"Mosqvich" (mosqvich)
10/29/2013 at 11:23 • Filed to: 1.0L Ecoboost, Ford Fiesta, EPA, Fuel Efficiency
1
19|
"Mosqvich" (mosqvich)
10/29/2013 at 11:23 • Filed to: 1.0L Ecoboost, Ford Fiesta, EPA, Fuel Efficiency | 1
| 19 |
Ford just released the EPA's numbers on the 2014 Ford Fiesta EcoBoost 1.0L. The tiny mill will push the car along at 123 hp and 125 pound feet of torque. The residents of the Glass House point out not only the day-t0-day horse power ratings, but also the fact that the engine can put out 145 pound feet of torque for short 15 second bursts. These facts are presented because the Fiesta will still have some pep and not be completely boring. For comparison the 2014 Honda Insight achieves 44 mpg highway, while the 2014 Volkswagen Golf diesel with a manual transmission delivers 42 mpg highway. So what are the numbers?
- 45 MPG Highway
- 32 MPG City
- 37 MPG combined
Now, stepping out of the EPA's Reality Distortion Field, what will it really achieve? Only time will tell. Automakers put a lot of currency into these numbers, sometimes at their peril, and Ford will press these EPA estimates as accurate. However, what will the efficiency be in high altitude areas? According to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! the Highway driving cycle shows tan increase of 6.2% in fuel consumption. What if the owner lives in a state with 75 MPH or higher speed limits?
Most Oppo and Jalopnik readers understand these numbers tend to be akin to the Pirate's Code, mere guidelines. This Oppo's 2012 Ford Fiesta has never seen its claimed EPA numbers. Last week on a 600 mile all highway trip it did hit 34 mpg, but the trip saw elevation drop from 7,000 feet to around sea level. On the return trip the best numbers were around 28 mpg. Of course if we hadn't brought any luggage, perhaps fuel economy would have been better. We didn't exceed the speed limit by more than 5 mile per hour typically. But we did see some pretty sights, just not the 38 MPG claimed by Ford and the EPA.
TheBaron2112
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 11:27 |
|
That picture looks like the stretch of interstate in central Kansas.
i.e. horrible.
Devilishprune
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 11:31 |
|
Are there any more specs available on this? Especially pricing.
For Sweden
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 11:32 |
|
You won't see competitive fuel economy out of the 1.0L EcoBoost because it was designed with European testing in mind. That testing consists of accelerating the car from zero to highway speeds in a geologic time frame.
Nibbles
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 11:32 |
|
Keep in mind that the efficiency losses at altitude are written on NA vehicles. The report does not mention any testing of forced induction engines, which create their own atmosphere. Losses at altitude are much lower with forced induction engines. There is still some loss, but it is not nearly as bad as with natural aspiration.
Mikeado
> Nibbles
10/29/2013 at 11:40 |
|
This is true and also why most Pikes Peak cars have enormous turbochargers.
|
Mosqvich
> Devilishprune
10/29/2013 at 11:50 |
|
Well, apparently it's basically an option on the standard Fiesta vs a separate model. According to Autoblog "the 1.0-liter EcoBoost is offered on both the sedan and hatchback as a $995 option called the SE Manual EcoBoost package, which is aptly named since it's only offered on SE trim-level Fiestas equipped with a manual transmission. Along with the engine, the package also comes with 15-inch steel wheels, regenerative brakes and a decklid spoiler on the sedan. This means the four-door Fiesta 1.0 EcoBoost will start at $16,445*, or $17,045* for the hatchback (*not including $795 for destination)."
Tekamul
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 11:52 |
|
I'm suspicious of the ratings versus real world for a couple reasons.
1) It's a tiny egg car. These short cars are very sensitive to top speeds for highway mileage ratings because of their short bodies and difficulty in closing their own wake. And nobody drives at EPA cycle speeds on the highway.
2) The city numbers come from a pretty slow acceleration from a stop, something that people won't follow, not when they have a turbo under their foot. If the engine is weak in the mid range, a lot of people follow that lead, going easy and shifting early. With mid range torque, even your mom is going to ride it a little harder from a stop, thus chewing up that city rating.
Jayhawk Jake
> TheBaron2112
10/29/2013 at 11:56 |
|
Haha no way, there's far too much elevation for this to be central Kansas. It might be east Kansas, but central/west is much flatter.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 12:00 |
|
I don't understand the point of the torque per liter comparison in the picture.
HP per pound, that's a good number. Having a really high one of those means you might be faster than a similarly powered car. Torque or power per liter though, that doesn't mean squat if it's only one liter.
That aside, it's an interesting engine for sure. I've found EPA numbers to be reasonably close for mixed driving, if I keep my speed down. The issue is highway: if you're doing 55 you get WAY better mileage than 65 or 75 in a car like this. The drop off is quite severe: I can see numbers close to 40MPG at 50 tapering off to 30 at 70-75 and dropping into the 20's at 80.
I'd like the EPA to publish speeds and conditions for their test. Simple: Highway mileage estimated at X MPG traveling X MPH on a flat road.
|
Mosqvich
> Nibbles
10/29/2013 at 12:03 |
|
Fair enough. Again, the proof will be in the pudding. As 2953 Analytics' Jim Hall puts it ""EcoBoost is great. The customer gets eco or boost. And he gets to choose which one with the throttle pedal." While a turbo does create its own atmosphere, and in fact thinner air is easier to compress, it's still questionable that these numbers are achievable given they are based on average speeds of 48 mph all around and about 60 mph on the highway.
|
Mosqvich
> TheBaron2112
10/29/2013 at 12:04 |
|
Bingo!
|
Mosqvich
> Tekamul
10/29/2013 at 12:06 |
|
Yep. As I replied to another poster, Jim Hall of 2953 Analytics states the consumer will choose either Eco or Boost. You can't have both!
|
Nibbles
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 12:07 |
|
Indeed. I'm looking forward to seeing data, and who knows - I might just start some sort of high-altitude auto reviews blag
If I was some sort of journalist or something, and dealerships didn't laugh in my face when I ask to drive one of their cars "for the internet"
|
Mosqvich
> Nibbles
10/29/2013 at 12:21 |
|
Are you in Colorado too? Nissan is trying to find a Leaf for me to review. The press fleet out here is like the air, thin. It's even worse in Hawaii, where I do a lot of work.
|
Nibbles
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 12:23 |
|
Indeed, I am in Colorado.
|
Mosqvich
> Nibbles
10/29/2013 at 12:36 |
|
Well, maybe we could push Ford for a test. I hate driving my Fiesta SE out here. The other problem is that my Ford Dealer is horrible. Ford cannot control its dealers, whereas the Euro dealers are under a little bit more of a microscope.
We're looking at new cars and an X3 is a potential replacement. Or we might go hardcore, throw any hopes of efficiency out the window, and get a Cayenne S. My car averages around 28 mpg, empty of luggage, etc..., driving around town. I live at 7k feet in Black Forest. I'm tired of having a slow car. Even my E46 struggles. I'm thinking about the X3 28i for my wife and an M235i for me. We'll see.
|
Tekamul
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 12:51 |
|
That a good quote
|
TheBaron2112
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 12:52 |
|
I remember those wind mills when I drove to Denver. Very impressive at first. Then they just get monotonous... like the land...
Steve Zissou
> Mosqvich
10/29/2013 at 13:38 |
|