Fiesta Ecoboost - Anyone own / run one?

carter91

I'm thinking about buying a Fiesta Ecoboost Zetec.

If you are an owner, what do you think of the car? What options are worth getting?

I do about 11k mileage per year. Mainly rural / motorway.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

harveybobbles

Heard bad reports about the 1.0.. Not as nippy or efficient as it could be.

JustinR1979

Didn't top gear find this to be pretty juicy in the real world?

forgotmyname

They used to say for best economy change up the gears ASAP. But that doesnt work on a lot of modern cars.

The gearing is too high. Although they still pull well your using more fuel than dropping down a gear and using more revs.

Sounds mad but it works. Where peak torque is on your engine is usually at its most efficient.

harveybobbles

Bit like the Fiat 500 Twinair - fun to drive, but to keep moving you have to keep the revs up and then you end up with 35mpg, rather than the 50 Fiat claim..

OddballJamie

harveybobbles wrote: »

Bit like the Fiat 500 Twinair - fun to drive, but to keep moving you have to keep the revs up and then you end up with 35mpg, rather than the 50 Fiat claim..

Fiat claim 70mpg :eek:, one of the worst offenders for actual versus real life MPG. I read an article on it a while back and they supposedly tested it off boost to get the high figures, same as Ford did.

Another option for the 500 is the 1.2, but then you can't climb steep hills. :rotfl:

giraffe69

one of the worst offenders for actual versus real life MPG

Odd that they are one of the worst because the figures are determined using a set formula whatever the make of car. They are all significantly worse in real life than on set figures.
Admittedly the figures are only ever any good for comparison of one car against another because they are undertaken in a wholly unrealistic set of circumstances.

InsideInsurance

giraffe69 wrote: »

Odd that they are one of the worst because the figures are determined using a set formula whatever the make of car. They are all significantly worse in real life than on set figures.
Admittedly the figures are only ever any good for comparison of one car against another because they are undertaken in a wholly unrealistic set of circumstances.

But they're not really that good for that.

The tests used are well published and its not hard to build a product to a specific test. A car that intends to sell on its MPG would obviously be sensible to do this. Its unlikely someone buying a Porsche 911 Turbo is too bothered by its MPG so why compromise other aspects to achieve a higher figure?

The AA page on the matter is fairly interesting reading, saying the majority of cars come just under the weight threashold for the resistance setting on the rolling road and almost none are just over a threashold. Coincidence or design?

JustinR1979

Maybe they're tuned to the test to get good mpg as a selling point.
Wouldn't be hard to do.

Sterlingtimes

Beware of intensive selling process in the showroom. I spent extra to get improved economy and that was a poor decision. I take down the mileage at each petrol re-fill and work out the precise MPG (which is well below speedometer's associated MPG). The car achieves generally 35 to 40 MPG and is not much better than the Vauxhall Vectra that it replaced. I will never buy a car on eco-factors again.

At or near list price, this car is poor value.

Sterlingtimes

US MPG figures are quoted as 32 US-MPG city and 45 US-MPG highways.

I have converted these to 38.4 UK-MPG city and 54.0 MPG highway.

The 38.4 is far more realistic than the UK/EU measurement.

Mysteriously, my Start-Stop hardly ever worked. It was eventually fixed after a year, and then my MPG dropped.