Ford Fiesta Thread: MK8 ST with 200 BHP 3cyl EcoBoost

[ZR1fan]

Facelifted '13 Fiesta

Id love to see it take a bird through that grille.. Its hideous

 

[Dan_]

It does have a more upmarket feel to the front, but I'm not sure about the proportions. Sometimes I think it looks about right, but then I look again and find it slightly awkward looking.

The honeycomb grille looks great on the ST, I would have that one in the regular models as well. But I need to see it in flesh to have a proper judgement.

 

[Azure Flare]

They did once own Aston Martin. Perhaps they're saying, "We miss you, Aston! D:"

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[YSSMAN]

US might get 5-door Fiesta ST. Why not 3-door?

No 3-door option on the Fiesta or Focus here. For some reason they automatically assume that no one will buy them, so they only offer the 5-door variants. Unfortunate, really, especially for the Fiesta which arguably looked best as a 3-door.

 

[Dean]

Unfortunate, really, especially for the Fiesta which arguably looked best as a 3-door.

The older one does look better with 3 doors, and so would the new one. - Agreed.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I wanna draw a face on it so it looks like the car is getting surprised.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Fiesta ST caught testing in Colorado.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/24/ford-fiesta-st-caught-testing-in-colorado-u-s-model-in-the-off/

 

[CodeRedR51]

More info on the ST:

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/16/2014-ford-fiesta-st-to-pack-180-horsepower-single-turbo-engine/

Powered by a 1.6-liter EcoBoost four wearing a single turbocharger, our source says the ST will deliver 180 horsepower and 177 pound-feet of torque, with a temporary overboost mode to extend peak twist. Both figures represent very healthy increases over the standard Fiesta's 1.6-liter Duratec engine, which chips in 120 hp and 112 lb-ft of torque. Like its Focus ST big brother, the new model will feature a so-called "Sound Symposer" to deliver a proper enthusiast's soundtrack. Shifting duties will fall to a six-speed manual, and the front-wheel drive five-door will also feature torque-vectoring technology and a three-mode stability control system for more entertaining handling antics.

The Fiesta ST will ride on a uniquely tuned and lowered sport suspension paired with 17-inch alloys (an inch larger than those available on the lesser Fiestas) wrapped in 205/40R17 Bridgestone Potenza rubber, and braking will be augmented by four-wheel discs with high-performance pads instead of the disc/drum combination on lower models.

Aesthetically, the Fiesta ST will receive a full performance rework, with a gaping trapezoidal grill with a mesh honeycomb insert that's a close kin to that of the Focus ST, along with a body kit said to mirror Ford's World Rally Championship racer (interestingly, Ford has already announced it will exit the series after 2012). Other additions include a rear spoiler, dual chrome exhaust tips and blacked-out headlamp surrounds.

When the hot hatch launches sometime in 2013, it will arrive in the buyer's choice of seven colors: Green Envy Metallic, Molten Orange Metallic, Ingot Silver Metallic, Oxford White, Performance Blue, Race Red or Tuxedo Black Metallic.

 

[Kent]

Price?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Says this at the bottom of the article:

No word yet on pricing or availability, but logic suggests it will need to come in well under the reasonably priced Focus ST, which starts at $23,700.

 

[YSSMAN]

Considering it'll likely have most of the Titanium trim pieces much like the Focus ST does, it wouldn't be out of the question for Ford to start the car somewhere around $19,250 or so.

 

[CodeRedR51]

For 2014 the USA will be getting the 1.0L Ecoboost 3-cylinder.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/19/ford-confirms-2014-fiesta-with-1-0-liter-ecoboost-for-us/

 

[ND4SPD]

That is an epic little motor. Would love to stuff one into a little Kei car or british roadster.

 

[RocZX]

Will the 1.0 L replace the current 1.6 L or will it be optional ?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Hopefully we'll also get the European suspension tuning, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Joey D]

Should be a pretty good engine, I know you can get one in the Euro-spec Focus so it should have more than enough power to have a bit of fun with consider the Fiesta is a much lighter car.

