Topic: Test Drive: 2011 Ford Fiesta SES hatchback

[bridgecity]

mkll -  impressed by your research , have emailed that list to myself to see if there are any worth adding to my favorites

jaeger , those mpg were gov postings of mileage , though we might not be able to duplicate those numbers they are good for comparison - so i discard c/d mileage claims that the fit is gets best mpg of the 3
suspect on the 8 sec times as well

maybe you should quote a less bias source next time 

Why would you discard the mileage claims from C/D?  I would consider real world mileage more important than claimed numbers. 

And your supect on the 0-60 times?  I did a quick search.  Automobile magazine has a 0-60 time of 7.9 seconds for their long term Fit. 

You're sounding biased as well.

[Jaeger]

mkll -  impressed by your research , have emailed that list to myself to see if there are any worth adding to my favorites

jaeger , those mpg were gov postings of mileage , though we might not be able to duplicate those numbers they are good for comparison - so i discard c/d mileage claims that the fit is gets best mpg of the 3
suspect on the 8 sec times as well

maybe you should quote a less bias source next time 

Why would you discard the mileage claims from C/D?  I would consider real world mileage more important than claimed numbers. 

And your supect on the 0-60 times?  I did a quick search.  Automobile magazine has a 0-60 time of 7.9 seconds for their long term Fit. 

You're sounding biased as well.

I agree.   People have a misconception that the EPA numbers are gospel.  They're not.  The EPA doesn't even test the vast majority of the cars they supposedly "rate".  Rather, they set standard procedures that the require manufacturers to follow and rely on what they are told. the Fiesta's EPA rating has a very good chance of being nothing more that Ford's rating for the Fiesta.

I wonder what an unbiased source of information might be - MKII??? 

Oh, and you better discard Automobile Magazine's test results for the Fit - they are clearly in on the conspiracy with C/D to make the Fit seem better than it really is. 

Jaeger

[Dante]

Automobile magazine has a 0-60 time of 7.9 seconds for their long term Fit. 

Now this is really pushing it... I really have hard time to believe that a Fit or any other car in this class can do below 8 sec to 60 mph. I don't even think under 9 sec is likely, but so said C/D so it must be possible.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Here are the results from a Car and Driver solo test of a 5 speed Fiesta hatch.

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 9.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.8 sec @ 83 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 118 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 170 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q1/2011_ford_fiesta-road_test

And another for the 5 speed sedan:

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 9.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 29.1
Street start, 5–60 mph: 9.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 17.0 sec @ 82 mph
Top speed (Drag Limited): 119 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 175 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q2/2011_ford_fiesta_sel-short_take_road_test


The Ecoboost Fiesta will be out in the Spring, apparently with ~186hp.

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/10q1/2011_ford_fiesta_ecoboost-spied

[bikenut]

i don't believe the mileage claims because the yaris gets better mpg than the fit and the fiesta has claimed mpg the same or a little better than the yaris
i don't discount mpg ratings of gov sites because they act as a comparison to other cars in its class , and the yaris and the feista beat the fit in both the canadian and u.s. gov sites in mpg ratings

the feista weighs quite a bit more than the fit so the fit will defineately be quicker

just read about the di engines going in too - good news for the fiesta - but a price jump

[MKII]

mkll -  impressed by your research , have emailed that list to myself to see if there are any worth adding to my favorites

jaeger , those mpg were gov postings of mileage , though we might not be able to duplicate those numbers they are good for comparison - so i discard c/d mileage claims that the fit is gets best mpg of the 3
suspect on the 8 sec times as well

maybe you should quote a less bias source next time 

Why would you discard the mileage claims from C/D?  I would consider real world mileage more important than claimed numbers. 

And your supect on the 0-60 times?  I did a quick search.  Automobile magazine has a 0-60 time of 7.9 seconds for their long term Fit. 

You're sounding biased as well.

It is quite easy to find "real world mileage stats" just go to forums that are particular to that specific vehicle.
Such as http://fiestafaction.com/forums/ were the actual owners  are posting there average
fuel consumptions. There if one is really interested and takes the time to read through the threads, one will see that
a high percentage of actual owners are getting better "real world mileage" then the manufacturer window sticker claims.
IMO these stats are more "real world" then a auto journalists test drive review.

