backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by Dan Banana.. on Nov 4 at 3:16 PM

1.0-liter EcoBoost achieves 45 mpg on the highway

Ford has officially announced that the 2014 Fiesta using the new and very small three-cylinder 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine is officially the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid vehicle in America. The little 1.0-liter engine is able to achieve 32 mpg in the city, 45 mpg on the highway, and 37 mpg combined.

Those official fuel efficiency ratings are dead on with Ford's promise of achieving mid-40 mpg efficiency when it first announced the tiny three-cylinder engine in November 2012. Ford says that the Fiesta is the only subcompact in its class able to deliver 45 mpg on the highway while producing over 120 hp.

Ford says that its 1.0-liter Fiesta achieves fuel efficiency of 12 mpg higher than the Honda Fit and 8 mpg higher than the Toyota Yaris on the Highway. The 1.0-liter EcoBoost Fiesta gets better fuel efficiency than some competitors’ diesel and hybrid vehicles. Ford specifically calls out the 2014 Honda Insight, which achieves 44 mpg on the highway and the 2014 VW Golf diesel with a manual transmission that achieves 42 mpg on the highway.

Despite being incredibly fuel-efficient, the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine reduces 123 hp and 125 pound-foot of torque. The vehicle also features an overboost setting allowing the car to make 145 pound-foot of torque for up to 15 seconds.

The 2014 Ford Fiesta with the 1.0-liter EcoBoost is set to hit dealer showrooms later this year.

Source: Ford



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By km9v on 10/30/2013 10:15:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
0-60 mph 9.7 Quarter Mile 17.1


Step 1. Press accelerator.
Step 2. Read a good book.
Step 3. Enter on-ramp.
Step 4. Pray.




RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By retrospooty on 10/30/2013 10:22:13 AM , Rating: 5
LOL, true, but it is an economy car built for good mileage. 123 hp and 125lbs of torque is impressive for a 1.0L engine. I wouldnt want it, but it's still impressive.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By 91TTZ on 10/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Dorkyman on 10/30/2013 11:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
No, it matters when talking about efficiency.

I can guarantee you that a 3-liter engine that had the same horsepower rating would be far less efficient.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Sivar on 10/30/2013 11:27:42 AM , Rating: 3
Power per unit of displacement is not a useful measure of engine efficiency. It's like measuring CPU performance by performance per clock tick. "Who cares? What matters is performance per watt or total performance."

Power per unit of weight or or per unit of useable engine volume is much better.
For example, Corvette push-rod engines get much less power "per liter" than comparable DOHC engines, but push-rod engines are shorter and can be lighter, so Chevrolet is able to fit a more powerful engine in the same engine compartment than a comparable DOHC.
Thus, when


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Noya on 10/31/2013 10:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Power per unit of weight or or per unit of useable engine volume is much better. For example, Corvette push-rod engines get much less power "per liter" than comparable DOHC engines, but push-rod engines are shorter and can be lighter, so Chevrolet is able to fit a more powerful engine in the same engine compartment than a comparable DOHC.


Wow, straight from GM's mouth. I bet that tastes nasty.

If OHV designs were great, everyone manufacturer would use them in their cars. The fact that GM and Chrysler are the only two in the world hanging onto them (and as I recall went bankrupt)...that should tell you something.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By 91TTZ on 11/1/2013 1:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, straight from GM's mouth. I bet that tastes nasty.


It sounds like you think that you've disputed what he said but in reality you only supported his argument. Do you realize this?


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By 91TTZ on 10/30/2013 11:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can guarantee you that a 3-liter engine that had the same horsepower rating would be far less efficient.


That may not be the case at all. RPM is one of the major factors in fuel consumption and a larger engine that can produce the same power at a lower RPM will probably have a lower specific fuel consumption.

There will be a few facts in favor of a larger, lower-revving engine.

1. HP is (torque x rpm) /5252
2. Torque is proportional to displacement and compression ratio
3. A higher compression ratio results in improved fuel economy.
4. A forced induction engine needs to run a lower compression ratio than a naturally aspirated engine to stave off detonation.

If they made a naturally aspirated engine that produced those numbers at a lower RPM they could probably make it more efficient.

It's a fallacy that a smaller turbocharged engine is more efficient than a larger naturally aspirated engine. Ford claimed that with their V6 Ecoboost F-150 but then Chevy's new Silverado got better fuel economy with their naturally aspirated V8.