 

[YSSMAN]

Will the 1.0 L replace the current 1.6 L or will it be optional ?

Interesting question. I could see the 1.0L being standard on the Titanium and SES, but it'll probably optional on the SE, and unavailable with the S. It all depends on what kind of margins Ford is looking at on the car. With the Fusion and Escape, it's a $1600 premium to go to the 1.6L EcoBoost over the standard 2.5L I4.

They'd have to make the engine standard, or a very cheap option to be successful. I know I'd rather have this than the 1.6L currently in the car. The extra torque from this engine is going to dramatically improve the performance of the car, and the fuel economy change is going to be appreciated as well.

My threshold would be a $900 option. I'd hope for some other improvements as well. Improved suspension tuning would go a long way as well.

 

[Dan_]

Ignoring manufacturing costs for a while, this should be the base engine on the lineup. The 1.6 Sigma is remarkable under high loads but a bit gutless on the low end. The three-pot would be the rational choice for the Fiesta to me.

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, and I'm flying in the face of popular consensus here, but I drove the 1.0 EcoBoost Focus earlier this year and was thoroughly underwhelmed by it.

Yes, it's quiet, smooth, and punchy for a 1.0, but that's really all it does. It's designed to replace a naturally-aspirated 1.6, and that's essentially its only playing card. There's no real tangible stand-out feature of it, so the whole time you're driving you're thinking "this feels like a regular 1.6"... and since when has a regular 1.6 really been exciting?

At which point you're thinking "Ahh, but Ford is quoting some impressive fuel economy numbers for it". Yes, they are, but just like the Fiat TwinAir engine, real-world driving seems to return numbers nowhere near the ones claimed by Ford. Typically, no more than around 40 mpg in imperial gallons, so about 33 mpg or so for you lot with your wrong-sized gallons.

Unfortunately, I think it's hampered by the portly Focus body. Engines with a ~120hp output are still just a bit over-stressed for heavy modern cars. It'll probably be better in the smaller, lighter Fiesta, but to me it doesn't really represent progress. Particularly as over here it's pretty damn expensive for a 1.0...

 

[CodeRedR51]

Ford is claiming best non-hybrid fuel economy numbers when it's released.

Not like anyone here will buy one anyway.

 

[Dan_]

The smaller kerbweight for a current gen 1.6 Focus is 1276kg.

The 1.6 Fiesta on the other hand weighs in at 1045kg, that's 231kg or the equivalent of three passengers.

Your feedback is quite surprising, I've read some reviews on the Focus with the three pistons and even though all of them pointed fingers to the performance ( or lack thereof ) and the excessively optimistic claimed economy figures, the car was mostly regarded as more pleasing to drive than the 1.6.

Nevertheless, HFS' post only goes to show that the motor will find more homes at B segment hoods, fitting one of these in a Mondeo shall be comical.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Well, it's not hard to get 231 Kg with American passengers.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Your feedback is quite surprising, I've read some reviews on the Focus with the three pistons and even though all of them pointed fingers to the performance ( or lack thereof ) and the excessively optimistic claimed economy figures, the car was mostly regarded as more pleasing to drive than the 1.6.

Which is kind of Ant's point is that being as good as or slightly better than a 1.6 is still rather unremarkable.

The Fiat TwinAir is popular because it's a small fun engine, and it's marketed as little else (and a successful attempt at duping the EU fuel economy test). It's not seen as a direct replacement for anything else, or at least not marketed as such.

 

[Famine]

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, and I'm flying in the face of popular consensus here, but I drove the 1.0 EcoBoost Focus earlier this year and was thoroughly underwhelmed by it.

Yes, it's quiet, smooth, and punchy for a 1.0, but that's really all it does. It's designed to replace a naturally-aspirated 1.6, and that's essentially its only playing card. There's no real tangible stand-out feature of it, so the whole time you're driving you're thinking "this feels like a regular 1.6"... and since when has a regular 1.6 really been exciting?