BTW fiestafaction.com is a North American based forum so most info read there pertains to the North American Fiesta.

Wing is there anyway that the ignore function can filter out when the ignored poster is quoted by another poster?

[bikenut]

yes wing , you'll have to get on that , we wouldn't want to annoy mk11 with my posts

[MKII]

yes wing , you'll have to get on that , we wouldn't want to annoy mk11 with my posts

Hey bikernut you are not on my ignore list

[Jaeger]

Wow, I guess pretty much nobody here but me bothers with car magazines anymore.  After all, their subjective opinions are clouded by institutional bias, and worse, they deliberately falsify tested / measured / timed results in order to present their favourite vehicles in a better light. 

So for reliable data on the Fiesta, we don't rely on what C/D reported (an actual in-print magazine, published for decades with professional journalists who attach their actual names to their reports), what we do rely upon is... wait for it.... wait a bit more.....  okay: we rely on reports from anonymous owners on a Fiesta fan site!     Yep.  Doesn't get any more "real" than that.

And just check the source of that suggestion and ponder why it would be made.

Jaeger

PS - an Ecoboost Fiesta should offer a real class advantage for the enthusiast buyer.

[wing]

What I find weird is I did a 0-60 on the fit when I first had one and recorded 10 something as well.

I remember now it was an auto

[bikenut]

nice to know mark11
i must have misread it

but i have to agree with jaeger on this point about forum mpg , some people exaggerate their mpg  and others are hypermilers which are far from real world figures , and that goes for all forums talking mpg of their cars
jaeger , just because 1 or 2 mags have a bias , doesn't mean they all do , maybe they are concerned the big sponsers will withdraw their advertising , thats why consumer reports and others that don't accept advertising have a little more credebility, though i'm certain some mags rep for integrity is so good they don't feel threatened by their advertising revenue

[Jaeger]

but i have to agree with jaeger on this point about forum mpg , some people exaggerate their mpg  and others are hypermilers which are far from real world figures , and that goes for all forums talking mpg of their cars
jaeger , just because 1 or 2 mags have a bias , doesn't mean they all do , maybe they are concerned the big sponsers will withdraw their advertising , thats why consumer reports and others that don't accept advertising have a little more credebility, though i'm certain some mags rep for integrity is so good they don't feel threatened by their advertising revenue

And who makes the determination as to which mags are biased and what is this determination based upon?  Are all mags who accept advertising dollars inherently untrustworthy?  Doesn't Canadian Driver accept advertising money?  And who makes the finding that the biased mags actually falsify test results - and what is the factual basis for this finding.  People can say anything.  Backing it up can be a little harder.

You know what the source almost invariably is for claiming a magazine is biased?  They said something less than flattering about a car / brand favoured by the person making the accusation.  Had C/D proclaimed the Fiesta the vastly superior vehicle in its class - the fastest, best handling and most fuel efficient - do you really thing the Ford fanboys and domestic boosters would be claiming they were biased and that we couldn't trust a thing they said?

Jaeger

[Dante]

It is not that the Fit is faster than Fiesta off the line, but the number C/D posted (0-60 mph in 8.3sec) is a bit curious at least. 9.3 sec? More likely (typo?).
At 8.3sec to 60mph, the Fit would be at par or faster than some compact sedans with more power and not too much more weight not to mention SUVs, etc.
Hard to believe based on the common sense only.

[Jaeger]

It is not that the Fit is faster than Fiesta off the line, but the number C/D posted (0-60 mph in 8.3sec) is a bit curious at least. 9.3 sec? More likely (typo?).
At 8.3sec to 60mph, the Fit is at par or faster than some compact sedans with more power and not too much more weight not to mention SUVs, etc.
Hard to believe based on the common sense only.

Seems a bit quicker than I would have expected, but it doesn't defy common sense to me.  Having driven a manual Fit many times, 10 sec plus seems very high.

