Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost Dyno

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76

I don't buy that. The Fit has a 6-speed with closer gear ratios, but it also needs an additional shift to hit 60 (3rd gear vs. 2nd gear in the Fiesta).

Overall, though, you're trading an awful lot for a very small mpg increase by going with the Fiesta 1.0L ecoboost. Compared to a Fit, you're paying more to get a slower car with a less reliable engine that also has a lot less usable room inside.

If MPG was really important, a Prius C seems like the better option to me (especially for city driving). The Prius's 53/46 mpg trumps the 32/45mpg rating of the 1.0 Fiesta and 33/41 rating of the Honda Fit.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,353
8,444
126
The Elise has more power, less torque, and is more peaky:

8988-2006-Lotus-Elise-Dyno.jpg

look at that vtec kick in! :sneaky:
 

phreaqe

Golden Member
Mar 22, 2004
1,204
3
81
I don't buy that. The Fit has a 6-speed with closer gear ratios, but it also needs an additional shift to hit 60 (3rd gear vs. 2nd gear in the Fiesta).

Overall, though, you're trading an awful lot for a very small mpg increase by going with the Fiesta 1.0L ecoboost. Compared to a Fit, you're paying more to get a slower car with a less reliable engine that also has a lot less usable room inside.

If MPG was really important, a Prius C seems like the better option to me (especially for city driving). The Prius's 53/46 mpg trumps the 32/45mpg rating of the 1.0 Fiesta and 33/41 rating of the Honda Fit.

You keep saying that the Fiesta costs more, but when comparing the equal trim levels it looks like the Fit costs more. The Fiesta SFE is the SE level car, so compare it to the EX fit and its cheaper. also .3 seconds is such a small difference that nobody would be even able to tell. Its also way to early to judge reliability though it will probably lean towards honda when its all said and done, you cant make that claim today. The fit does have a ton of cargo space though, its actually really impressive that they managed to squeeze that much space out of it.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,250
5,693
146
It's hard to say why the acceleration is off and why it's not terribly efficient considering but gearing could be a big part where it's gearing happens to be poor for the testing they did (for instance maybe 45-65 instead of 50-70). The power band and the driving impressions I've read indicate that it's a lot livelier once you get moving and that it's a bit of a dog down low.

It actually sounds a lot like a diesel (slow standing acceleration), only they traded some of the benefits of diesel (efficiency, reliability) for a small packaging size so it's ok-ish but there's some tradeoffs.

The Elise has more power, less torque, and is more peaky:

8988-2006-Lotus-Elise-Dyno.jpg

Oh forgot to add output for the weight of the engine. The other thing I'd like to know is packaging size, and that's something small engines like this will be hard to realize right away (as in just slotting them into cars that normally use a larger 4 cylinder).

Kinda like how Hyundai was able to design the Sonata differently by only going with 4 cylinder engines, it might take a new generation car built around that to realize the full potential.

Wonder how longevity will be on such a highly stressed engine. 150 HP/L sounds good, but how will it fare after 100k miles?

It's got a cast iron block so the bottom end should be fairly robust, but there's quite a bit else to wonder about (has dual cooling channels so that they can let different parts of the engine heat up at different rate to help efficiency).

This engine has been out in the UK for a while.

Scary numbers of reports of head gasket failure at low miles. One case of someone having 2 head gasket replacements during the 50k mile warranty, and then a 3rd failure just out of warranty leaving them SOL.

This engine runs crazy boost (20 psi), and the head and cooling system is so small that you get significant heat-soak just climbing a hill.

EGTs are so high that there isn't an exhaust manifold as such - the manifold is part of the head casting so that it can be water-cooled.

Disappointing, but it is a pretty new engine so hopefully things they can get worked out. I do wonder if they didn't overengineer it to the point where they'll make problems for themselves.

The high boost might explain some things (standing acceleration for instance) if it takes a while for the small turbo to build proper boost. The preview drives have mentioned it's a dog starting out but once you get going it livens up, and so it's possible it's more of a freeway hauler. It actually sounds a lot like the way they started tuning diesels in small cars (where they focus on them having passing power at highway speed).

Another thing that's fairly concerning is that real world MPG doesn't seem to be living up to the EPA numbers, largely because to keep this engine in the power range you've got to flog it pretty decently.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
I don't buy that. The Fit has a 6-speed with closer gear ratios, but it also needs an additional shift to hit 60 (3rd gear vs. 2nd gear in the Fiesta).

Overall, though, you're trading an awful lot for a very small mpg increase by going with the Fiesta 1.0L ecoboost. Compared to a Fit, you're paying more to get a slower car with a less reliable engine that also has a lot less usable room inside.

If MPG was really important, a Prius C seems like the better option to me (especially for city driving). The Prius's 53/46 mpg trumps the 32/45mpg rating of the 1.0 Fiesta and 33/41 rating of the Honda Fit.

I'm a little lost as to what you're arguing. Are you saying the Ford's numbers aren't right? Are you comparing the Fiesta to a Fit? The Fiesta to a Prius C?

