RE: Ford Fiesta ST: PH Fleet

[blade7]

Ron99 said:

The mpg figure is impossible. It's either a lie, or it was pootling along so gently in L1 that the trucks had to overtake it.

PH, product placement matters...

[Limpet]

Ron99 said:

The mpg figure is impossible. It's either a lie, or it was pootling along so gently in L1 that the trucks had to overtake it.

I would like to see a photo of the trip computer readout (average speed, number of miles, claimed mpg) plus a brim-to-brim calculation to see how much the trip computer lies.
Some trip computers lie by so much they're barely worth having.
On the other hand, my Swift Sport showed itself to be accurate to within 0.1mpg (confirmed by multiple brim-to-brim calculations).
My SSS just about manages 40mpg on the motorway at steady 70mph, maybe 50mpg if I pootled along with the HGVs in L1. I highly doubt a Fiesta is much different.

I find the number entirely believable. Modern direct injection turbocharged engines can be incredibly frugal under light load conditions, hence their almost universal adoption nowadays.

As well as that, don't forget the Fiesta's engine can deactivate a cylinder, and run as a twin under light load conditions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it got up into the 50s on a cruise. Even my 3.0 M140i will return low-to-mid 40s all day long on a motorway at 70-80 (trip computer also accurate to within a couple of percent), although I wouldn't go so far as to claim it could get into the 50s with anything remotely resembling realistic real world driving.

[cib24]

With a full car could it really have a light enough load to deactivate to two cylinders?

I would still rather have the illusive Yaris GRMN but the Fiesta is a nice all-rounder.

[Zad]

There are some pretty long stretches of the M1 that are flat, I don't see any reason why at "normal motorway speeds" the cylinder deactivation shouldn't kick in. Its not as if it takes ages to switch in and out either. I've seen a V6 engined Mondeo regularly sustain mid-40s on the motorway, so 53 in a modern engined car seems perfectly possible. It would be interesting to see what it did after 10,000 miles or so.

I thought the car park shot was going to be Leeds General Infirmary. That is a huge test of how nimble a car is! It has walls around the level change ramps that stick out so far you have to swing your car right out. If anyone's parked a bit far forward then it can mean a simple level change has to be done in two manoevres.

[Ron99]

Limpet said:

I find the number entirely believable.

(53mpg at 70mph for 200 miles)

I don't believe the number is even close to the truth, especially not a well-laden car in winter time. I could believe it for a diesel Fiesta and maybe, just maybe, for a tiny 1-litre econobox.

But I'd be pleased if the author would serve me up a slice of humble pie by posting a photo of the trip computer, showing average speed, distance travelled (preferably >100 miles) and claimed mpg - also whether there was a favourable wind that day which can hugely flatter mpg.

Even better, work out how inaccurate the trip computer is, to give a true mpg, since trip computer accuracy is so variable. I've seen trip computers consistently exaggerate by as much as 15% while others consistently tell the truth.

[Dal3D]

..... unless it's a Suzuki Swift Sport obviously.

[Ron99]

Dal3D said:

..... unless it's a Suzuki Swift Sport obviously.

My Swift Sport gives about 40mpg at 70mph, not 53mpg. I'm not the one claiming suspiciously high mpg numbers; I'm telling the truth and I've checked the numbers by brim-to-brim calculations.

Most B-segment petrol cars give 40-45mpg on the motorway (the aforementioned BMW 1-series is similar in size to a B-segment). With winter weather and a full load knock 5-10mpg off that.

All I ask is that claims of such exceptional numbers as 53mpg on the motorway are backed up with evidence.

And let's face it, how many cars do you know of which meet the manufacturer's claimed mpg?
Especially Fords with Ecoboost engines which Honest John's figures show to be some of the worst offenders for falling well short of claimed mpg figures in the real world.

[Dal3D]

Ron99 said:

And let's face it, how many cars do you know of which meet the manufacturer's claimed mpg?
Especially Fords with Ecoboost engines which Honest John's figures show to be some of the worst offenders for falling well short of claimed mpg figures in the real world.

Well I'm averaging 48.6mpg out of my 1.0t Ecoboost over nearly a year and 18,000 miles over mostly A and B roads. Calculated properly. Highest 54mpg , lowest 45mpg.

