New fiesta, get the 1.6L or wait for 1.0L Ecoboost?

Is it worth ordering and waiting for 2015 Fiesta with the 1.0 Ecoboost over buying a 2014 Fiesta with the 1.6L now? I really like the Fiesta over the other small car options available with local dealers (Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Dodge, Chevy, Subaru, Toyota) but I'm stuck on wanting the 3cyl turbo instead of the 1.6L that's the only choice at dealers in the state. Practicality and gas mileage have finally convinced me I shouldn't be driving a car that gets less than 20mpg when I drive ~1300 miles a month going between accounts in town; I'd be saving about $250/month by switching cars. Should I enjoy one more summer with the Mustang and order an Ecoboost Fiesta, or start saving gas and money now?

Ecoboost Fiesta.

Reasons?

1) Gas prices WILL be going up quite a bit as the worldwide slooooooooooooooow economic recovery continues.

2) RWD mustang for summertime driving? Hells yea!

3) Ecoboost 1.0L will get better mpg than the 1.6L, and when tuned will make more power. Winning all around!

I'm actually having a tough time choosing between a Fiesta ST or the ecoboost 1.0L for myself.

Man.. the answer in my mind is so obvious it makes asking the question feel like some kind of trick.

IMO the ecoboost is worth the wait because it will give you more torque more often, deliver better mpg, be more easily modified, and make the car feel less mundane.

ecoboost

Why not both?

I vote ecoboost. Gotta vote with your dollars!

Knurled wrote: Why not both?

To be counter to the EcoBoost (which I shouldn't be, but someone has to be a devils advocate)....

How much fuel does the cost difference get? When I got my 1.6, the premium for the 1.0 was $900. I just did a build for one, it's $995 for the 1.0l engine. That's 300 gallons of gas.

Just doin the math.

I question the logic over a tuned 1.0l engine- you buy it for fuel economy, and then modify it to make more power? Probably at the expense of fuel economy? If performance is the want, get an ST.

alfadriver wrote: I question the logic over a tuned 1.0l engine- you buy it for fuel economy, and then modify it to make more power? Probably at the expense of fuel economy? If performance is the want, get an ST.

Turbos are a different beast, especially modern torque-demand style engine controls. You literally do nothing that alters the mapping in the normal drive areas. If you normally drive so that you're never getting 100% out of the stock tune, you won't get any worse economy in normal driving. But it's there when you want it.

This goes hand in hand with my notion that most cars could have their engines replaced with 1500cc engines, the throttle mapping redone so max output is at 20% request, and nobody would know the difference.

I'm not going to be tuning this car. I have snowmachines and motorcycles for that nonsense, which will have more money for fun with the extra money per month free'd up. This needs to be a mileage grinder mpg machine that isn't hateful to drive.

$995 is about 265 gallons of gas up here. Looking at it a different way, the MPG difference is about $20 per month at current prices, meaning a 50 month break even between the two, at which point the car will have way over 100k miles and be looking at replacement (it also corresponds to when I'd like to move back to the lower 48).

Knurled wrote:

alfadriver wrote: I question the logic over a tuned 1.0l engine- you buy it for fuel economy, and then modify it to make more power? Probably at the expense of fuel economy? If performance is the want, get an ST.

Turbos are a different beast, especially modern torque-demand style engine controls. You literally do nothing that alters the mapping in the normal drive areas. If you normally drive so that you're never getting 100% out of the stock tune, you won't get any worse economy in normal driving. But it's there when you want it. This goes hand in hand with my notion that most cars could have their engines replaced with 1500cc engines, the throttle mapping redone so max output is at 20% request, and nobody would know the difference.

Except that having the tune would also encourage the driver to use that new ability, so more than likely the new driving patterns would lower the fuel economy. Or a different way of putting it- why have a tune if you don't use it?

(do note, for many instances, a GOOD tune would actually improve fuel economy as well as power- but not many tuners know the details to do that)

In reply to skierd:

FWIW, I wanted the EcoBoost, too, but when I got my car, it was not available. I was just making sure that both sides of the argument was presented. I do like my 1.6, but am not 100% on it's fuel economy abilty at the moment- so far the best tank I've gotten was 35mpg. But it's been cold here.

Dave, get the ecoboost so I can live through you vicariously.

The little ecoboost just sounds like more fun.

You know you want to.

Another summer with a mustang isnt such a bad thing.

I vote EcoBoost. If you don't want to wait a Cruze Eco would suffice nicely.

Im displaying my usual smirk at the idea of someone buying a NEW car and fretting over nickels and dimes of how long a trim level will take to pay for itself. Dont go too far down that rabbit hole or you MAY discover that ALL new cars are a pretty bad idea.

I would say screw mpg and get an st. But then again I am not the sharpest bulb in the box.

alfadriver wrote: I question the logic over a tuned 1.0l engine- you buy it for fuel economy, and then modify it to make more power? Probably at the expense of fuel economy?

You shouldn't. It's a 1.0 turbo. Off boost fuel economy, where the car is driven the huge majority of the time, should remain unchanged. On boost, it will be more fun, and still not use significantly more fuel than it does stock. You get to eat your cake and have it too.

A friend of mine at work just picked up an Ecoboost Fiesta. I haven't had a chance to take it for a spin yet, but told me I could. So far he has averaged low to mid 40's for the fist couple tanks (I think 43 for the last tank), about 80% highway 20% city and he said maybe 15% driving ir pretty aggressive. It has maybe 1500 miles on it, so I would expect the mileage to pick up a little once it breaks it, he gets used to it, and we get back on summer blend gas... He says the gearing takes a little getting used to, but it will definately get out of its own way

Another friend, also at work, bought a Fiesta ST about 4 months ago and so far he LOVES it. Averages about 30mpg with a best of 34mpg driving a steady 55 mph, which isn't too bad for nearly 200hp on tap. I've only ridded across the parking lot with him in it and I can say it feels very impressive for a little car.

With the drive that I have (~85 miles round trip per day), I would probably hold out for the Ecotec and then put some ST springs, dampers, etc, on it and have a great handling car capable of nearly 50mpg on the highway...Either that or the ST and put some light weight 15" or 16" wheels/tires on it and see if I could pick up a few mpg...40mpg and 200hp...is it possible in a new Fiesta???

nepa03focus wrote: I would say screw mpg and get an st. But then again I am not the sharpest bulb in the box.

If MPG's weren't a concern, I wouldn't be trading my Mustang for a Fiesta, tarted up turbo version included.

I almost wish I had a normal commute that was almost all highway instead of grinding from account to account in town because the gas mileage would cease to be an issue. If I had a highway commute, I get an easy 30+mpg and still get to enjoy driving a 300hp rwd sports coupe. Instead it's stop light to stop light to the next account 5 miles down the road, 6-12 times per day.

Options are limited on the 1.0L. unlike the others.

Zomby Woof wrote:

alfadriver wrote: I question the logic over a tuned 1.0l engine- you buy it for fuel economy, and then modify it to make more power? Probably at the expense of fuel economy?

You shouldn't. It's a 1.0 turbo. Off boost fuel economy, where the car is driven the huge majority of the time, should remain unchanged. On boost, it will be more fun, and still not use significantly more fuel than it does stock. You get to eat your cake and have it too.

Like I said before, I really don't buy that one would drive more calm if they spent money on a tune. Plus, the improvement is very dependant on how it's done- seeing how other tuners do it, well, lets say I don't have a super high opinion of "tunes".

I'd like the ecoboost in the ST chassis. With a price reduction.

alfadriver wrote: Like I said before, I really don't buy that one would drive more calm if they spent money on a tune.

Who suggested that?

Zomby Woof wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Like I said before, I really don't buy that one would drive more calm if they spent money on a tune.

Who suggested that?

I'll rephrase it like I wrote it before- if you spend money on a tune for more power, I would expect a driver to want to use that. Why else would you get it? Therefore the mileage would probably go down.

Does that make more sense?

For this car, you spend $1000 extra for the fuel economy motor, and then who knows how much for more power. Which would probably be driven in a manner that negates the $1000 economy premium. All when an ST version is available, which probably has good economy if driven calmly.

But hey, that's just my impression.

My 1.6 SE Is capable of over 40mpg. I have gotten as high as 43.

Driving on winter tires in the cold with winter gas my last tank was 37 mpg.

I once drove 425 miles at average speed of 60mph and got 40 mpg.

But if I get deeper in the throttle much it really drops.