When the last generation Prius was being designed they moved to a larger engine so that they could improve fuel economy. (from the Prius Wikipedia article)

"The 1.8-liter gasoline engine (previously 1.5 liters) generates 98 hp (73 kW), and with the added power of the electric motor generates a total of 134 hp (100 kW) (previously 110 hp or 82 kW). The larger engine displacement allows for increased torque, reducing engine speeds (RPM), which improves fuel economy at highway speeds."

Also, the larger, heavier, and more powerful Mazda 3 still manages to get 41 mpg with its NA 2.0 liter engine that is twice the size of this 1.0 liter engine.

I think the main contributing factor to increased MPG is the advent of direct injection. It lets automakers use a much higher compression ratio than they'd normally be able to use. Ford's Ecoboost line was one of the first engine lines to use direct injection and they attributed the increased efficiency on the smaller size and turbocharging. Yet when competing automakers implemented direct injection on their own engine lines efficiency improved even more without having to use smaller engines or turbocharging. Case in point the direct-injected Silverado I previously mentioned.

Also, the Mazda 3 with direct injection gets better fuel economy than their smaller Mazda 2 even though that car is smaller, lighter, and has a smaller engine with only 2/3rds the power.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Dorkyman on 10/30/2013 2:12:34 PM , Rating: 1
Allow me to set up a real-world scenario. A few years back our family had several cars, including a Nissan Sentra (1.6L 4-cylinder engine) and my old '69 Vette with a 427 (7L).

Now suppose I match the Sentra's horsepower by removing the quadrajet and installing a tiny one-barrel carb. Then I drop the 427 into the Sentra (good luck with that, but whatever). Assume both engines weigh the same.

It should be intuitively obvious that the 427 will be far less "efficient" as measured by overall fuel economy, even though both engines have the same horsepower. Why? Because throughout the operating region the 427 will have a far worse sfc than the little engine.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By 91TTZ on 10/30/2013 3:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing 40 year old technology to much more recent technology. Let me pose another example using newer cars.

Let's compare a new Corvette to a somewhat recent Sentra:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&...

2014 Corvette: 17/21/29
2002 Sentra: 19/22/26

The Corvette will get better fuel economy on the highway and nearly the same on combined driving. And that's with a 455 HP, 6.2L V8... an engine that's more than twice the displacement and twice the power.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Noya on 10/31/2013 11:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Let's compare the C7 to the 2013 Sentra FE (which has no direct-injection)

2014 C7: 17/21/29
2013 FE: 30/34/40

The C7 uses a skip-shift feature (just like the C5/C6) and two overdrive gears as it tops out in 5th.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Noya on 10/31/2013 11:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, forgot to add the C7 uses cylinder deactivation.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By evolucion8 on 10/30/2013 2:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
You are right. I have a 2.4L eclipse and my brother in law has a 3.0L galant, and his engine has about 1,800RPM at 65MPH while my engine with bigger pistons and fuel line injections, has about 2,600RPM @ 65MPH. My car is a gas guzzler compared to his car in typical usage scenario, as far as he doesn't push the gas pedal all the way down of course, and both are Mitsubishi based on the same platform.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Samus on 10/31/2013 1:10:21 AM , Rating: 1
I disagree. RPM is not a major factor in fuel consumption. Engine load is.

If RPM was a major factor, motorcycles would be gas guzzlers. Last time I checked, my 2-cylinder Honda CMX250 gets 80mpg cruising at 6000RPM. The simple reason is the load on the engine is minimal because there is less weight to pull.

The reason the Fiesta is getting this phenominal fuel economy, especially compared to hybrids, is because it's a tiny car with a tiny engine and the curb weight is going to be around 2500lbs. For comparison, the Golf TDI and Honda Insight they compared it to are 4200lbs and 2900lbs respectively.

And the reason your Eclipse gets weak fuel economy compared to a Galant is because the eclipse is tuned as a sports sedan and the Galant is tuned as a family sedan. The tuning means everything. Compare numbers from a Celica to a Camry and you'll see even with the same engine, the Camry is 15% more efficient even while being 400lbs heavier.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By pandemonium on 10/31/2013 6:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
Tuners and eco-modders can attest to engine load being the primary factor for fuel consumption, however, gearing is matched specifically to a certain engine for a reason.

Depending on the design and type, each engine has a power band which will produce optimal efficiency, and gearing is used to take advantage of that. Running anywhere outside of the power band will consume more fuel when given a constant load; higher RPM or lower . The dynamics narrow in at higher MPH due to air drag, internal frictions, wheel inertia, tire drag, etcetera.

See any one of many BFSC graphs available out there, such as found on the BSFC wiki: http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Brake_Specific...


By inperfectdarkness on 10/31/2013 4:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
Way too many variables in play to make those generalizations. Transmission is a HUGE enabling factor--just ask those manual LS6 owners who got spanked by an AUTOMATIC making less HP (SLK55 AMG).

Compression ratio on a boosted engine isn't the same from one car to the next. There are OEM cars with FI that have the same compression ratio as OEM n/a cars. This is especially true when we're talking about factory OEM compression ratio for an engine designed to run on 87 octane.

The new Silverado v8 makes LESS power than the ecoboost v6:

Silverado: 355hp/383tq -MPG: 16city, 23hwy, 19combined-2WD

Ecoboost V6: 365hp/420tq -MPG: 17city, 21hwy, 19combined-2WD

It's very important to consider all the facts before passing judgment. There's a HUGE reason why the 3.5L ecoboost has sold like hotcakes in the F-150. Additionally, if you drive a turbocharged engine without being in boost--your fuel economy will very good (in most applications). Most V8's have to resort to cylinder deactivation to generate the kind of fuel-economy that is the natural territory of a boosted v6.

P.S.

V6's package easier than V8's in almost any type of vehicle. Additionally--all things being equal--when direct injection, variable valve timing, etc is applied to an FI v6 & an n/a v8, the v6 will almost universally put out higher power than the v8--even when restricted to mild boost.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2013 12:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
Uh...This thing doesn't get much better mileage (better city/worse highway) than the Cruze Eco Diesel is rated at. And I'm betting the diesel can get better than advertised fuel economy. Especially once people start tuning them. You're not going to get much more out of a 1.0L gas engine.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/30/2013 12:44:39 PM , Rating: 1
Cruze Eco got trashed here and got beaten by a Jetta TDI. The Jetta TDI even beat in overall fuel economy despite the Cruze being rated higher:

quote:
5th Place: Chevrolet Cruze Diesel
Live next to the freeway? Only ever drive on the freeway? Never have to use the back seat? This is your car.

4th Place: Honda Civic Hybrid
Mating any of the other four powertrains to the package would be a tremendous boost for an otherwise nicely thought-out car.

3rd Place: Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid
If you disregard the brakes and mammoth depreciation and insurance costs, this one is a favorite and worth every penny.

2nd Place: Toyota Prius
The group's wizened eco-warrior isn't as impervious as its EPA ratings suggest. Luckily, the modified suspension makes it less bland.

1st Place: Volkswagen Jetta TDI
Note to competition: The Jetta TDI added content for '14. And a more powerful, more efficient TDI engine is due for '15.


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/13...


By superstition on 10/30/2013 4:08:06 PM , Rating: 4
Their conclusion is rather subjective, though.

The CoO for the Prius is better. So, if someone is looking to save money, the Prius is still king. They gave the Jetta #1 because it's more pleasant to drive.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Solandri on 10/30/2013 3:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel weighs 15% more per gallon than gasoline, meaning it simply concentrates a greater amount of fuel (energy) into a smaller volume. Its energy density per volume is about 12% higher than gasoline, so divide all those diesel mileages by 1.12 to get a fair comparison of how far the car is going on the same amount of energy.

This is the reason planes and rockets measure fuel quantity by mass. That eliminates fuel density as a factor (which can change with capricious things like temperature). Unfortunately we measure car fuel economy in MPG, when lbs per 100 miles would be a much better measure.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Samus on 10/31/2013 1:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
In a 4-cycle engine, torque scales with displacement. Since diesel engines produce much more torque than petrol engines, the added weight of diesel doesn't take a hit on overall efficiency as it would on a petrol engine.

This is why large trucks with petrol engines are incredibly stupid, especially if your adding to the already ridiculous curb weight (passengers, towing, 25 gallon fuel tank, etc.)


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By SAN-Man on 10/30/2013 12:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
If the 3.0 gets the same gas milage and same horsepower (but WILL have more torque) I'd say your definition of efficiency is wrong.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By retrospooty on 10/30/2013 11:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
"The "per liter horsepower" argument is completely meaningless. Nobody cares how much power you got out of x.x liter engine- they only care about the end result."