If you want to examine the data for yourself...
https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/896027.html

[pmr01]

Ron99 said:

The mpg figure is impossible. It's either a lie, or it was pootling along so gently in L1 that the trucks had to overtake it.

I would like to see a photo of the trip computer readout (average speed, number of miles, claimed mpg) plus a brim-to-brim calculation to see how much the trip computer lies.
Some trip computers lie by so much they're barely worth having.
On the other hand, my Swift Sport showed itself to be accurate to within 0.1mpg (confirmed by multiple brim-to-brim calculations).
My SSS just about manages 40mpg on the motorway at steady 70mph, maybe 50mpg if I pootled along with the HGVs in L1. I highly doubt a Fiesta is much different.

My m140 gets 38-40mpg on a 70 mile round trip into the centre of Glasgow...you should ask the dealer to check your car over.

Edited to add that I see someone else with the same economical commuter car can report same.

Edited by pmr01 on Friday 4th January 21:38

[Ron99]

Dal3D said:

..... unless it's a Suzuki Swift Sport obviously.

I just looked up the 'real world mpg' figures on Honest John for the current Fiesta ST and the same model Swift Sport that I've been talking about:

Swift Sport (pre-2017): 42mpg.
Fiesta ST (2018-on): 40mpg.

So the author is saying 53mpg on the motorway.
I'm saying 'about 40mpg' on the motorway.

The odd one out appears to be the author.

[lee_erm]

Ron99 said:

I just looked up the 'real world mpg' figures on Honest John for the current Fiesta ST and the same model Swift Sport that I've been talking about:

Swift Sport (pre-2017): 42mpg.
Fiesta ST (2018-on): 40mpg.

So the author is saying 53mpg on the motorway.
I'm saying 'about 40mpg' on the motorway.

The odd one out appears to be the author.

Impressive the Ford is only 2mpg less considering how much more power it has

[Ron99]

Dal3D said:

Ron99 said:

And let's face it, how many cars do you know of which meet the manufacturer's claimed mpg?
Especially Fords with Ecoboost engines which Honest John's figures show to be some of the worst offenders for falling well short of claimed mpg figures in the real world.

Well I'm averaging 48.6mpg out of my 1.0t Ecoboost over nearly a year and 18,000 miles over mostly A and B roads. Calculated properly. Highest 54mpg , lowest 45mpg.

If you want to examine the data for yourself...
https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/896027.html

I don't disbelieve your trip computer says 48.6mpg along A and B roads. Ford will tell you that 65mpg is to be expected.

Cars tend to give their best mpg at speeds between 25-40mph and mpg gets proportionately worse at higher speeds, so A and B roads will usually give better mpg than M-roads.
On A and B roads you're likely to be travelling at significantly less than 70-80mph, meaning significantly better mpg.
Even my 2.8 Insignia will touch 50mpg cruising through roadworks at about 40mph; Swift Sport will show 70mpg at 40mph and the wife's 1-litre 'econobox' Viva will show about 90mpg.
But at motorway speed the figures are about 35mpg, 40mpg and 50mpg respectively.

[Ron99]

lee_erm said:

Impressive the Ford is only 2mpg less considering how much more power it has

For everyday driving the FiST won't be using most of its 200hp - most of the time it will be using little or no boost and when cruising will probably only be using 20-40hp.

But to get the full 200hp you have to spool up and burn much more fuel. Drive the FiST flat-out and it will be as thirsty as its hp figure suggests (and, of course, leave the SSS trailing).

[Blue Oval84]

Zad said:

I've seen a V6 engined Mondeo regularly sustain mid-40s on the motorway, so 53 in a modern engined car seems perfectly possible.

I had one and the only way that would be even remotely possible, would be with a following wind, no passengers, and a steady foot keeping you at about 55mph. Even then, I doubt it. The V6 Duratec was good, but not that good. Average from mine was about 35mpg tops, even on decent runs.

For comparison purposes, my S60 D5 would only do about 50-52mpg on a reasonable motorway run(>300 miles) if I kept it between 75-85mph. It could creep up higher to more like 55mpg if I kept the speed to 70-75mph.

