Ford Fiesta - 1.4MT or 1.6PS?

[ghosthunter]

Hindi kaya sadya ito sa programing ng ECU nya? Baka kaya i-reprogram? Cars, like DSLRs, are becoming more like computers nowadays. Camera manufacturers usually come up with several firmware updates long after the model has been launched. Baka eventually, ganito rin mangyari sa mga kotse.

We can speculate anything here. But the real world performance of the Fiesta seems to fall rather short of the manufacter's claims, at least for the local PHDM Ford Fiesta. Similar to claims of extreme longer fuel mileage, which in real-life driving conditions seems to only get average results for a car/engine of this class.

One major area that "might" have helped the Ford Fiesta 1.6PS in marketing and (maybe) performance is if Ford included a "manual-mode" for the DCT tranny like what you can find in the Ford Focus TDCi A/T. The DCT tranny is already in the Fiesta, adding a "manual mode" feature wouldn't have costed Ford that much more.

[AG4]

We can speculate anything here. But the real world performance of the Fiesta seems to fall rather short of the manufacter's claims, at least for the local PHDM Ford Fiesta.

In the USA when EPA do their fuel economy tests, they just simulate city and highway driving, but in a controlled environment with fixed number of stops and periods of acceleration etc.
So no traffic jams and no stop & go traffic.

I can just imagine, it would be funny if they simulate stop and go traffic for the Philippines. :lol:
Leave the car idling for 10 minutes, move forward 2 feet then stop. leave the car idling for another 10 minutes, move forward another 2 feet and stop, repeat cycle for 2 hours. :lol:

[niky]

YouTube - 2011 Ford Fiesta Dual-Clutch Automatic - Shift Points
1:06 - 1:16 (Please note that this is Miles per hour)

It's based off of the on-board instruments, which aren't as accurate as a GPS meter.

The only GPS-based data I've found for the Fiesta (Car and Driver) suggests the manual hits 60 mph in around 10+ seconds. Which jives well with a 10+ second time as apparent from that video (probably around 11 if GPS corrected) and 12+ for 0-100 km/h... which is usually about 1 second slower than 0-60 mph (0-96 km/h) due to the shift from 2nd to 3rd.

Evidence showing the car accelerate on the stock speedometer isn't great evidence of anything. Evidence with a V-Box log is much more believeable.

[pista_ni_jon]

* ts: kung desidido kayo sa fiesta, either will do.

[vivafoxpro]

...and the larger rear crumple zone should be an advantage.

Agree totally that a sedan's rump would provide greater rear passenger safety in case of a rear collision.

The way I understand it is energy is absorbed by deformation of the structure and not by the stiffness.

Cars in the 1950's were built very hard and during collisions, humans being soft creatures bore the brunt of the damage.

"Crumple zones" came into being and engineers started utilizing them to protect passengers.

Just by looking, one will see more crumple zone in a sedan's butt.

There is no argument that the hatch will provide adequate rear protection.

Taking into account that both these Fiestas are made of the same boron steel, our point is just the sedan provides more protection.

*hausteam So join our camp, 1.4 MT sedan

[AG4]

Cars in the 1950's were built very hard and during collisions, humans being soft creatures bore the brunt of the damage.

"Crumple zones" came into being and engineers started utilizing them to protect passengers.

Most cars in the 50's weren't really built as solid/hard as most people think, the entire car sort of became the crumple zone.
If you ask the car engineers of the 50's about the passenger safety cell... they'll say "whats that?" :lol:

Check out this video of a modern 2009 Chevy Malibu being crash tested against a '59 Chevy Bel Air.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs"]YouTube - Crash test Chevrolet 1959 vs Chevrolet 2009[/ame]

A little trivia: Mercedes was one of the first cars (if not the first) to use crumple zones back in the 50's.

[remleseyer]

But remember the Fiesta 1.6PS is not quick even with it's 1.6L engine. The Mazda2 1.5L with it's traditional A/T is actually quicker accelerating.

BTW, we have real world tests numbers that says the Fiesta is SLOWER than the claimed 9.6secs.

I find this hard to believe considering both power to weight ratio (Fiesta: 121ps * 1153kg vs MZ2: 103ps * 1052kg) and transmission type (Fiesta: 6sp dual clutch vs MZ2: 4sp AT) favor the Fiesta.

I won't be surprised if real world figures don't match the manufacturer's claims, I think this is the case for almost everything, not just cars. But do you also have the real world test numbers for the MZ2 to prove this?

[ghosthunter]

I find this hard to believe considering both power to weight ratio (Fiesta: 121ps * 1153kg vs MZ2: 103ps * 1052kg) and transmission type (Fiesta: 6sp dual clutch vs MZ2: 4sp AT) favor the Fiesta.

I won't be surprised if real world figures don't match the manufacturer's claims, I think this is the case for almost everything, not just cars. But do you also have the real world test numbers for the MZ2 to prove this?