The end result is an economy car that gets great mileage and has a decent power/weight ratio for an economy car , especially considering the mileage you get. Not every car is designed to be a sports car. this car achieves its goal very nicely and is extremely impressive in its market class.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By 91TTZ on 10/30/2013 12:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
My point was about the engine displacement, power, and efficiency. Nobody is arguing that this isn't an economy car.

Also, its market class is a tiny one. I don't really think that Ford (or any automaker really) is pushing this class of cars in the US. When I went to the Ford dealer they had Fiestas on sale for $17k while they had the Focuses discounted for $16,500. The Focuses had the newer direct injection engines while the Fiestas still had the older engines. You got less for more money. It was obvious that Ford wanted to push consumers toward the Focus since the Fiesta just isn't a good deal. And the sales reflect that.

In 2012 they sold 56,775 Fiestas and 245,922 Focuses in the US.

Same with Mazda. The larger Mazda 3 is more efficient and about the same price as than the "economical" Mazda 2.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Samus on 10/31/2013 12:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
I just want to chime in my first two cars were a Ford Escort with a 1.9l (77hp) and a Mazda Protégé 1.5l (96hp) and both were incredibly capable for their weight. Granted, both were manuals, and you pretty much had to floor it all the time to produce adequate power, but that's just how you drive a small engine.

Ironically, they were both the same platform so handling dynamics, braking and ergonomics were nearly identical.

The only problem with small engines is automatic transmissions don't cooperate because slushboxes operate on the premise of torque (which there is none in low displacement) and obviously stop and go traffic with the A/C running can be brutal.


By Al Jalaikakik on 10/30/2013 10:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
Definitely. Also keep this thing out of the left lane. It NEVER belongs there.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By mgilbert on 10/30/2013 10:30:19 AM , Rating: 4
Anyone who can't merge onto any interstate with 120 HP in this light a car has no business with a driver's license. I drive a car almost twice as heavy with 200 HP, and the gas pedal has never been close to the floor. Moderate, steady acceleration from the top of the ramp is always enough. Cars just don't need the horsepower most have these days. They are not toys.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By degobah77 on 10/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By degobah77 on 10/31/2013 8:34:00 PM , Rating: 1
Really? Didn't know I'd be offending so many FIESTA ENTHUSIASTS. LOL


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Netscorer on 10/31/2013 10:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously don't have challenging ramps where you live or you would not laugh at drivers who require better torque figures. In Connecticut we have lots of entries that start at the bottom between two hills with Stop sign right before entering the highway, no merging lane (thanks to narrow bridge overpasses) and cars going at you down the hill at 75mph+.
You essentially need to thread a needle into the oncoming traffic while accelerating from full stop and fighting gravity trying to climb a steep ascend.
Add small light car that would be smashed to pieces from impact with virtually any self-respecting car on the highway and this would not be a laughing matter for you anymore.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By sudz on 10/30/2013 10:32:25 AM , Rating: 2
You know, this is a very light car. 120+HP is great for a car this size. Yaris has 105HP? Base Golf/Jetta has 115hp, 120 torque. This car will be the peppiest of the subcompacts.

This engine will have a much broader torque curve. I wouldn't be surprised if this thing could do 0-60 in around 9 seconds, which is super respectable for an econobox fuel miser.

However, How long that little hummingbird of a an engine will last before it blows a gasket is what I'm interested in.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/30/2013 10:32:42 AM , Rating: 3
Overreact much? That 0-60 time is perfectly fine in today's traffic flow and should have no trouble merging onto the highway.

And besides, what idiot guns it from every stoplight anyway?


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Spuke on 10/30/2013 10:43:44 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. The big diesel pickups are in the 9 sec range too and they have no problems merging. This is a non-issue.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By AssBall on 10/30/2013 11:38:30 AM , Rating: 1
Not to mention even bigger trucks that are slower get by just fine, because their drivers are smart and people gtfo of the way for them helps too.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By hughlle on 10/30/2013 10:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
My car is rated at 15.9 seconds 0-62mph.

I've never had any issue merging. As stated previously, overreacting much?


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Flunk on 10/30/2013 10:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
Do you own a Prius?