Can you keep the goal posts in one place and try to tell what you have against the Fiesta?
 

tweakmonkey

Senior member
Mar 11, 2013
728
32
91
tweak3d.net
Prius C costs more, is MUCH slower, and is way less fun to drive. Nobody should be cross-shopping those two cars.

Also the Fit might be come close to the Fiesta on the 30-50 for example, but I bet you'd have to downshift, maybe twice to match what the Fiesta can do left in the same gear. And I bet when you drive the piss out of both cars, the Fiesta runs way ahead on gas mileage.
 
Last edited:

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
Prius C costs more, is MUCH slower, and is way less fun to drive. Nobody should be cross-shopping those two cars.

Also the Fit might be come close to the Fiesta on the 30-50 for example, but I bet you'd have to downshift, maybe twice to match what the Fiesta can do left in the same gear. And I bet when you drive the piss out of both cars, the Fiesta runs way ahead on gas mileage.

Not having driven the C I have no direct input, but I do have a hybrid and having gobs of torque at 0rpm actually makes for a nice experience in city driving. The C is something like 10.5 0-60, but I bet it'd beat either the Fit or Fiesta to 35. That's not the whole story, of course, as Toyota does like to tune everything else to be completely lifeless.

As for the Fiesta running away in gas mileage when flogging it, I'd have actually put my money on the Fit in those cases. Once you get into boost you're probably going rich and pulling timing more than simply running a larger engine at higher load - that's where they're most efficient. Rather, I'm betting with conservative driving (staying out of boost) the Fiesta probably delivers much better numbers than the Fit, but it loses a lot of efficiency once the turbo spins up.

Hybrids are really the best of both worlds; You can have a smaller displacement engine for great highway cruising, power on-demand for passing and accelerating in city that doesn't take the engine out of its peak efficiency, and most of that power down low only without the turbo lag. It's a shame you can't buy anything from Toyota that doesn't use their planetary gearbox.
 

tweakmonkey

Senior member
Mar 11, 2013
728
32
91
tweak3d.net
My friend (who made the video I linked to) just borrowed the Fiesta Ecoboost for a week of testing and in his words "35 combined while hammering it like a dirty whore". My girlfriend's Fit can barely hit 30 if you're driving it hard (but it's a 2009). If you cruise gently it can hit high 30s.

If he got 35, I bet people out there are getting 50 MPG highway - I found a few videos in fact where people did eek 50 MPG from their Fiesta.

I think the Fiesta doesn't need as much throttle or revs to keep speed. You can keep it out of the powerband and squeeze a little boost for some MPH. As much as I love Honda and NA (I have an S2000 for pete's sake) I think these little turbo engines are where it's at. And yes hybrids are great.. give me auto stop and the extra torque + more MPG from a 1.0 Turbo hybrid and a manual transmission and I'm sold.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Our real-world mileage for this test was 32 mpg. With a lighter right foot, it likely would be substantially better.

Even Car and Driver, with a heavy foot, got 32mpg with the hatch and 30mpg with the sedan.
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91
Well as a guy who cross shopped the Fiesta 1.6 (When I got mine in January no 1.0's were available in the Midwest), and the Prius C, I can tell you that what's said here is pretty true. The Prius C has smooth, but extremely pitiful at 100HP combined, acceleration and would beat a fiesta to 15mph. The problem with the auto fiesta is that gear 1 is a creeper gear of sorts, to keep the transmission and engine connected as people drive the DCT like an automatic around parking lots and up drive way hills ect (where you would normally be working the clutch during those times). So the fiesta 1.6 is very slow off the line, torque management on the computer side is severe. Beyond 15mph, the light weight of the fiesta really shines, and handily outruns a Prius C.

As for fuel economy, the C easily got better mileage, and I was very close to getting it. But it's winter mileage wasn't nearly as stellar thanks to the ICE running alot just to make some warmth for the car. I also tend to drive around (for work) with the rear fully loaded, and having to keep the battery cooling vent clear was going to be a pain in the butt. I average 27mpg hand calculated in winter (all city, very little highway), and 30.6 mpg calculated during this summer and right now. Several tanks of highway (which requires quite a few hundred miles in a row as 9 gallons goes a very long way on this car) I get about 45.1mpg hand calculated.
 

tweakmonkey

Senior member
Mar 11, 2013
728
32
91
tweak3d.net
But this thread isn't about the Fiesta 1.6... It's all about the Ecoboost 1.0 Turbo, which has much more torque and is available only with a manual transmission, which is why I doubt anyone would cross-shop against a Prius. The Prius is great don't get me wrong, but the Ecoboost Fiesta is a lot sportier and more of a driver's car than a Prius. I can't imagine someone trying to choose between a turbo manual car and an automatic hybrid.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
Heh. Must admit the fact that it sounds like a V6 surprised me a bit, but I suppose it shouldn't have.
 

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
I'm a little lost as to what you're arguing. Are you saying the Ford's numbers aren't right? Are you comparing the Fiesta to a Fit? The Fiesta to a Prius C?

Can you keep the goal posts in one place and try to tell what you have against the Fiesta?

I'm saying why would anyone even consider the Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost when it costs more than the Fit, is slower, barely gets better MPG, and has half the cargo room despite weighing the same as the Fit? Not to mention the fact that the turbo 1.0L is most likely less reliable than the engine in the Fit.

I don't personally have anything against it. I'm just lost as to where the Fiesta fits into the marketplace.

You keep saying that the Fiesta costs more, but when comparing the equal trim levels it looks like the Fit costs more. The Fiesta SFE is the SE level car, so compare it to the EX fit and its cheaper. also .3 seconds is such a small difference that nobody would be even able to tell. Its also way to early to judge reliability though it will probably lean towards honda when its all said and done, you cant make that claim today. The fit does have a ton of cargo space though, its actually really impressive that they managed to squeeze that much space out of it.

It makes no sense to compare trim levels. What I compare are features, not trim levels. The SE trim level of the Fiesta is comparable in features to the base LX-level Fit. Heck, the Fit LX has a rearview camera while the Fiesta SE doesn't, so in some ways even a base Fit LX is better equipped than the Fiesta SE. The Fit EX has things like a power moonroof, which aren't even standard on the Fiesta Titanium.

So, yes, I stand by my opinion that the Fiesta costs more.

Torque curve in the 1.0 is amazing.

Also check this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0CukuVJqSM

0-60 in under 8 seconds. And look at his average MPG

Not to nit-pick, but was he just going by the speedometer? Speedometers are always calibrated to be on the conservative side, so 60 mph indicated might be only 56 or 57 mph. Sure it's only a few mph difference, but on a low-powered car like this it can easily be the difference between a 7.8 and 8.3. Car and Driver uses a Racelogic VBox system which is at least consistent between different cars.
 
Last edited:

tweakmonkey

Senior member
Mar 11, 2013
728
32
91
tweak3d.net
It's not easy to compare option to option, but I just tried to get heated seats in a Fit on Honda's site and had to price out a $19,500 Fit with an AUTOMATIC to get them. In the Ecoboost Fiesta it's available at $17500 (or 15,900 with a manual SE 1.6 model). Looks like you can't get a manual transmission and the heated seats together on a Fit. :(

They're different cars. Sure the Fit's bigger, but who needs the extra space? I'd rather have the extra FUN. And while the powerband looks equal on paper if you do 0-60 numbers, after an hour of driving both there's no way you'd think a car with a flat torque curve like that is inferior to the Fit's peak power being "about the same" and MUCH lower across the board. It might be able to pass on the freeway at the same rate but only if you downshift once or twice. It's a totally different type of power curve and the Fiesta's is clearly superior. Reliability, OK, who knows. Features, close call. Mileage, Fiesta. Fun, Fiesta. No doubt.

Is the Fit a better car? Probably. Is the Fiesta MUCH worse? Nope, it's just different. But I bet it's a lot more fun to drive. Besides this whole post I made is about the wonderful Ecoboost engine. If you're going to talk about cargo space and backup cameras, you're in the wrong thread.
 

phreaqe

Golden Member
Mar 22, 2004
1,204
3
81
It makes no sense to compare trim levels. What I compare are features, not trim levels. The SE trim level of the Fiesta is comparable in features to the base LX-level Fit. Heck, the Fit LX has a rearview camera while the Fiesta SE doesn't, so in some ways even a base Fit LX is better equipped than the Fiesta SE. The Fit EX has things like a power moonroof, which aren't even standard on the Fiesta Titanium.

So, yes, I stand by my opinion that the Fiesta costs more.

If i want navigation or satellite radio on the fit i have to go to the ex-l trim level while i can get that on the SE fiesta so we can do this all day long. A far comparison would be the same trim level even though the features may not be exactly the same, but you don't want a far comparison because you want the fit to win so i am not even sure why i am trying to bring reason to this argument.
 

monkeydelmagico

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2011
3,961
145
106
Thanks for the report. It lines up with other things I've read; I was looking at ecoboost trucks just a little and not really loving what I find.

+1. My dad's f150 is ecoboost. Been in the shop alot. While I applaud ford for going turbo I wouldn't spend my own money on any turbo mill they are currently producing.
 

phreaqe

Golden Member
Mar 22, 2004
1,204
3
81
+1. My dad's f150 is ecoboost. Been in the shop alot. While I applaud ford for going turbo I wouldn't spend my own money on any turbo mill they are currently producing.

Since your going by purely anecdotal evidence, our eco boost has been running great and we have had 0 problems with the car.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
On such a low HP car, the flat torque band of a small turbo like the fiesta would be my choice any day. You can't afford to be peaky when you have so little to work with.
 

monkeydelmagico

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2011
3,961
145
106
Since your going by purely anecdotal evidence, our eco boost has been running great and we have had 0 problems with the car.

Awesome. Now we only need one more anecdotal + to get a tie with the three anecdotal - for an in thread anecdotal tie. Go round up some more votes.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Since your going by purely anecdotal evidence, our eco boost has been running great and we have had 0 problems with the car.

Nevermind that those same turbos have already been running in Europe for years, and years, and years. Turbos don't = bad. Unfortunately a whole lot of shitty engineering resulted in many people thinking that they do in the US. Hell, doesn't every diesel semi on the road sport a turbo?