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

  • Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 574 comments
  • 56,844 views
The EPA set the criteria, the manufacturers do the tests and supply numbers. The EPA audits about 15 percent of companies each year to make sure they're following the rules. Which is why Hyundai/Kia got away with lying for several years.
 
From the mouth of the EPA:

Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.

In the laboratory, the vehicle's drive wheels are placed on a machine called a dynamometer that simulates the driving environment—much like an exercise bike simulates cycling.

The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for wind resistance and the vehicle's weight.

On the dynamometer, a professional driver runs the vehicle through a standardized driving routine, or schedule, which simulates “typical” trips in the city or on the highway.

Each schedule specifies the speed the vehicle must travel during each second in the test.

For vehicles using carbon-based fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, natural gas, etc.), a hose is connected to the tailpipe to collect the engine exhaust during the tests.

The carbon in the exhaust is measured to calculate the amount of fuel burned during the test. This is more accurate than using a fuel gauge.

This method does not work for vehicles using non-carbon-based fuels, such as fuel cell vehicles and electric vehicles.

They altered their testing procedure in 2008 which resulted in fuel economy ratings that were worse than what was attained previously, those that were supposed to be closer to how real-world driving actually works.

Thing is, even with the updates, EPA ratings are still pretty easy to beat.

Particularly as over here it's pretty damn expensive for a 1.0...

From what I'm understanding, Ford is making the 1.0L mill an optional one. They claim the average price difference is somewhere around $900 to get the EcoBoost option, I'm guessing it'll be somewhere around there on this one. Not a bad deal, but it really depends on the kind of fuel economy that you're actually going to get. If Ford's claim that the average fuel efficiency of the car will match that of a hybrid, we'd be looking at numbers deep into the 40 MPG territory.

The current 1.6L model averages 34 MPG, and if this new version would hypothetically match the Honda Civic Hybrid at 44 MPG, you'd only be saving about $300 a year on fuel... Three more years until you get to recoup the cost of the engine on gas savings, not even taking into account the extra cost of maintenance.

Still, I'd rather have the turbo. The extra torque will aid the car significantly, the fuel efficiency gains (when driven right) could be fairly substantial, and you've got a novelty piece to squawk about under the hood. Fantastic.
 
Should get more mileage AND more power - at least to a direct comparable octane regular fuel. Particularly in a high compression engine.
 
Not what I have experience with and/or have read. More power yes as it is comparable to 105 octane here in the states. But more of it is required to fuel the car = less MPG.
 
ExigeEvan
FYI Honest John readers are getting nearer 50 mpg in the 500 TwinAirs, but it's still 20 Mpg short of the quoted figure.

To be honest, 50 mpg makes it more worthwhile. Though again, if I drove my old Panda in a way that nets the TwinAir 50mpg, it probably would have got 50 mpg too.

But again, at least the TwinAir has a bit of character. I suspect most buyers are happy to have it for the free road tax and peppy performance when you rev it a bit.
 
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? :odd:

The majority of EPA numbers are based on an honor system.
For example, Hyundai did it's own testing and then relayed the info to the EPA and we know how that worked out.
Ford is now in the same-ish boat, sort of. They touched on their claims a bit in a recent motortrend youtube video about the cmax.
 
I've been wondering if the numbers people are actually getting with the Fusion Hybrid being so much lower than the old car is because they downsized the engine.
 
I've been wondering if the numbers people are actually getting with the Fusion Hybrid being so much lower than the old car is because they downsized the engine.

It's certainly possible. The Prius's mpg actually improved when they made the engine larger with the last generation. There's certainly a point where a particular engine has to work too hard to make a particular car get a particular set of mpg numbers. A fair few recent downsized engines seem to have that issue.

Unless you drive it really slowly.
 
To be honest, 50 mpg makes it more worthwhile. Though again, if I drove my old Panda in a way that nets the TwinAir 50mpg, it probably would have got 50 mpg too.

But again, at least the TwinAir has a bit of character. I suspect most buyers are happy to have it for the free road tax and peppy performance when you rev it a bit.

Indeed. 👍
 
^ Good artical. When me and my partner bought our TwinAir, the salesman asked us to consider the four cyl 1.2, but considering the expected travelling (mostly single carriageway journeys).. there wasn't much in it between the two TBH, but opted for the TwinAir because of the free tax. Really wanted a Daihatsu Boon X4 though, but was never sold in this country. It had a few bad reviews as well, but still would have liked one.
 
Last edited:
Very well put together, there is truth in fitting an adequately sized engine to a certain size of car and the economy gains\losses that are inherent to this decision.

We get that a lot over there, cars that are fitted with 1.0 liter engines are less taxed by the government than slightly larger engines. Trouble is that the 1.4 models often are in better or at least in equal terms of economy when compared to their 1000cc siblings, without the immense lack of torque or power of the smaller mills.

Getting back to the Fiesta, the Ecoboost three is supposed to be chain driven, isn't it? The block is made of iron and there is friction reducing coating on the cylinder heads, I can see this being designed as a very durable engine, unless the high pressure turbo makes the engine give away early on, I can't see where things can go so wrong with the little motor.
 
There is an element of pessimism on my part (and Famine's, I expect) with regards to the 1.0's durability, but I'd also say it's realistic. Iron blocked and chain-cammed it might well be, but those aren't the problem areas for modern engines.

The issues are the injectors, turbocharger, and (if it has one, which it may not do as I think it has an unevenly-balanced crank instead) dual-mass flywheels. These are all things which have turned diesel engines from incredibly long-lived, durable units, into things you wouldn't touch with a bargepole over ten years old nowadays. Of course, diesels also have a particulate filter, which is a whole other Pandora's Box for reliability. At least the EcoBoost doesn't have one of those, being a relatively clean petrol engine.
 
Don't forget the high pressure fuel pumps, water-sensitive fuel filters, EGR systems...

Except for the fuel injectors, there are lower-priced options for owners in terms of repair. SMF replacements for the DMFs (which are only there for extra refinement) and turbo rebuilds and swaps (an STI turbo is an interesting match for big turbodiesels).

In the end, the future of the technology depends on the injectors coming down in price. They need to come down to about 25% of the current cost, in my opinion, to make long-term ownership viable.
 
How likely is that, though? As far as I'm aware, a set of injectors for a 10-15 year old diesel is still basically as expensive as it ever was!
 
From Ken Block's facebook page:

Another addition to Ford's ST family is being revealed this week at the LA Auto Show. And YES, it'll be available here in 'Merica. Stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy this exclusive teaser shot that was leaked to me by Ford.

60496_10151174548605765_595820725_n.jpg
 
Nah, probably just the regular car.

Ah, I didn't see that it was fairly non-committal - I just assumed everyone already knew what the Fiesta ST would look like. Confused me that he'd show teaser images of something everyone already knew about...
 
I wouldn't think everyone knows about the car yet.

Well, not people living in caves or in the Himalayas perhaps, but I'd expect the sort of car people into cars like the Fiesta ST would be aware of it - Ford has shown it at several motor shows now and anyone in that sphere with access to an internet has probably seen at least a photo or two of it.
 
Well, not people living in caves or in the Himalayas perhaps, but I'd expect the sort of car people into cars like the Fiesta ST would be aware of it - Ford has shown it at several motor shows now and anyone in that sphere with access to an internet has probably seen at least a photo or two of it.

I am actually talking about the USA, which in fact wasn't confirmed to be getting the car until today. ;)
 
I am actually talking about the USA, which in fact wasn't confirmed to be getting the car until today. ;)

It's actually been "confirmed" for quite a while - Ford has said repeatedly that the U.S. would be getting ST and 1.0 models. In fact, I think the ST was confirmed as a "global" vehicle for Ford at LA last year, and the Ecoboost 1.0 I think was confirmed even earlier than that. The only unconfirmed aspect was exactly when each would be arriving.

And I'm aware you're talking about the USA - that's the beauty of the internet. Those in the USA have access to pages outside the USA ;)
 
Source for earlier confirmation?

Because I'm pretty sure it was never actually confirmed by Ford until now. People just assumed we'd be getting it...
 
Source for earlier confirmation?

Because I'm pretty sure it was never actually confirmed by Ford until now. People just assumed we'd be getting it...

I stand corrected on the ST - on further inspection (here, here, here, here, here and particularly here) it's pretty much always been "assumed"!

The latter quotes Ford saying "With the Fiesta ST Concept, we are demonstrating that our global performance plan has legs...The potential for delivering the ST experience to an even wider audience is laid bare by this exciting new concept", which is where I recalled my global comment from.

Still, I think everyone pretty much knew, even if it wasn't in writing...

As for the Ecoboost 1.0, it was confirmed back in July 2011. I was pretty sure about that one as I've been writing about it for the last year or so!
 
Don't care about the 1.0! :lol:

All I'm talking about is the ST. ;)

Yes, I think you're steadily beginning to miss the point of my original comment:

me
I just assumed everyone already knew what the Fiesta ST would look like. Confused me that he'd show teaser images of something everyone already knew about...

Confirmed or not, Ford has been showing the ST, over the globally-accessible internet, for the best part of a year and a half. It was hardly a surprise that it would appear at L.A...
 

Latest Posts

Back