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By jthistle on 10/30/2013 11:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
The Prius does 0-60 around 10


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By hughlle on 10/30/2013 11:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
little skoda fabia hatchback. Bugger all power compared to everything else on the road but it does the job just fine.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By tng on 10/30/2013 4:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
little skoda fabia hatchback
I drove one of those as a rental in Europe with a 1.9L Diesel and it was a great car.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Flunk on 10/30/2013 10:44:33 AM , Rating: 3
< 10s 0-60 is good for an economy car of any kind. With this kind of fuel economy it's impressive. Sure, it's not a performance car. It doesn't need to be.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By ClownPuncher on 10/30/2013 11:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, exactly. Nobody is going to buy a Fiesta and be upset that they can't race it.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2013 9:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
But plenty will make it look like they can race their Fiesta.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By robertisaar on 10/30/2013 12:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
A significant amount of cars still on the road from the 80s, 90s and early 00s aren't very different, some of which are even much worse.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By Solandri on 10/30/2013 3:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
My family's car in 1985 was a Honda Accord. Typical family sedan of that time, though it straddled the full size vs compact classification. 105 hp, 0-60 in 11 sec. We never had problems merging or passing.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By KFZ on 10/30/2013 1:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
2013 Toyota Prius C:
0-60 mph +/- 11 seconds
Quarter Mile 17-18 seconds

The Prius has actually been worse, in its history. The 2001 model took nearly 13 seconds to reach 60.

I'm not saying these are stellar numbers to live by, but try to consider the relativity rather than be subjective.

And for the record, if you think this power is too low to get up a ramp, take a look at the Escorts from the 1980s and then get back to us.


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By jimbojimbo on 10/30/2013 2:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's still a lot faster than most of the suburban drivers near me so it won't make any difference.


By piroroadkill on 10/30/2013 3:41:56 PM , Rating: 1
Shit, if only I'd read your post first! How have I ever managed to drive? All the cars I ever owned have been slower than this :3

Perfectly fine..


RE: Slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww
By headbox on 10/31/2013 12:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
I shagged your mom in a 45HP Geo Metro


By marvdmartian on 10/31/2013 2:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
No worse, really, than some vehicles built during the 80's, with much larger engines.

I remember having to drive a work truck that was a Dodge D-50 (rebadged Mitsubishi Mighty Max), when I was stationed in the San Francisco area. If you had to go over to Treasure Island Naval Station (middle of the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge), God help you when you went to get back on the bridge, heading back toward Oakland, especially if you somehow squeezed 3 people into that truck cab!


Why are non-hybrids getting such bad mileage?
By CharonPDX on 10/30/2013 11:40:34 AM , Rating: 2
The old Geo Metro got 50 MPG, the old Volkswagen Golf TDI got 55 MPG. Why is 45 MPG now the best non-hybrid?

Are car makers afraid of digging in to their hybrid sales by releasing high-mileage conventional cars? Or have car safety and emissions standards just made new cars less efficient? (Hell, my 1999 Hyundai Accent could get 45 MPG on the highway without too much difficulty, and it had a relatively modern drivetrain - albeit just as anemic as the Fiesta.)




RE: Why are non-hybrids getting such bad mileage?
By GreenEnvt on 10/30/2013 11:51:13 AM , Rating: 4
The 90's Geo Metro with 3cyl, 5spd, got 37 city, 44 highway, 40 combined, using the same scale as we currently use. The old scale in use prior to the last few years probably had substantially higher numbers.

The Metro also weighed 700lbs less and made 70HP, not 120. And you'd die if you hit anything larger than a butterfly at highway speeds.


RE: Why are non-hybrids getting such bad mileage?
By SAN-Man on 10/30/2013 12:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
And you think you won't die in this new car?

News flash, impact crash rating are made based on testing against cars in the same class. So what if it gets 5 stars against a Yaris? It will still get -5 stars against a semi - same as the Metro.


RE: Why are non-hybrids getting such bad mileage?
By mellomonk on 10/30/2013 12:57:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
News flash, impact crash rating are made based on testing against cars in the same class. So what if it gets 5 stars against a Yaris? It will still get -5 stars against a semi - same as the Metro.


Okay, but most accidents do not involve semi-trucks. The IIHS scale has had to been reset at least twice since the days of the Metro. New tests are added and standards raised. Today's lowest scoring vehicles are substantially safer then vehicles of as little as ten years ago. You still don't want to be hit by a semi in most cases, but your odds of survival are much better in one of today's strong but heavy sub-compacts. Being that most people in the US drive larger vehicles then this class, your odds are probably better still.