At which point you're thinking "Ahh, but Ford is quoting some impressive fuel economy numbers for it". Yes, they are, but just like the Fiat TwinAir engine, real-world driving seems to return numbers nowhere near the ones claimed by Ford. Typically, no more than around 40 mpg in imperial gallons, so about 33 mpg or so for you lot with your wrong-sized gallons.

Unfortunately, I think it's hampered by the portly Focus body. Engines with a ~120hp output are still just a bit over-stressed for heavy modern cars. It'll probably be better in the smaller, lighter Fiesta, but to me it doesn't really represent progress. Particularly as over here it's pretty damn expensive for a 1.0...

I think it's a crap engine based on old ideas bundled up and made to sound exciting by an overeager marketing department. Also I know a guy on the development line for the engine and I think he's a complete nob, so that doesn't help.

The mundanity of the engine is going to be brought sharply into focus (a-haha) when it's time to service it. Particularly out of warranty.

 

[niky]

Kinda feel the same way about the "EcoBoost" 2.0 in the Explorer.

When I had it, I could get better economy than the V6, but only by staying completely out of boost. In traffic, where you have to, you know, actually accelerate, economy was slightly better, at best, and somewhat worse, at worst. Given how badly turbos heat soak in traffic, guess which happened more often?

Then add the lag, the lumpy power delivery, and possible sensitivity to fuel quality down the line...

Turbo engines for performance? Yay. Tiny turbo engines in heavy cars for economy? Meh.

 

[sumbrownkid]

The whole hybrid thing though is changing the game.

I can see Ford pairing this with a hybrid drive train to "claim" even better mileage while addressing any issues regarding sluggish performance with added battery power.

 

[homeforsummer]

The mundanity of the engine is going to be brought sharply into focus (a-haha) when it's time to service it. Particularly out of warranty.

And that's the other problem.

I just think Ford has been massively brown-nosed by some corners of the press with this engine. It's just a engine that does the same as a boggo 1.6, except it'll be more expensive to fix if (/when) it goes wrong.

I wouldn't really be doing my job if I drove it, thought it was crap, and then praised it anyway. And as Evan says, the TwinAir may get crap real-world economy* but I've driven a few cars with that engine now, and it's jolly good fun at least. The Ford is just... dull. In fact, that goes for the Focus in general.

Ford is claiming best non-hybrid fuel economy numbers when it's released.

Are we trusting Ford economy claims at the moment then?...

My bet: It'll get decent (though not spectacular) EPA numbers. Drivers will then find it rather difficult to even meet those numbers in real-world driving (albeit not by as great a margin as compared to the Euro numbers).


* Current average for TwinAir-powered cars seems to be around 40 mpg (imp.) unless you're very gentle. For comparison, my old Panda 100HP, with its basic engine design from the 1980s, indirect injection, regular mechanical valves, and 1400ccs of capacity, averaged about 43mpg in my hands with plenty of hooning. Progress!

 

[CodeRedR51]

I find it funny that when a car doesn't live up to EPA numbers, they blame the cars manufacture. Shouldn't the EPA be worried about giving out false numbers instead?

 

[ExigeEvan]

* Current average for TwinAir-powered cars seems to be around 40 mpg (imp.) unless you're very gentle. For comparison, my old Panda 100HP, with its basic engine design from the 1980s, indirect injection, regular mechanical valves, and 1400ccs of capacity, averaged about 43mpg in my hands with plenty of hooning. Progress!

FYI Honest John readers are getting nearer 50 mpg in the 500 TwinAirs, but it's still 20 Mpg short of the quoted figure.

 

[Famine]

I find it funny that when a car doesn't live up to EPA numbers, they blame the cars manufacture. Shouldn't the EPA be worried about giving out false numbers instead?

Do the EPA actually conduct fuel economy tests or do they set the criteria (like a prescribed road speed for a set time) by which manufacturers test their own, preproduction, ultra-lean mapped cars with gearing set to get stupidly high figures on a rolling road with bioethanol E85?

If the former, blame the EPA. If the latter, like in Europe, blame the manufacturers.