Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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....
Diesels have other qualities (torque, longevity), but for under 20K it's hard to beat the new fords (Focus too) for price / mpg ratio.
Focus ST
Still a pretty good car...good power to weight ratio.
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.
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).
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?). :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.
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:
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 interested...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?
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 above...is 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.
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.
Thanks for your cooperation and participation!
That doesn't make any sense at all.
I presume that the expectation is that most owners will refuel before pump temps get excessive enough that it will fail within warranty periods.
Even low fuel lights are conservatively triggered to come on with tons of warning. Many cars can go well over 60 miles or more before running out. So with 2 or 3 gallons still sloshing around is probably still a reasonable heat sink.
Excessive heat is the enemy in so many aspects of different components, whether they be electronics, metallurgy, tires, oil, batteries and everything in between. Many items are designed with a duty cycle..( a simple transformer based soldering gun for example, or an inexpensive oil less air compressor) and rely on cooling periods between use in order to not self-destruct.
I had a fuel pump fail on one vehicle at about 215,000 miles, but someone else owned it for the first 170,000, so I can't reasonably attribute that failure to anything other than statistical chance.
That aside, I'm quite happy with the FE on my '11 Fiesta 5-speed. Even at -30F or colder on a full tank driving around town, I still haven't dipped lower than upper 20s. I'm expecting my average after a year to be somewhere close to 35 mpg, but I still have seven months to go before I hit a year.....
The last 3,000 miles were mostly puttering (slightly aggressively) around town, and I averaged 27-30 mpg.
That said, all of this was based off the computer readings, which I routinely found to be optimistic by 1 to 2 mpg.
Now I'm driving a 2.0L 2013 Escape AWD averaging 19 mpg - nicer to drive all around, but I'll miss the gas mileage! As for the dual clutch transmission in the Fiesta, I hated it. You explain the theory of relativity to a 2nd grader in the time it took between putting your foot down and the car actually accelerating.
As for the FE computer, it is absolutely spot-on. There's a fair bit of variation from tank to tank looking at calculated vs. computer, but that has to do with variability in the filling process. I record every fill and the "MPG" readout at every fill, and when averaged (even on just a monthly basis), both are within two hundredths the same.
PS: Ford has had a "Computer Patch" to resolve most of the jerkiness of its Dual -Clutch Automatic Transmission for sometime now. Be forewarned, once they reprogram, it (cannot) be brought back to its original default settings and there goes your exception Fuel Economy and gas milage.
As funny as it sounds, my biggest annoyance with it is the loss of the "triple-tap" turn signal feature! When I first bought the car, I was amazed at the brilliance of such a seemingly mundane feature (especially when driving my other car, which does not have this feature). Alas, two weeks ago, it suddenly quit working and now is the same as every other "modern" (e.g., >=1990) car I've owned.
I keep trying to convince myself to keep it rather than selling to buy a Fiesta ST.
With "triple tap," as I call it, I press it briefly and the signal blinks three times on its own.
Of course, I forgot to explore the settings yesterday, but I'll make more of an effort to remember today.
Temp was between 70 and 80 and ran the A/C the whole time.
I'm going to some local driving before I fill it up.
Sometimes I wish it wasn't so much fun to drive; I'm sure I would get at least a couple miles per gallon more out of it! As it is, I tend to get 39-40 in highway driving (70 mph), and generally average 36-37 in local driving during the summer months. Even during the winter, it won't dip under 30 unless the temps are colder than -40F, and those temps really butcher any car's fuel economy.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews