Would you trade power for efficiency?
Late last year, we asked our readers if they would be willing to pay $25,000 for a Ford Fiesta that managed 63 U.S. miles per gallon in EU combined cycle testing. Survey says... Yes! The results from our very unscientific poll of admittedly green-minded readers suggests that 64% of those taking part would consider paying a relatively high cost for a high mileage vehicle. Remember, though, that this was right after the sting of record gas prices that greatly impacted the driving habits of millions of Americans.
Now, gas is cheap again, and Motor Trend is taking a slightly different tack with a similar question: Would you trade power for 63 miles per gallon? The target of the issue is once again the Ford Fiesta, which in ECOnetic form comes with a 1.6L TDCi turbodiesel under the hood cranking out 88 raging stallions. So, is it worth it? Answer in our new poll below.
| Yes, economy is king! | |
|---|---|
| No, 90 horses isn't enough |
[Sources: Motor Trend, Clean Green Cars]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Mirko 10:41AM (1/30/2009)
It has a bit more power than the Polo Bluemotion and gets a bit better fuel economy - so yes.
I wouldn't bother to get a gasser 120hp Fiesta. The diesel is only 250€ more than that one.
Reply
tom engineer 10:50AM (1/30/2009)
ABG owes it to its own journalistic integrity, and certainly its readers, to stop quoting and tempting us with European-cycle fuel economy results. Those results are obviously not comparable to US-cycle results, and tend to overestimate fuel economy over the US-cycle by ~15-20%. So they're neither comparable to the label fuel economy numbers in the US, nor do they represent likely real-world results.
As a green website, your job is to inform and excite about efficient technologies, not to mislead with apples-to-pears comparisons. Europe's great cars should be noticed in the US, but their specifications must be compared on an equal footing with US vehicles. I strongly recommend that ABG find out an average percentage correction factor between US and Euro cycle results (based on same-powertrain vehicles sold in both markets), and quote the "corrected" number that can be directly compared to US label results. Anything less is simply duping your readers.
Reply
pdx 10:56AM (1/30/2009)
"(based on same-powertrain vehicles sold in both markets)"
How the heck could they do that? There are almost no diesel vehicles sold in the USA.
Since a diesel engine will perform drastically different than a gasoline engine during some of the test cycles and driving styles, you can't make the "crosswalk" using gasoline models alone. (In addition - we here in the states don't even get many of the gasoline powertrains that they do in Europe).
So why are you blaming ABG for something that is the fault of the auto makers?
They simply don't sell anything like these cars and powertrains in the USA. There is no way to know what they will do exactly with American drivers, American test cycles, and American streets.
Would you rather ABG made things up?
GoodCheer 11:03AM (1/30/2009)
Thanks you tom engineer for bringing this up. I am frustrated by the presentation of these numbers as well. I suppose we should be glad of the small victories, like having them convert UK to US gallons, but as you point out, that is not enough.
I have been trying to compile a database of EPA and EU fuel economy numbers for identical vehicle, but there are so darn few identical vehicles (often our smallest engine option is larger than their largest), that it's a very short list... and I don't want to spend weeks on it. That being said, I think your estimation 15-20% is about right.
ronEbear 11:29AM (1/30/2009)
U.S. Gallon = 3.78 litres
European Gallon = 4.54 litres
3.78 / 4.54 = 0.83
So, a U.S. gallon in 83% of a European gallon.
60 (mpg) * 0.83 ( or 83%) = 49.8 mpg
There are your approximate numbers for efficiency if strictly comparing fluid volumes.
ronEbear 11:32AM (1/30/2009)
Just multiply by 0.83 for a quick reference.
Another one I use a lot is converting miles to kilometers. Just multiply miles by 1.6.