0-60kph (time is rough average of multiple tests done)
Fiesta Sport 1.6PS = 6.1 seconds
Mazda2 1.5 AT hatch = 5.3 seconds
Kia SOUL 1.6 AT = 5.2 seconds
Corolla 1.6L AT = 5.6 seconds

0-100kph (time is rough average of multiple tests done)
Fiesta Sport 1.6PS = 13.3 seconds
Mazda2 1.5 AT hatch = 12.7 seconds
Kia SOUL 1.6L AT = 12.3 seconds
Corolla 1.6L AT = 13 seconds

[remleseyer]

0-60kph (time is rough average of multiple tests done)
Fiesta Sport 1.6PS = 6.1 seconds
Mazda2 1.5 AT hatch = 5.3 seconds
Kia SOUL 1.6 AT = 5.2 seconds
Corolla 1.6L AT = 5.6 seconds

0-100kph (time is rough average of multiple tests done)
Fiesta Sport 1.6PS = 13.3 seconds
Mazda2 1.5 AT hatch = 12.7 seconds
Kia SOUL 1.6L AT = 12.3 seconds
Corolla 1.6L AT = 13 seconds

Wow very interesting. Thanks for sharing. So could it be that the 6sp PS gear ratios don't properly match the 1.6L engine power band. What the heck did the Thailand plant do to the Fiesta

[Chuckomenda]

Wow very interesting. Thanks for sharing. So could it be that the 6sp PS gear ratios don't properly match the 1.6L engine power band. What the heck did the Thailand plant do to the Fiesta

i really thought the PS double clutch would make the Fiesta accelerate faster. I'm clearly guessing that the traditional 4speed AT performs lesser shiftpoints thus faster. Maybe the 6th speed tranny is meant for better cruising speed, 120kph and beyond or it is tall-geared.

Reading the threads and posts on the Fiesta, it seems that the M/T is more favorable. The gear hunting, high RPM shiftpoints and downshift happy nature on the PS is somewhat a persistent topic here. But then again, I'm also biased as I've gotten the 1.4MT

It really boils down to preference lang naman.

[tidus1203]

The gearing is long, perfect for American highway use... Pero not for our stop and go driving... Its not a defect, its more like a trait that is not suited for our use... Pero on the plus side the PS is really smooth when shifting, wouldn't even know it changed gears without looking at the tachometer...

[ImCyrix]

You can quote all the USDM specs of the Fiesta but I am talking about the PHDM version of the Fiesta we get here.

I strongly suggest you test-drive one for yourself and you can feel what Niky and I are saying.

For whatever reason, the Ford test units (Trend 1.6PS & Sport 1.6PS models) only gets 12.8 to nearly 14 seconds for 0-100kph under instrumented tests done locally.

Thank you for your suggestion, ghosthunter. Here's the result of 0-100kph of my ford fiesta 1.6 PS within its break in period. I believe it will get quicker after the break in.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJZHoT08Hlw"]YouTube - Ford fiesta Break In.mp4[/ame]

[remleseyer]

Thank you for your suggestion, ghosthunter. Here's the result of 0-100kph of my ford fiesta 1.6 PS within its break in period. I believe it will get quicker after the break in.

YouTube - Ford fiesta Break In.mp4

That's like 11sec to 100kph. But then again the speedo might not be accurate. Here are my observations.

1. Your video is not any different to the earlier video you posted in terms of engine and transmission response, that is it has the same engine gusto, same fast gear change, and both achieved 60mph / 100kph near the end of its 3rd gear. Which suggests you have a similarly performing Fiesta.
2. I think there was a slight hesitation when you floored the pedal from full stop, as the revs didn't jump up at once. If there was no hesitation you could have hit 100kph on the speedo in 10sec.
3. At 13 sec the speedo is already at 110kph. That means if the speedo is really not accurate it could be off by around 10kph.

Overall I think your Fiesta performed really well especially considering it is not fully broken in yet, as it performed very similarly to the US Fiesta video you earlier showed. I don't understand why the real world tests conducted locally didn't show the same results or at least be close to the foreign tests conducted.

[thumper]

If you prefer a manual Fiesta, no choice but go for the 1.4 hatch or sedan. I am pleasantly surprised by the performance of my 1.4mt hatch. It's very quick for a 1.4 liter powered car, very rev happy and hits 140kph quickly and without much effort. After the break in period, I have no doubt that it will be capable of a top speed in excess of 170kph. Good enough for me!
Though I haven't done any timing of 0 to 100 kph, I feel that the MT Fiesta's performance would not be much slower than my GE Jazz 1.5 with a 5 speed automatic. The Fiesta also has a more comfortable ride than the Jazz. The 5 speed manual shifts very smoothly and clutch pedal is really light.
Still, the ultimate would have been if a 1.6L Fiesta with manual transmission was available!