Look on youtube for the video of the Smart Fortwo in a an offset head-on crash test with a long wheelbase Mercedes S class weighing nearly 3 times what the Smart weighs. Very dramatic but shows how strong the structure of a well designed small car can be.


By Philippine Mango on 10/30/2013 6:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've never found anything to indicate the IIHS scale nor the NHTSA scale has been modified since their inception. The only thing they've done is add new crash test criteria. You may be inclined to believe they have but I've yet to find anything to suggest that they have as crash survivability, impact loads, etc. has always been same. The tests are still done at the same speeds as they always have been done so there really has been no changes. A car rated at "Good" stars in a medium offset crash is still "Good" by today's IIHS standard. As for the vehicle's aptitude in other tests, since it wasn't tested for that, cannot be determined but it's not unreasonable to assume that the vehicle would do poorly in that test.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/30/2013 9:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look on youtube for the video of the Smart Fortwo in a an offset head-on crash test with a long wheelbase Mercedes S class weighing nearly 3 times what the Smart weighs. Very dramatic but shows how strong the structure of a well designed small car can be.


????

Were we watching the same video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he6TL15pJtw

How in the world did you watch this and NOT come to the conclusion that the Smart is a death trap?


By GreenEnvt on 10/30/2013 12:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Of course small cars will do worse in a crash then big cars, it's simple physics.
However, crash the Fiesta into a semi, and crash the metro into a semi, and the fiesta occupants will have a much higher chance of survival.

Or take a crash that was often severe injuriies-to-fatal in the metro, and it's quite likely a moderate-to-severe injuries in the fiesta.


By CharonPDX on 10/30/2013 3:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, I forgot about the re-rating, thank you.


RE: Why are non-hybrids getting such bad mileage?
By hpglow on 10/30/2013 12:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
Also the newer emissions and safety equipment lower MPGs. More so with diesels. A newer Metro would likely not even get rated at 40 MPG.


RE: Why are non-hybrids getting such bad mileage?
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2013 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The government has lowered fuel economy because of its mandates. And will continue to do so.


RE: Why are non-hybrids getting such bad mileage?
By mellomonk on 10/30/2013 1:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Weight is a huge factor, emissions to a much lesser extent. But a major difference is that the methodology and tests used to determine the mileage figures has changed. Starting in 08' the calculations changed to better reflect real world driving patterns. The EPA site has revised figures on vehicles back to 85'. A car that was rated at say 45mpg in the late 80s might have a rating of 40mpg or lower on today's scale. There are also issues in comparing Euro cycle figures to US numbers. Completely different testing methods result in much higher relative numbers.

Actually mileage standards have risen over time. You are implying that safety mandates have lowered the mileage is capable of and you are correct. There is a balance between safety and economy. But fleet mileage numbers are still rising. As is performance. Today's vehicles are on average quicker, faster, and far safer then the vehicles of yore. It is interesting to go back and study the 0-60 times and related figures of the 70s or 80s and compare them to the average 200hp family sedan of today. Automotive engineers have done a pretty good job balancing emissions, performance, safety, and peoples purchasing preferences.


By FITCamaro on 10/31/2013 9:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
Emissions standards in 2004 removed the "lean cruise" ability that many cars that which had large impacts on fuel economy in cars. As an example the 2004 GTO had a highway rating of 26 mpg. Owners who enabled the lean cruise option in the computer were able to get 29-30 mpg.


RE: Why are non-hybrids getting such bad mileage?
By fic2 on 10/30/2013 1:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. I keep wondering why Ford won't bring over the European version of the C-Max. Instead we get a hybrid that has a bigger engine than what is available in Europe except in the diesel version. In Europe it is either a 1.0L or 1.6L gasoline or 2.0L diesel. Instead in the U.S. we have the more expensive hybrid.


By fic2 on 10/30/2013 1:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I drove a 1.6L C-Max around Europe including the German autobahn for 3 weeks. Very nice car except the POS Sync control system. My gf was wanting a new car and we both really liked the C-Max so looked at it. Would have considered a non-hybrid but didn't want to pay the hybrid premium so it was off the list.


45 mpg?
By Vardant on 10/30/2013 1:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why does the same car in the UK have much better fuel consumption?

Quote from Ford;
" our award-winning 1.0 EcoBoost petrol engine combines satisfying power with exceptional fuel-efficiency of up to 65.7 mpg. "

Even if you factor in the US v UK gallon conversion, the US should still get 55mpg.




