the car off if it had recently been under boost, and once the engine stops then the shaft is still spinning with no oil circulation. I don't know how accurate that is, but it made sense when I heard it. The turbo timer would let the oil keep flowing at idle until the turbo had time to stop spinning.

If you P&G (engine off) you are going from a significant impeller speed to basically nothing fairly quickly. While you jsut shut the engine off the turbine impeller could still be spinning at 20-30,000 RPM. Although you have shut off the heat source (combustion) you have not shut off the heat transfer.

Now you have a very hot turbo, with the shaft spinning rapidly and it is very hot, but you have eliminated the oil flow and coolant flow (if water cooled). Even with a high quality synthetic oil, you have a recipe for failure, a situation way outside design parameters.

regards
Mech

This doesn't apply to me at all right now, but I appreciate this knowledge on EOC w/ a turbo.

Question, Ecomodders:

The European Fiesta 1.0L has start-stop function, a feature unavailable on the US model. How does that function with the turbo? Does anyone know if the Euro Fiesta has a different turbo/cooling system design, or are they identical?

I just bought mine!
 

I just took delivery of my new Fiesta. This is the car I have always wished Ford would make. I can answer a few questions about the car. Generally, if something is cheap and really works, like grill shutters, and the car does not have it, there is a good reason for it. Air flow is critical with a turbo and any risk under the most extreme conditions possible means it won't be put into production. That's my guess anyway. Europe does have a stop-start version so it can be done. Maybe the U.S. market isn't ready for it. It does have regenerative braking or a mild form of it anyway. It doesn't have to be the cheapest car out there because it is so nice to drive. You buy a really fun to drive small car and 45+ mpg is a bonus. Most importantly, will it match the EPA rating? My early results in subfreezing, mixed driving on winter gas says it will blow them away. I'm on track to beat the highway rating already, well before the break in period.

Thanks for the update.

I've now seen comments on several sites from Fiesta 1.0t owners saying they can easily beat EPA with these cars. (Of course the cynic in me says this may also be Ford running a covert social media campaign to try to reverse damage from their earlier MPG ratings overstatements! :D )

As for the question of active grille shutters on a turbo, GM has them on the turbo Cruze ECO...

Sounds like they're a fun car. I hope Ford sells lots so they're available on the used market in a few years. I'd love to try one.

I was at the Ford stealership yesterday; cute lil Fiesta hatch was $20,000 and the showroom had a $65,000 Rustang. :eek: I left emptyhanded.

GT500 Rustang?

Give the 2 dr a year or two and one will come up at the salvage auction.

regards
Mech

Yes, GT 500. I was on a several mile walking parts run- thought for giggles I'd see what the stealership wanted for a F150 thermostat: $20. And I noticed those other prices while there. :eek: Thanks for the laughs, Ford.

Looks like the 2015 model (US) will have a 6 speed and two doors, both new for the US models. With 45 highway compared to a VX at 50 highway (current EPA ratings), I'll be watching for them to come to my local salvage auction. Maybe I can get one like my 2011 Fiesta that had no frame, glass, or interior damage, no air bags deployed.
Since I have averaged just over 45 MPG (49.5 today (indicated) taking the wife to a DRs appt) with a 38 highway rating for mine, it should be reasonsble to assume (begins with a$$), I should be able to pull 53-55 combined with the 1.0 ecoboost engine, maybe even higher on 55 MPH country road trips.

Or I get my 3 wheeler done and average over 100 MPG. :thumbup:

Dump the bikes and the truck, sell the 2011 Fiesta and get a small trailer.

Interesting times

regards
Mech

Fiesta 1.6L still cheaper to run?
 

A Cars.com running costs study offers up a factoid about the Fiesta 1.0t:

The $2,475 price premium over the base 1.6L Fiesta is not recovered in 8 years of driving @ $3.30/gal and 15k mi./yr

Top 10 Cheapest New Cars You Can Buy - KickingTires

In the same study they also point out that even the $1k premium for the CVT in the Mirage doesn't pay for itself over the officially thirstier 5-speed manual in 8 years.

Interesting points- just like the Micra!

This is most interesting to me. And considering they are using EPA data, could prove even longer for the hypermiler if the 1.6 nets better mpg because of not dealing with turbo complications from P&G and EOC.

If looking at 2 cars, brand new, I might consider the turbo. But you also have to add in the maintenance that comes with added "complication". I've seen multiple VWs, a couple Subarus and 1 Volvo wear out their turbos and need a pricy replacement. Many diesel trucks need new or rebuilt turbos after a time as well. And we haven't begun to address the issue of oil in the intercooler and intake from poorly designed PCV systems. Pretty sure I'd still stick with the 1.6L for the simplicity of a "just" a 4cly engine.

I'd like to see what the 1.0 could do WITHOUT a turbo but chances are that the computer would call Ford and a salesman (or oil company goon) would show up immediately to either destroy the car or make me disappear forever lol. If the turbo is only for getting the car moving, highway commuters like myself would not have much need for it...

Like driving my sadly missed 1.0L Insight with the hybrid assist disabled.

Thats kinda bad really
 

Those numbers dont touch my old back in the day geo metro XFI and that was 20 years ago!
In fact it isnt much better than my project POS KIA Sephia.
That pretends to be a sports car and still hits the high 30s.
Im just not impressed I cant understand why MPG has gon DEVO with all the fancy new stuff we have now availible.
These people need to hire me mabe I can put it all together for them.

A neat thing about salvage auctions is there are fewer bidders for manuals. My buddies body shop has bought very few manuals, probably less than 1% of their total purchases.
Maybe I'll rent an ecoboost Fiesta for a trip to see how much better the mileage is compared to my current 2011 powershift model.

I would prefer the two door manual version with the least options, if they even offer that. Right now I think it's a 5 speed hatch 4 door.

regards
Mech

Gearing: Fiesta vs. Mirage highway numbers
 

Tim and I were talking about this again today: how does the Fiesta get a much better highway rating than the manual Mirage -- 45 vs. 42 mpg US. Consider that the Fiesta is less aerodynamic and significantly heavier (yes, I know that has a smaller impact on steady-state cruising, but the EPA tests change speeds a lot).

It must come down to much taller gearing in the Ford (or fudging the numbers again).

So I did a bit of searching. I didn't find any actual specs for gear ratios, but I did find two separate reviews of the US car which described the gearing as unusually tall:

Source: Review: 2014 Ford Fiesta Hatchback (With Video) | The Truth About Cars

(Then the reviewer goes on to complain about the gearing, and says he prefers the automatic. :rolleyes:)

An American car with taller than Euro gearing! Shocking! Blasphemy even!

The Euro Mirage gets a taller final drive in the manual, following the typical pattern.

While its true that your geo metro can get better mpg, There are some things to consider with the fiesta

Increased safety - 7 standard airbags
Increased comfort ( subjective )
Increased amenities - may or may not be important
Improved hp and torque 123 hp 125 tq up to 148 tq

Is it worth it? It was to me so I bought one and am happy with it thus far.

I think that if you stripped away the added safety and comfort features i.e. weight. You would end up with something that really could compete mpg-wise with a metro.

In the end its personal preference, and the n/a 1.6L can probably reach or beat the 1.0L T in terms of mpg.

Here's the ratios for the 1.0L and the 1.6L n/a IB5 5spd:

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps03f91ae8.jpg

This is from the factory service manual

FWIW at 80mph I'm at 3.5K rpm in 5th with a 185-60-15

We do have active shutters on our fiestas:thumbup:

It's geared much shorter than the 1.6 version! Seems to be about the same as the Mirage!