Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Ford Fiesta Real World MPG



  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,663
    VW TDI usually has real world that exceeds EPA...but yes, point taken, Ford did a very good job with the mileage.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    ivan 99: The VW TDI, is it not a Diesel? If it is, adding the extra cost of the Diesel Engine upgrade compared to a much less expensive fuel injected gasoline powered engine, would not be a fair comparison. My fully equipped 2011 Ford Fiesta SE Hatchback (including) Power Moon Roof has a MSRP of under 18K. With multiple rebates, it was just over 17K. This great fuel economy was achieved (without) the optional "SFE" package as well.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    Oddly enough, I started looking at the TDI Jetta wagon along with the Fiesta a few weeks ago, given the significant gains in cargo room and comparable mileage. I don't think one would normally consider these two vehicles to be cross-shopped. That said, I can load the Fiesta to the gills for under $22K (MSRP), and the TDI is ~$25K without any of those bells or whistles, so I still have to pay up front for that added capacity even though I wouldn't have to sacrifice at the pump.

    I'm still leaning toward the Fiesta, though. Actually, I sure wish they would make an announcement on the ST variant. I wouldn't mind picking up one of those....
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,663
    I agree with your statements...You didn't list Diesel in your disclaimer so that popped into my mind :)

    Diesels have other qualities (torque, longevity), but for under 20K it's hard to beat the new fords (Focus too) for price / mpg ratio.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,663
    Here you go...just announced today :)

    Focus ST
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    Bummer; you almost raised my hopes until I saw "Focus." *sigh* Fiesta, man, Fiesta! :P
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,663
    heh...oops :)

    Still a pretty good car...good power to weight ratio.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    Oh it is; but I expect probably about $5K more than the Fiesta ST. If I was going to put that sort of money into a "fun" car, I would just say to heck with fuel economy and get a WRX.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    edited May 2012
    I am traveling this week, and requested a Fiesta as my rental car. At first they said they didn't have one, and tried to give me a Kia Rio, but after asking them about a Focus (I had reserved an "Economy" car, and I guess both compact and subcompact fall into that category, at least for Budget) they looked again and found keys to a Fiesta SEL sedan.

    Of course it is an automatic, but I expected that, and it is bright red! Ugh, definitely not my color, but luckily I'm on the *inside*! Anyhow, I reset the trip meter and the fuel economy gauge (I like that they are independent) before I left the parking garage in Pittsburgh, and after 76 miles and some change arriving in Morgantown, WV, the fuel economy gauge was reading 48.2 mpg. I ran 60-68 the whole way, depending on SL, traffic, and construction, and was shocked to see the numbers so high given the area is relatively hilly, plus there was a stiff cross-breeze most of the way.

    Yeah, so I'm liking that! Other noted things: very quiet cabin, nice stereo (esp. given it is an economy car), great handling, decent steering response/feedback (even if it's a little light). No door lock button on the doors? I wasn't impressed by that. All told, though, this rental has done nothing to diminish my enthusiasm for this car. I also noted, though, that the rear leg room is much less in the sedan than it was in the hatchback I drove last Fall. The trunk, on the other hand, is simply cavernous.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    So, finished up the round trip today, 196.0 miles total, with about 150 of them on the freeways and the rest local, very hilly. When I filled up, the damage was 4.753 gallons. That comes to 41.24 miles per gallon. Not bad considering that I didn't take it easy on the little bugger! The meter in the car said 42.7 when I filled up, and 39.9 after I left Morgantown (which is where I was doing the hilly city driving).

    I somewhat liked the automatic, though I could tell it used a clutch system and it as a little disconcerting that it shifted (like a manual) without my input. Driving slow, though, as in under 10 mph, was tedious. One could suffer whiplash doing that too often.