RE: 45 mpg?
By Doh! on 10/30/2013 1:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
Different country, different configuration, different rating requirements. They're never the same.


RE: 45 mpg?
By mitulparmar on 10/30/2013 3:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's more to do with the difference between the US Gallon and Imperial Gallon we use here in the UK (approx. 17% larger than US Gallon).


RE: 45 mpg?
By Spuke on 10/30/2013 5:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
Both you and Doh are right. But even if we used the same gallon, the results would still not match because of differences in testing methodologies.


RE: 45 mpg?
By Aloonatic on 10/30/2013 7:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't realise how messed up UK testing was until I saw a TV show about it. They can disconnect almost everything that isn't to do with making the car go forwards and use rolling roads, so pretty much anything to save fuel goes.


Ford's bragging again
By Richard875yh5 on 10/30/2013 10:43:24 AM , Rating: 2
The Chevy Cruze diesel gets 46 mpg EPA rating and it's a non-hybrid like it's states in the article. So the article is not correct.




RE: Ford's bragging again
By Camikazi on 10/30/2013 11:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
The Cruze is a compact not a sub-compact, the Aveo would be the one competing against the Fiesta


RE: Ford's bragging again
By xprojected on 10/30/2013 11:26:47 AM , Rating: 3
The original press-release claims it's the most efficient non-hybrid, gasoline-powered car.


Just don't Boost
By BernardP on 10/30/2013 11:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
To get those mileage figures in the real world, just don't use the Boost on this engine.

Making good use of the turbo will also require more gas and air.




RE: Just don't Boost
By Stiggalicious on 10/30/2013 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
With direct-injected engines, though, the turbo pressure can shove more air into the cylinder without adding any more fuel. With the higher compression ratio and lean-burn, you actually get better efficiency with turbo boost (when you're not flooring it, of course).


Best highway, not best combined
By xprojected on 10/30/2013 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 3
Ford conveniently left out the new Mitsubishi Mirage, which gets 37/44, and 40 mpg combined. Again, the highway number gets the most ad time. Granted, the Mirage produces all of 74 hp, making the Fiesta a muscle car in comparison.




Fiesta smaller than Golf
By domboy on 10/30/2013 11:14:55 AM , Rating: 2
While it's great news about this little engine, comparing it to the 42mpg in a Golf TDI actually makes the Golf look really good, as it's a bigger heavier car. The VW Polo would be a better comparison I believe.

Also, what transmission are these numbers for? Manual or auto? Or both? Yes I know the Fiesta is an automated manual...




RE: Fiesta smaller than Golf
By Camikazi on 10/30/2013 11:21:18 AM , Rating: 1
VW Polo is not sold in the US and these numbers are for cars sold in the US, why give numbers for something that you won't see on the street and can't buy anyway.


Better than my bike
By Phoque on 10/30/2013 5:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
123 hp and 125 pound-foot of torque


My beemer has a 1.13L, 85HP and 72 pound-foot of torque engine. On highway (120 km/h) or in town, it does around 39 miles per gallon. If I go easy on it (75 km/h steady), I can get close to 60mpg.

I find it amazing how these new car engines are efficient.

Does anyone know if size limitations is a factor that would make it harder to make motorcycle engines as efficient? Or is it more likely that BMW just doesn't care?




HATE the front grill
By CZroe on 11/1/2013 3:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
I always hated the European front grill that it sported before but I kinda liked the US model. This one is horrible! It lost all it's character and looks like everyone else's sub-compact.




I got 'em all beat...
By kondor999 on 11/4/2013 9:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
My BMW M6 gets 8.8mpg in stop-and-go driving to/from work.

But, I have the pleasure of knowing I've got a 5.0L 507hp V10. You know - just in case.

I'm OK with that. I've used the car's full acceleration (4.3s or so 0-60) exactly 3 times, but each time it was absolutely necessary to defend the honor of BMW against various (ill-advised, as it turned out) challengers.

Only some of what I've said is tongue-in-cheek, and perhaps none of it ;)




By Dan Banana on 11/4/2013 3:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why the endless fascination with the ICE? It's nasty and emits bad things and it's thermally inefficient and wasteful. Enough already, time to move on from it to electric motors that have a flat power and torque "band" and they require no transmissions.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"?
Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"? 





0 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki