1.0 Ecoboost Fiesta

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote:

Shaun wrote: ...but a lightly used FiST for 15-18k seems like a better deal and 30 mpg aint bad.

I get an honest 40mpg out of my FiST - mixed city/hwy.

Is that US or Imperial Gallons?

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote:

Shaun wrote: ...but a lightly used FiST for 15-18k seems like a better deal and 30 mpg aint bad.

I get an honest 40mpg out of my FiST - mixed city/hwy.

I gotta learn something from you. We have a bone stock 2011 1.6l and doing the actual math says 39.8-39.9 mpg @ 72 mph highway. (car reports 42.5mpg on the dash). So you can beat that...with an ST...with local driving thrown in too? Ouch. :(

5.8L/100kms, so 40 US mpg. I don't flog it, but keep up with traffic short shifting. I do work to maintain my speed around corners (because fun). The fuel here Might help - no ethanol added. I comfortably get 440 miles to a tank if I'm behaving myself.

A draconian speed limit of ~68mph max might help. Don't excede it by even a few mph, or you're in trouble.

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: A draconian speed limit of ~68mph max might help. Don't excede it by even a few mph, or you're in trouble.

Makes sense. I would if I could. When the speed limit is 70, you don't do 68 or you get run over. 72 is pushing it. 75-78 is better.

Yeah, that is better than I get out of my 1.0L. I drive relatively aggressively and use CC on the highway but generally keep my speeds at 72-73

As RedGT said, that is equal to what I get with my 1.6.

I once drove 425 miles, the trip computer said 40 mpg.at an average speed of 60 mph. that meant driving a little over 70 on the interstates.

here is my fuelly for the 1.0 updated as of last night. My normal commute is 1500ft decent on the way to work with 1500ft ascent on the way home. It changed to 10 miles longer that 2nd week of november as i got a new job.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/fiesta/2015/fordmexicanparty/407625

I am averaging 40.1mpg over 32300 tracked miles.

I drove one and enjoyed it, but the dealership's practices were deceptive, dishonest, and disingenuous so we never got to the point of making an actual deal.

I have never purchased a domestic before so I guess I went in expecting a different experience . . .

I believe I was actually getting a real and good deal from a Sheehy store hundreds of miles from me. Back when Prince's "1999" was about the future I worked at a Ford Lincoln-Mercury store about 20 minutes from my home so I stopped in & they gave me a deal that is almost as good. Since I have not found the "have 2 beaters & keep one running" strategy to work as well for me these past few years, I decided to pull the trigger. The car was on it's way to another dealer (hours away again, no one local orders these cars or stocks sticks) and they are swapping once it arrives.

I've never bought a new car (sold thousands of them) and never thought I would. I know this Fiesta will take the worst wallopin' to value imaginable but that will only matter when I re-sell it. Since my cars are almost always shredded once I'm finally done I am not bothered by that one bit.

I also can't believe I haven't driven one, sat in an automatic sedan. I will drive it when it gets in and if I don't fit or don't like it I will simply refuse to buy it. Sure it will piss my dealer off, but they'll get over it.

In reply to etifosi:

they drive easy. the clutch is super light and the gear shift isnt bad just a little notchy. you have to ride the clutch a little more in first than some other cars but it is fine.

They also fit damn near anyone. Seat goes fore, aft way more than i need at 6'2", up, down, angles, reclines. Wheel tilts and telescopes.

Also...had a chance to drive a 2016 Fit. They make better use of interior space in some ways but the Fiesta is REALLY QUIET inside by comparison. I was shocked. I assumed all 2010+ cars got quiet but evidently the Fiesta is pretty darn good in this regard.

In reply to RedGT:

iitc the fiesta has like 250-300lbs on the fit iirc

One reason the 1.0L is so lazy.

The axle ratio is 3.61 while the 1.6L is 4.07.

Don't know if the transmission ratios are changed.

iceracer wrote: One reason the 1.0L is so lazy. The axle ratio is 3.61 while the 1.6L is 4.07. Don't know if the transmission ratios are changed.

the transmission ratios are different, pumaspeeds 200hp 1.0 still only runs a high 15 second 1/4.

These things must be unicorns. I've hardly seen a single one for sale locally in the past month.

iceracer wrote: One reason the 1.0L is so lazy. The axle ratio is 3.61 while the 1.6L is 4.07. Don't know if the transmission ratios are changed.

Do the 3 and 4 cylinder engines share a bolt pattern?

Possibly since it's the same basic transaxle.

The 1.0l and the 1.6l should share a bell housing. The 2.0l is different.