Ford Fiesta - 1.4MT or 1.6PS?

**ghosthunter** · January 7th, 2011 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by hausteam

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** · January 7th, 2011 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

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** · January 7th, 2011 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by ImCyrix

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** · January 7th, 2011 04:37 PM

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

**vivafoxpro** · January 8th, 2011 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by AG4

...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** · January 8th, 2011 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by vivafoxpro

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** · January 8th, 2011 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

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.

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

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** · January 8th, 2011 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by remleseyer

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** · January 8th, 2011 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

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** · January 8th, 2011 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by remleseyer

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.