Jeremy Korzeniewski 12:15PM (1/30/2009)
tom, we did convert the mileage figure to U.S. gallons, but predicting what a car would get in U.S. testing is pretty tough, and it depends on many wide ranging factors, as I'm sure you know. Best guess would be that the Focus ECOnetic would score in the mid 50s in EPA testing, but Ford could and probably would optimize it for U.S. testing if it were actually sold here, and that can make a world of difference in reported numbers. In the real world, though, official numbers don't really matter, and driving style makes a huge impact... in other words, that'd be a huge nut to crack.
tomW 2:26PM (1/30/2009)
thanks for replies! first, I'm not discussing the US gallon vs. UK gallon--ABG usually takes care of that. The issue is the difference between euro and US fuel economy tests and GoodCheer seems to be on top of it. Some vehicles sold in both markets with the same powertrain: prius, insight, jetta tdi, bmw 335d, smart, saturn astra, many german cars. If you make a list of the fuel economy numbers these cars get on US cycle and EU cycle you'll see a pattern: US cycle gives you a lower number by about X %. It looks like X is probably ~15-20%, but of course it would be better to calculate a real average based on all vehicles instead of guestimating. Then you can apply this correction factor to predict US cycle fuel economy. This isn't perfect, but it is a major step in the right direction. That's certainly better than comparing numbers from two completely different tests.
PeterG 3:33PM (1/30/2009)
It is not just the difference in Gallon size. It is the difference in the cycle used to get fuel economy.
To get a further adjustment compare the EPA 30/40mpg for the 140hp Jetta Diesel to the whatever it gets in Euro land and you have your comparison.
This is so we don't have another, Jetta is coming and will get 60MPG fiasco.
pdx 10:52AM (1/30/2009)
After years of owning and driving a 90hp VW TDI, I can say without a doubt that a 90hp diesel is more than enough for most cars. (Anyway, you shop horsepower - you DRIVE torque).
People have been bamboozled by advertising. People buy 250 hoursepower cars and use 20% of that horsepower on a daily basis. We don't need them.
Reply
Dolphyn 10:52AM (1/30/2009)
90 horsepower seems like plenty for a light-weight, low-end vehicle. For comparison, Geo Metro is 55 horsepower and Ford Festiva is 63 horsepower. (But, the Fiesta is heavier and therefore requires more power.)
Reply
Richard 4:34PM (1/30/2009)
FWIW, I'm currently driving my little "junk truck" a fair amount - and its a 15 year old Ford Ranger with the four cylinder engine that has that amount of power when new. Less now. And its gas, too, so far lower torque. And you know what?
Its just fine for city driving, and does okay on the highway at 80+ in a non-aerodynamic form factor.
BoomBoom 10:57AM (1/30/2009)
A quick surf over to any UK car website will see that European models have lots of engine choices. These are mostly cars that are sold in the US with only the largest engine option. Can't automakers give folks in the US the same choices? Sure many lots of Americans want their powerful autos, but give us the option of going for the smaller, more efficient engine rather than forcing us to get more HP every year. The I4 Camry is now outselling the V6. Does it really cost that much more to have multiple engine options in a vehicle?
Reply
UH2L 11:20AM (1/30/2009)
I used to work in the auto industry. Yes, it does cost a lot for each additional powertrain combination. Calibration, durability testing, certification, other manufacturing and development work add lots of cost. I just don't know how they manage it in Europe. I guess they have to for the markets there.
BoomBoom 12:52PM (1/30/2009)
Well, then, perhaps we should demand the same for our markets here.
Throwback 3:01PM (1/30/2009)
Yes, since it adds supply costs and certification costs. Also most of the small cars in Europe are sold with manual transmissions. How many manual tranny 88 HP vehicles do you think will sell in the USA?
Paul Sallmen 3:12PM (1/30/2009)
UH2L: You have hit the nail on the head. The North American market is so over-regulated, that car manufacturers will generally choose what they feel will be the most popular engine and have it tested for sale in the Canada and the US. In Canada, we've even got the silly rule that potential buyers can't even cherry pick the features they want: Say you only want heated seats, but none of the other features. Too bad, because you have to buy "Package B" and get all the ABS, electronic stabilizer, etc, etc that comes in that package. Engine choices are the same. It's a hassle to certify so many engine choices, so many manufacturers simply don't bother.
Clearly a few changes need to be made:
1. Both Canada and the US need to simply adopt the EU standard. Period. Any car manufacturers, private individuals or small start-up companies can import anything they want without the hassles, red-tape, bureaucracy or needless expense to "comply" with so-called US or Canadian standards. The way it stands now, from what I understand, it is virtually impossible to import a foreign market car in to Canada or the US unless it is a "classic" (ie 15+ years in Canada, 25+ years in US).