    I definitely like it overall. Still on top of my list (as a manual only).
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    For the great Fuel Economy, the bit of shutter and downshifting that the Ford Fiesta with it Automatic Transmission sometimes displays at low speeds is a very small price to pay. My 2012 Kia Rio 5 with its state of the art 1.6 ltr. GDI Gas Direct Injection Engine coupled with its (very) smooth shifting 6 Speed Automatic Transmission hardly gets 26 mpg City or 34 mpg Highway. Quite disappointing after driving a similar size Ford Fiesta for a year and a half. Had I known that before purchase, I probably would purchased a 2012 Ford Focus Hatchback instead that would have been larger, quicker, and got no doubt better Fuel Economy. At the very least, I would have opted for the larger Hyundai Elantra or even the much larger Kia Optima. The Ford Fiesta is one of very few vehicles that actually produce and exceed EPA miles per gallon estimates. The new 2012 Kia Rio and Rio5, nice looking and very comfortable but not fuel efficient at all.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    edited May 2012
    I agree; it is a small price to pay. It seem like they could eliminate that low-speed behavior by adjusting the clutch operation. It is either engaged or disengaged, and seems to lack the "feathering" capability of the human control. That aside, though, I like the way it shifts. I can hear it shifting like I would, except I'm not doing it....

    I am proud to say, though, that I managed to drive it for three separate days and not stomp the floor even once. That's a big achievement for me given how infrequently I drive automatics! I did fail to put it in Park on a few occasions when I shut it off. Thankfully, though, the car is very astute about reminding me of my error.

    A couple things that would take some adjusting for me:

    1. No manual locks! Seriously? I finally found the one electronic lock/unlock in the car, centrally mounted on the dash (who thought that was a good choice?), after a day, but it still seems odd to me that any car would rely so heavily on the operation of electronics for such a basic function. If I do purchase one, it will be the first car I ever used or owned that had no manual override ability for the locking function.

    2. The radio/whatever-it-is. Holy cow. How complicated does this sort of functionality need to be?! I finally figured out how to manually tune the radio (do I get a gold star?). :blush: :sick:

    Oh, and I asked the guy at the return station when it was last filled, and he said that according to his records the car had 205 miles since the last fill. If true, that would put my calculated fuel economy up to 43.1! I reset the trip and mpg meters when I took possession of the car, which accumulated 196.0 miles before I filled it. Either way, I'm extremely pleased with the results.
  • obktobkt Posts: 35
    There's a new gas station in town called Alon. Used to be Fina. They are selling gas that's 100% free of ethanol. 87 octane. I live at 4K feet so 87 is like mid range. I've picked up 3-4 mpg driving around town. 36mpg with the AC on. 2011 Fiesta SE hatch with auto transmission.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    I finally took the plunge and purchased a Fiesta! I decided to save myself a few grand and purchased a 2011 SES Hatchback, optioned out exactly like I wanted (except the color), with manual transmission. It had 13,980 miles at my initial fill.

    I purchased it Thursday afternoon, then we immediately took it on a camping trip to Palmer (about 320 miles south). After my first full tank, which was almost entirely highway (running 70 the whole way with four passengers and loaded to the gills with our camping gear), I put in 10.1 gallons after 394.5 miles, which calculated to 38.86 MPG. The readout said 38.9. I thought that was great, especially considering the load and a gnarly headwind we took for about 60 miles through the Alaska Range.

    We put another 82 miles on it driving locally in the Palmer area, and put 2.1 gallons in it after that, netting just over 39.

    Finally, coming home today we came out with 36.9, driving the entire distance (336 miles) home in steady rain. Considering the added resistance and the slight gain in overall elevation, I was quite pleased with the trip.

    Had we taken our Forester, we would have seen 12 mpg less every step of the way, which means we saved a solid $40 (paid ~$3.80 per gallon). :shades:
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I think the system uses a fuel sample measuring device on post fuel pump. Computer controlled of course which will measure various factors including speed of vehicle, position of accelerator pedal, rpm etc. This info is determined by (I assume) using a sample ratio of a predetermined quantity of fuel being instantaneously used. i.e. It can update itself ongoing to allow for the ability to show current average usage.
    There are many parameters that could result in optimistic or pessimistic readings ranging from temperature of fuel to actual calibrations of the software measuring device that could be programmed either by honest mistake or deliberate manipulation.