My current S80 D4 Auto claimed (I haven't checked the brim to brim yet) that it was delivering 49mpg on a >300 mile motorway run.

My Sister-in-laws Fiesta TDCi does about 60-65mpg, tops, running up and down the motorway for 30 miles at a time.

So am I sceptical of a genuine >50mpg return on a 4-up hot hatch driven with any degree of enthusiasm? Yep.

[J4CKO]

Being careful saw 43 mpg from my M135i between Manchester and Bath taking it easy, thats twice the cylinders and three times the capacity, so it doesn't seem that ridiculous to say a modern 1.5 litre triple can better 50 mpg in ideal circumstances, my son sees mid thirties from his Mk7 around town not being careful.

Suffice to say, even if it is out a bit, its a pretty economical motor when you want it to be.

[Dal3D]

Ron99 said:

I don't disbelieve your trip computer says 48.6mpg along A and B roads.

No - that's calculated as I said, not trip computer.

But this is so Pistonheads these days - arguing over a mundane MPG figure rather than how much fun something is to drive.



Would love to know from the OP whether the LED lights are worth the £600 option price and if he thought the Performance Pack LSD was an everyday bonus or just on track / on the edge?

Edited by Dal3D on Friday 4th January 22:44

[Ron99]

Dal3D said:

But this is so Pistonheads these days - arguing over a mundane MPG figure rather than how much fun something is to drive.

The author claimed an unbelievably high mpg. I doubt even an Up GTi could consistently beat the author's claimed mpg for the FiST.
People will be drawn to a car promising high mpg and high performance and will be disappointed or suspect a fault if their fuel bills turn out to be much more than they had been led to believe.
There's a big difference between the claimed low-50s mpg and the more likely high-30s mpg.

[martin12345]

I had a SSS (2014 plate) which had a shocking inaccurate trip computer - used to read about 10% higher than real
I used to average a real 41MPG with my 30mile commute and a bit of pottering. On a motorway journey this would go up to about 44~45 MPG. Liked the car a lot.

I replaced it with a 2015 Fiesta ST and my MPG dropped about 2 MPG on the commute and was pretty much the same on the motorway (tall gearing with the torque of the turbo). Liked the car a VERY lot until it got nicked (keyless entry - what a f&&&ing stupid idea !!). Trip computer was better than the SSS at about 5% high

I can believe it is possible to get 53MPG from a Mk8 (especially if on trip computer) if the speed was held to 70 or lower - the run from london to leeds includes two long sections (each about 10~15 miles ) of 50MPH with average speed camera's and ten's (50 to 60 miles) of average speed camera's with normal motorway limit (could have been reduced to 60 if busy). I recently did the journey from Nottingham to Kent in my XJR - similar distance and mostly on the same road - I got 25MPG from a car with a claimed fuel economy of 21.5mpg.

Weight has relatively little effect on motorway MPG as you are not accelerating (where it does)


So in summary - 53MPG - possible but at the limit of what is believable and probably mildly inflated by the trip computer


In truth - what does it matter; 53MPG or 48MPG, both mean a Fiesta ST is a reasonable car from an MPG point of view and helps to justify buying a car that is just terrific to drive. I absolutely loved my Mk7, it was overall better than the SSS (and 20% more expensive, so it should be better). I'd likely still have it if it hadn't been nicked. I am seriously tempted by the new ST, but I am scarred by how easily mine (and many others) was nicked and wish/hope Ford would put as much into the security system of the car as they obviously have into the handling - but it seems not as they still have key-less entry and no doubt the bast&&&ds have already cracked the code on this one and are busy stealing them :-(

[wst]

Dal3D said:

Would love to know from the OP whether the LED lights are worth the £600 option price and if he thought the Performance Pack LSD was an everyday bonus or just on track / on the edge?

+1

I'd love a review/comparison between the "base spec" lights and the "top spec" lights that various manufacturers offer. It'd be properly beardy stuff but good lights are a godsend on an empty road at 1am...

[Car-Matt]

Ron99 said:

There's a big difference between the claimed low-50s mpg and the more likely high-30s mpg.

It’s actually bugger all difference in £’s unless your doing huge mileage @ 12k miles a year it’s around £400.