Is it a typo by C/D?  Hey, all I can do is tell you what they printed.  If they change it by the time the article is posted to their web site, then we'll know.

But then what's up with Automobile Mag - even quicker, but a whole lot closer to 8.3 than 10.  Is that a typo?  Is their equipment busted?  Are they faking the results?  What if some other mag comes out with a low-to-mid 8 time for the car?  At what point do you accept that is just might be possible?

More to the point - were you as incredulous at the 8.7 sec time posted for the Fiesta from a separate test?  If not, why is 4/10ths quicker for the Fit the stuff of fantasy?

Jaeger

[Dante]

I'm skeptical about numbers below 9.0sec @60 mph on these cars (Fiesta included).

Automobile Magazine' 7.9 sec or so sounds even more unrealistic to me. Just look at the numbers posted for cars that you know that are faster.

[johngenx]

Is Automobile Magazine using test equipment now?  The last time I read the mag (many years ago) they just used manufacturer supplied data, and didn't generate any of their own.  David E Davis just became a larger, more pompous ass with each issue, so I gave up.

[rrocket]

It is not that the Fit is faster than Fiesta off the line, but the number C/D posted (0-60 mph in 8.3sec) is a bit curious at least. 9.3 sec? More likely (typo?).
At 8.3sec to 60mph, the Fit would be at par or faster than some compact sedans with more power and not too much more weight not to mention SUVs, etc.
Hard to believe based on the common sense only.

My Echo with a stick was 0-60 8.5 seconds with 105HP.  Curb weight is only ~2000 lbs.

I know they are a touch heavier, but it may come down to gearing...

[bikenut]

its not that hard to see if a mag is biased or not , it just takes time
i know cycleworld is by simply reading tests on the same bikes in other mags over the years and when the majority of the tests say one thing and the biased mag consistently states another or consistantly paints one brand in a favourable light over all other brands it becomes obvious , i used to tell my biking buddies cycleworld sucks hondas ,,,,

so i'm sure if your a reg reader of car mags , the same thing will become apparent to you too

i'm relatively new to the car world so i have no idea which mag is not bias , but if i were to
guess , i would say road and track , i don't find candian driver biased either despite my quip on all the tests on the fiesta but then i haven't been reading it that long to give an informed opinion either way
bikes is what i was raised on not cars , so you avid long time car mag readers should know which car mags aren't biased

[Jaeger]

My Echo with a stick was 0-60 8.5 seconds with 105HP.  Curb weight is only ~2000 lbs.

I know they are a touch heavier, but it may come down to gearing...

Is that sourced from a biased car magazine? 

If an Echo can go 8.5, I don't think 8.3 for a Fit is necessarily the stuff of science fiction.

Hey - I wouldn't have been the least bit surprised to see high 8's and low 9's for this trio.  But I don't find 8.3 to be so face-peeling fast for the Fit that I would be calling the magazine's integrity into question based on the number alone.

I know the gearing as between the manual and automatic Fit is significantly different, even though both offer 5 forward gears.  The gearing is much shorter on the manual - making it much more responsive around town, but rev higher than the auto on the highway.  It's a tradeoff I'd gladly live with - though a 6 speed would give it the best of both worlds.

Jaeger

[Bubba]

Have a read of this article on the Car and Driver site.  It'll shed light on how the test cars. 
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q3/how_does_c_d_test_cars_-info

This quote from the article explains that the numbers in the magazine may not be the numbers recorded on the day of the test.  Generally, they're very close, however.  In some cases, the Car and Driver website posts the uncorrected numbers.

"To eliminate the effects of weather on performance, we employ proprietary empirical correction factors to adjust all results to dry air at 14.7 psi and 60 degrees Fahrenheit using PsyCalc 98 software (www.linric.com) to crunch the weather data. Since cars run best in cold dense air, our correction tends to add time to results generated in low-temperature, high-pressure conditions and subtract time from hot-weather, low-pressure tests. To cancel the effects of the wind, all acceleration tests are run in both directions; the best runs in each direction are then averaged."

I believe Car and Driver makes every effort possible to record accurate results for their testing.