2. More innovation from start-ups like Zenn, Aptera, or Tesla is needed. They call America "the land of the free" and Canada the "true north strong and free", but when it comes to cars, neither place is that. That's why both countries need to create a new class of car: called "innovative class". This class will be designed mainly for upstart companies (However regular OEMs will have the same rules). It will be designed to bring things like electric cars to market very quickly. To qualify, the following criteria must be met:
a) a certain model must sell less than 1000 units in all of Canada and/or less than 10 000 in all of the US.
b) the vehicle must emit no exhaust (ie it will be electric, or perhaps, but not not likely, hydrogen)
OR
b) the vehicle may be powered by more traditional fuels (gas, diesel, propane), but it will have to meet emission standards for the year 2000 only, and will have to achieve a least 2.5 L/100 km combined fuel economy as determined by EU or Transport Canada, or 3 L/100 km (78 MPG) as determined by EPA (stricter test).
If the vehicle meets criteria a) and one of b), the vehicle may be sold without an official crash safety, a big expense for a start-up company. However, the vehicle will need to be sold with basic stuff like seat belts (much like the current NEV class is). There would also be a warning label on the sun visor, stating something to the effect that "This is an innovative class of vehicle, and has therefore been exempted from formal crash testing. The driver and passengers of this vehicle understand this, and will not hold the vendor or previous owner liable in the event of an accident". Perhaps something could also be signed at the dealer or the Ministry of Transportation/DMV if the vehicle is used.
I think this is reasonable. I find it strange that we need so much regulation for new cars when bicycles, scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, rusty old cars, being a pedestrian crossing the street, are much, much less safe.
They talk about bailing out the auto industry. What they really should be doing is unshackling them from all the red tape!
Gary 11:08AM (1/30/2009)
I've had fairly high horsepower cars in the past. Sure they're a blast to drive... .when the few opportunities to open it up actually occur. In my daily commute I rarely get over 50mph and spend a good part of the time either speeding up, slowing down or waiting at lights. A start/stop system is now much more practical. Years ago i got a Civic Hybrid (I'm about to flip 100K miles on it now) and it definitely didn't have the power of previous cars... however it did have the MPGs. Can I pass? sure. Can I merge on expressways? Sure. Can I drag from light to light... sure... as long as I don't mind the MPG hit and losing... :)
In all seriousness it has worked just fine and the lower HP compared to previous vehicles has never really been missed. In fact it has helped me to drive better. I know that it isn't going to win any stop light races so I stopped driving that way. And seeing the real time MPG read out when I step on it helped me to stop doing that too.
My criteria for my next vehicle: high MPGs (defined as a minimum of 40, and preferably 50+). Good leg room (the one area that many cars fail (for me)). Comfortable ride. The rest of the stuff is just nice to have but not necessities. While I haven't tried it yet, the upcoming Ford Fusion Hybrid might be the ticket,. My wife had a regular Fusion for a rental when her car was getting worked on and liked it. I didn't drive it but as a passenger I had good leg room and it had a nice smooth ride.You didn't feel the bumps very much.
Being American, if the Fiesta has better leg room than the foriegn cars and high MPGs then it just might edge out the Fusion, for me, as it looks to be a more flexible (IMHO) hatchback.
Reply
Mark 11:15AM (1/30/2009)
Isn't the real issue power to weight ratio when considering this sort of thing? So is 88hp enough? Yes, if the car's light enough. Is $25K a lot? Yes... but if you drive enough and the price of gas is high enough it's worth the premium. Here's my only issue... at 15,000 miles a year, and $4 gas, I save roughly 1k per year. So, for roughly the same $25k, why wouldn't I get a Mini Cooper S, with 172hp, 0-60 in 6.7sec, and spend the extra 80 bucks a month?
I guess for me performance is worth that much...
Disclosure: I currently ride my bicycle. Not sure of the HP rating, but the last horse I was near looked like it could go pretty fast...
Reply
Red 11:17AM (1/30/2009)
Power and Economy in a normal-looking four passenger vehicle are not mutually exclusive. And I don't mean turbochargers, nor diesels, nor hybrids. Keep that in mind.
Reply