    My Honda ST motorcycle has a fuel usage computer and while I know it is more rare, its computer actually shows pessimistic readings. I always get better miles per gallon than it ever shows. I suspect they designed it that way so that you are inclined to refuel sooner rather than later and running out.

    And I have checked it on brand new OEM tires, since tire wear is another parameter that influences distance travelled when using the car's own odometer and computerization if equipped with an onboard fuel usage computer...and affects the numbers a lot more than most would think. As the tires wear, diameter becomes less and odometer starts showing more miles traveled than actual. GPS would help an owner determine the affected percentage at any given time once they create a base line for their odometer potential error. Naturally, this is best done when car is new on new OEM tires. If you ever stray from OEM tires, then again the profile and sizing among tire makers of tires that state the same size as OEM, sometimes are quite different. Again, this is very evident when buying new bike tires. But absolute same potential with cars.

    Just as an aside info to whomever might be it in cars or bikes, any electronically controlled fuel injected car's fuel pump emerged in the gas tank (which represents basically all of them now, use the fuel to cool the fuel pump in operation. Always refueling before reaching 1/4 tank is a good idea for fuel pump longevity because the more gas that is in there to cool, the cooler it runs and longer it will last. This is a bigger issue in hotter climates of course. Owners who routinely don't refill until they are on fumes or constantly drive around adding 5 or 10$ at a time (most students, haha) unfortunately will get less pump life and probably end up replacing one prematurely and will never realize it was totally preventable.

    I know this is the real world MPG thread, but am curious how these dual-clutch automatics are standing up? Anyone you know or have read online about that have put a LOT of miles on them and had zero longevity issues? (assuming the fluids are changed at the requisite and very lenient (IMO) mileage of every 150000 miles?
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    Seriously, was this Post for real? More likely a "thesis" for a PHD Degree. Worrying about the longevity of a dual clutch automatic transmission and possible fluid changes up to 150000 miles? Are you considering the purchase for Police or Taxi use? LOL
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited January 2013
    edit: after reading your quick to insult post #117, I was tempted to remove this one, but decided it might be useful to someone else who might actually appreciate knowing the difference in autos and their efficiency potential.

    One reason (but is only one of potentially many) is that the dual-clutch tranny in the Fiesta does not suffer the parasitic losses that your conventional hydraulic tranny with torque convertor that the Rio uses. I believe this is one reason, if not probably the primary one they decided to use a dual clutch set up in the Fiesta and Focus.

    But what I would like to know as per my question at the end of my post about longevity vs cost to own/repair. I wonder if anyone has gone 250000 or more miles with nary a hiccup? Naturally, any use in city would be the bigger test since the tran would spend more time shifting and clutch engaging than a user who drives for 100's of miles at a time out on the open freeway with it engaged in one top gear and rarely shifting except maybe for the odd hill. I suspect that computer and clutch pak servos etc are all quite expensive. I think with VW or Porsche dual-clutch trans they don't sell you parts..they sell an entire assembly, read huge bucks.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited January 2013
    Phil said:
    Seriously, was this Post for real? More likely a "thesis" for a PHD Degree. Worrying about the longevity of a dual clutch automatic transmission and possible fluid changes up to 150000 miles? Are you considering the purchase for Police or Taxi use? LOL

    Pardon me then... I will never take you seriously or make a helpful reply to another of your repetitive posts again. You have always indicated a passion for details, repetitive repetitive details...yet when someone comes along with a few bits of info that a person could use to good advantage, you get on their case???????

    Some people would prefer to insult than learn. You decidedly fall into the former category. No wonder you rub others the wrong way from time to time. I've read a LOT lately. This seems to be your curmudgeonly way.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 5,854
    Let's get back to the cars and stop making each other the discussion OK?

    Thanks for your cooperation and participation!

    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    I've heard multiple mentions of the fuel pump longevity vs. fuel level issue in the past, and I'm wondering why that would be the case. Why would manufacturers even put the fuel pump in there in such a way to allow normal fluctuations of the fuel levels to cause damage to the pump?

    That doesn't make any sense at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.