Ford’s Fiesta subcompact has earned a top EPA rating of 40 mpg on the highway, and 29 mpg in the city, reports Automotive News [sub]. Those numbers are for Fiestas equipped with an optional six-speed autobox; manual transmission models get a 37/28 mpg rating. By comparison, auto-equipped versions of competitors like the Honda Fit (35/28) and Toyota Yaris (35/29) come up short on highway mileage in particular. But this isn’t the first time Ford has claimed 40+ mpg for one of its cars: the Fusion hybrid carries an EPA city rating of 41 mpg, despite coming up short of its government-endorsed rating in several real-world tests (although not as shockingly as Chevy’s Equinox, for example). But the EPA testing regime is hardly perfect anyway, so let’s just wait and see what the test drives yield before we start stringing up the piñata.
And how fares the Mazda2? Do they share drivetrains?
The Mazda2 does not share the Fiesta’s engine/transmission. The Mazda2 gets a 1.5L motor and either a 5-speed manual or a 4-speed auto. The EPA estimates for both powertrains are both lower than those for the Fiesta.
http://www.insideline.com/mazda/2/2011/2011-mazda-2-and-sky-powertrains-2010-new-york-auto-show.html
The Mazda 2 has a 1.5 and only a 4 speed slushbox/5 speed manual compared to the Festa’s 1.6 and 4 or 6 speed slushbox and 5 speed manual. How similar these are to each other I have no idea.
The manual equipped version of the Mazda2 has the same city rating but is off by 2mpg highway compared to the manual Fiesta. Unfortunate considering the Mazda weighs less and has a smaller engine. They probably made 5th gear pretty short so that you could get some power out of the 100hp engine without having to downshift. I don’t agree with it, but that’s probably what made the difference.
Mazda, you better get moving with those Sky-G engines that you keep talking about. This 1.5l that you just plopped in is almost a decade old, and it’s based off of the engine that was in the ’95 Protege. You have plenty of time and money to piss away on rotary engines, but you can’t get a solid 1.5l gasser to market in your subcompact? I see that you really have your priorities in place.
OK this headlight scalloping is getting a little ridiculous, the turn signal’s practically behind the damn wheel well! Jeez.
That’s the side marker. The turn signal is located on the inner corner of the headlight unit (next to the grill). They’re also located on the side mirrors.
15,000 mi/year @ $3.00/gallon gas, on the highway EPA numbers (maximizes “savings”), you save a whopping $91/year buying the >$1000 “40mpg” transmission. Still more economical to buy the manual 5 speed. Why no 6MT box for this? At this range, a couple mpg difference doesn’t save any appreciable amount of money. It certainly wouldn’t sway my decision if I liked the utility of the Fit, for example, better.
When, oh when, will we adopt the gal/100mi standard?
It may be more economical, but it still won’t be as convenient or easy to use as an automatic, and I think those are more important to the average American. Besides, it doesn’t matter whether an automatic Fiesta saves money over a manual Fiesta. What matters is whether it saves money over the larger cars people are downsizing from and its automatic subcompact competitors, as you mentioned. What I’m interested in is who this car attracts. Will it be more “Buy American” types or “Euro-chic” types or fuel misers or someone else altogether.
I was looking at it from a “I’m a manual transmission driver” perspective. Basically, the extra 3mpg wouldn’t sway someone like me, who drives a manual normally, to spend the extra money for the self-shift model.
That said, there are certain vehicles that I prefer automatics. SUVs (not CUVs) and trucks are much better w/ an auto. My 4Runner is an automatic, my first, actually, and I’m really a fan of it. My dad’s F250 is a stick and it is downright miserable. It just has too much heft for the stick to be enjoyable.
Re the gal/100mi standard, probably never, unless one automaker’s marketing department decides to be daring and eschew EPA numbers.
Can anyone explain how the autobox gets better MPG compared to the manual? I was always of the understanding that slushboxes robbed power (and consequently MPG) from the engine for the clutch….?
It’s a dual clutch unit so no “slush”. It can be as efficient as a manual for all intents and purposes.
The unit in the Fiesta is automated dual clutch gearbox instead of a conventional slushbox with a torque converter.
A few reasons. Autoboxes have gotten more efficient about transferring power with less parasitic loss than in the past, computers have gotten better about shifting for max fuel economy, and automatic transmissions have grown more gears and more ratios.
Except for the most skilled manual drivers, the automatics are going to start returning max economy.
In addition to what has been said I’m guessing the fact that the auto is a 6spd vs. the manual being a 5spd. has something to do with it.
I’m kinda surprised they don’t offer a 6spd manual especially considering they offer the 6spd auto.
BTW +1 on your new avatar!!
Part of it is also the way most current manual transmissions are geared toward “performance”. Most, if not all, vehicles with manual transmissions currently suffer in EPA ratings relative to the same vehicle with an automatic (or at best are only on par).
On the bright side, automatics have gotten quite a bit better and it’s showing.
I’m guessing that the real reason is probably that Ford did the same thing as Honda did with the Civic.
They screwed with the gear ratios on the Civic. The 5-spd had lower gearing to make it feel more sporty. The slide-o-matics got taller gearing so the mpg numbers are better.
Auto marketing morons seem to think that manual transmissions are only bought by boy racers who want speed and don’t care about efficiency.
As a side note, Honda’s tend to be badly underrated in the EPA mpg numbers (another poster mentioned that this is true of the Yaris as well). My 93 Civic was rated at 42mpg hwy … I got 48+. My 05 Civic is rated at 38mpg hwy … I get 40. And IIRC that’s the “old” rating system ! The new number are even more unrealistically low.
I completely ignore EPA numbers now and troll the internet looking for real numbers from real drivers.
Also six ratios instead of five. It probably has a taller top gear.
There are an increasing number of cases where the manual has fewer ratios than the automatic. A sign that the manual is seen as the low-cost budget choice rather than for enthusiasts.
FWIW, the preliminary figures were a little higher.
TrueDelta will have real-world fuel economy stats once these cars are on the road.
http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php
This transmission is not a traditional “slushbox” automatic because there is no torque converter. A traditional automatic uses a torque converter to transmit power between the engine and transmission and creates a loss of efficiency. An automated manual uses mechanical clutches and computer software to shift gears with no loss of power.
In addition the computer is much more accurate than humans in determining optimal shift points for different driving conditions. The engine is rarely lugged or over-revved.
For the last 10 years commercial trucks have used similar automated manuals that adjust the engine speed to match the transmission input shaft speed between gear changes for 6 thru 18 speed transmissions and they work very well (Google the Eaton AutoShift and UltraShift). The computer “floats the gears” without using a clutch just like an experienced truck driver does. These trucks get better fuel economy and less drive train wear than trucks with conventional manual transmissions without the loss of efficiency of an automatic.
I think they need to change the way they describe these transmissions. For a while when they first appeared in F1, they were calling them ‘Semi-Auto’. That’s just as confusing, tho. I think they’re continuing to use ‘Automatic’ because that’s what the buying public is used to, but that also confers the negative connotations of the old ‘slushbox’.
The real thing to realize is that it’s not an ‘Auto that can be as efficient as a manual’. It *is* a manual transmission. It happens to be one that can handle the clutching on its own, but from an operative standpoint, it has the same direct mechanical connection from the engine output to the gearset that a manual transmission has.
So what kind of name can we come up with for this kind of transmission?
We don’t need a new name. To Joe Consumer, these transmissions shift themselves – therefore they are automatic transmissions.
How many non-enthusiasts do you know who care or know how a transmission shifts itself?
Thanks for the info y’all. Just had a read of Wikipedia’s article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_clutch_transmission
Still don’t quite understand how it works… but I’ll figure it out soon enough.
The EPA numbers aren’t particularly comparable between manual and auto. The difference with the manual is that you have a lot of choice in how you drive it, and the EPA testing doesn’t use the most efficient methods. You can do techniques with a manual that you can’t do with auto. The other thing that makes a difference is gearing. Many manufacturers are going with shorter gearing on the manual tranny to make it faster at the expense of fuel economy. So you win either way with a manual. If you aren’t getting the best fuel economy, you’re getting more performance. DSG is supposed to give you both but it will cost you more up front, and they don’t always work like you want it to, especially in the cold. It’s no replacement for a manual if that’s your thing.
“In addition the computer is much more accurate than humans in determining optimal shift points for different driving conditions. The engine is rarely lugged or over-revved.”
I couldn’t disagree with this more. There hasn’t been an automatic in existence where I haven’t been pissed off because it isn’t shifting when I want it to (usually earlier) and I always blow away EPA figures with a manual. The other problem is that the computer can’t anticipate what’s ahead.
The EPA ratings on the Yaris are low. I have owned a 5 speed manual for over a year and have never got under 39 mpg in 50/50 mixed driving.
29 city is impressive, especially with an automatic and certainly if they can get it “for real”.
Good highway ratings are easy, all it takes is a low top gear and a slippery shape; good city is much harder: you need light weight, smart gearing, etc. You can’t just lock up the torque converter and cruise.
That’s it?
A shoe box like that should be getting far better mileage than that.
Hell…the much heavier, bigger, less aerodynamic Mustang supposedly gets 31MPG…
Dude, did a Ford scare you as a kid? :)
Those are not bad numbers; I usually better the numbers the EPA puts out anyway. Heck, the built-out-of-beer-cans Aveo only gets 27mpg city and 35mpg hwy according to the EPA, and that should be a relative size-equivalent to the Fiesta.
Before you quote the 40mpg hwy for the Cruze Eco, remember that those are not official EPA numbers but GM numbers. It’s also for a special model with a manual IIRC.
And less you think I am a Ford guy, I’ve owned 1 Ford product (a Mercury) 30 years ago and two of the three cars in the driveway right now are GM. Dead GM (a Pontiac and an Oldsmobile), but GM.
UnclePete,
You’ve got to learn to ignore him. He just posts this stuff to annoy rational sentient beings.
Silvy
The least you could do is get your facts straight for your perpetual Ford bashing posts. The 31 MPG for the Mustang is hwy, the 29 for the Fiesta is city.
So, a 5-speed manual, but a 6-speed slush-box? Sounds stupid to me, but I’m in the know as a car-nut. For maximum profit gain however, Ford is smart to do this. To the average sub-compact buyer, 6 sounds better than 5 and the nice round number of 40mpg is appealing. They’ll easily be up-sold to the $1K-extra auto-box. Never mind that it would take about 9-10 years to make up the difference in fuel savings, according to Quentin’s calculations. The buyer will feel like he/she made a smart move. Poor saps.
On the other hand, since most people just *want* an automatic, Ford was wise to provide an efficient one. Automatics were selling just great even with a mileage penalty so I’m having a hard time trying to spin this as entirely negative. This isn’t a hybrid or some exotic technology. It’s an automatic transmission. The “payoff” argument doesn’t really work here.
Also, as noted above, there is no “slush” here.
Some people want an automatic transmission. Heck, I like them in stop and go driving (luckily I don’t have to do that very much around here!)
I think that very few people are buying the auto because it gets better mileage. People buy automatics because they want to. The fact that Ford was able to engineer a automatic that gets better mileage than the manual is a bonus for anyone, including Ford, who gets to advertise the good numbers. VW dual-clutch transmissions also deliver better mileage than their manuals.
How many other cars have you judged that the $1000 upcharge for an auto transmission is a rip off?
srogers et. al.,
Listen, I know that the vast majority of US auto buyers prefer automatics. But in the case of the Fiesta, in the sub-compact market where price sensitivity is a real factor and manual trans exist at higher percentages than in other segments, this auto-box is a money-grab.
Ford needs to play to both the enthusiasts (increasingly buying small) AND the budget buyers (always bought small) to get this car to sell in any appreciable volume. As well, a dual-clutch auto-box is an expensive thing to engineer and manufacture. Ford needs to sell as many of them as possible to make their money back on it as quickly as possible. How do they do that? By making the manual look bad. They gave it 5 instead of 6 gears and geared it too high. This is supposed to be Ford’s “fun-to-drive” MINI-rivaling car, isn’t it? Why an expensive auto, but not 6 manual gears? Because it would rival the auto-box in EPA numbers, acceleration, and the “fun” quotient. A 6-manual would give both enthusiasts (looking for driver involvement) AND budget buyers (looking for good MPG and to save $$$) less of a reason to pay the extra $1K, especially if the mileage numbers are the same. It’s smart for Ford to do it this way in order to make the up-sell to those who don’t run the numbers beforehand (most consumers), but it’s cynical to those who can read between the lines.
Perhaps the 6MT is a drag on engines under 2.5L. Perhaps it’s too expensive. Perhaps they tested it and found out it wasn’t that great on this car. Do you know the answers to these? Gonna have to guess that you don’t.
I’d gladly pay $1000 for a DCT over a 5MT, but the Powershift doesn’t have any sort of manual control like a +/- gate.
Unfortunately, that kills most of the enjoyment I can get out of a DCT, so I’d probably just go with the manual.
Ford is missing out on the chance to milk me for more cash!
The 2012 Focus probably won’t let you either.
I can understand you’re upset about the lack of a 6-speed but look at the other cars in this class. If you want a 6-speed you need to buy a Mini or a Nissan Versa. All the rest are offering 5-speeds. If the demand is really there, Ford could add a 6-speed to the Fiesta at a later date.
As for what Ford is charging for the auto, it’s right in line with what other manufacturers are charging for automatics with fewer gears, or CVT’s. Ford rightly chose to bring us the powershift since most buyers will opt for an automatic anyhow. An automatic is an extra cost option on almost every vehicle where both manual and automatic transmissions are available on so your argument here is flawed. No one is being forced to buy it but those that choose to will pay pretty much what buyers of any other make will pay for an automatic.
Sure, a few manual transmission die hards might be upset, but it’s a vanishingly small group, even if this segment still sees the highest percentage of manual buyers (I count myself as one since I’m currently driving a Fusion with a 5-speed manual).
Exactly.
gimmeamanual,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps… Perhaps I’m right? No, I don’t know the answers to any of your questions, but I think I can say with confidence that a 6-speed manual would still be less expensive than a dual-clutch auto. And, guys, I’m not arguing the price of the autobox; when did I say that? I’m arguing against making the manual box inferior, made so in order to make the auto-box more appealing on its face. Since Ford bills the Fiesta as an exciting drive, why didn’t they go all the way with the stick? Ford could have matched the autobox EPA numbers with a properly-geared 6-speed and given the enthusiasts what they wanted. Instead, they decided to make the stick lame compared to the autobox.
It’s all moot to me anyway. I need something bigger, like the Focus 5-door. Let’s see how Ford treats that one when it gets here. SVT?
As a potential buyer of this car, I’m not too put off by the 5MT (which I would opt for over the DSG–count me in that group of Luddites that enjoys anachronistic transmissions!) A 5-speed was good enough for the base Boxster (until the very latest refresh), and I suspect it will be good enough here.
Akitadog,
As others have said, this is no slush box, it’s a DUAL DRY CLUTCH automated manual, or “manualmatic” as some have called this type of transmission (and it’s for all autoboxes that allow for self shifting, regardless of how it’s designed).
This DSG based autobox is very similar to the one used currently by VW and Fiat is using a variation of the same unit and it’s based on a Borg Warner design. The previous version of the DSG from VW used a dual WET clutch but is now going to the dry version of the DDCT, the Ford and the Fiat use the DDCT as well.
As for the manual, at least in Europe, Fiat uses a 6spd manual for their highly rated 1.4L Multiair engine, but 5spd units for their 1.3L diesel and their slower 8V 1.2 gas engine in at least the 500, if not in the Panda and other models that use these same engines, their current dualogic automated manual has only 5spds and uses a single dry clutch, the newer DSG units will offer up to 7 spds, as will be found in the NA version of the 500 and I think this same auto is also being offered in Europe as well.
The Fiat DSG unit will have a manual mode so one can have the best of both worlds, as does VW, but Ford chose not to offer this option with their version of the DSG, I test drove the Fiesta with it and it’s slick, downshifts very fast, faster than in the Fit without using the paddle shifters (available ONLY in the sport trim) and while smoothly going through the gears thanks to pre-selecting the next gear and then up-shifting when necessary, the shifts are very smooth with little hesitation but the overall coupling is very direct, nothing like the traditional automatic that’s for sure and I was able to power that little car up to speed in fairly short order, in essence, a very fun car to drive.
That said, I currently drive a 92 Ford Ranger truck with a 5spd manual, a balky one at that, that grinds occasionally going into 1st and occasionally when sinking reverse but it DOES have over 228K miles on the clock and in rush hour traffic, the truck is NOT terribly suited for that kind of driving without some working of the clutch to keep it from bucking at less than 20mph during rush hour, but once up to speed, it’s fun as heck.
So I have been thinking of moving back to an automatic now that automated manuals are becoming more common as is self shifting options for them become common too so I can have my cake and eat it too, so to speak.
I just purchased a new Honda Fit M/T instead of ordering a Fiesta for reasons unrelated to EPA mileage estimates. IMO the Fit could get better mpg, especially highway, if final drive gearing was numerically lower than 4.62, or a .5 sixth gear was provided. I dont need a sub 10 second 0-60 in an economy car with the resulting 3500rpm @ 70mph.
It’s a dual clutch unit so no “slush”. It can be as efficient as a manual for all intents and purposes.
Ve need to hear from the reliability on these DSG, one bloke I spoke to that his gas model Smart car only lasted 130,000 km on the first clutch.
So u may be getting 40 smile per gallon, but what is the clutch costs?
He told me was 1400 by getting it done at the dealer, it was a lease return so they charge him 700, wonder if 700 is the full costs and ding him 100% mark up.
Anybody remember the old Mitsubishi with a 2 speed transfercase?
U get 8 speed.
My fnd’s 89 Vette with whooping 5.7 litre still gets 30s MPG on the freeway too.
The car co could make cars using less fuel but with the 7 sisters heavily holding their Cojones they’re less likely to built anything easy on fuel.
Yes, of course the automakers are all slaves to the oil industry. Because if the oil companies weren’t buying up all those cars to keep the automakers afloat… oh wait. What leverage do they have exactly?
The Smart has a robotized H-pattern gearbox, not a dual-clutch. dual clutches have been available in VW/Audi products for quite some time and AFAIK have not proven to be any more/less reliable than a normal auto or manual.
getting 130,000 km out of a clutch on the Smart isn’t completely bad – in that application the car is going to slip the clutch quite a bit, plus the transmission on Smarts are generally known as crap.
This concerns me as well. I really wonder about the long term reliability of all these dual-clutch transmissions that seem to be popping up. I didn’t realize they were spreading so much, I knew VW had one but didn’t know Ford did. How long have they been out there in large numbers and how are they holding up? Is there any way of knowing that except for customer surveys like True Delta, or mfr warranty data (which they will never disclose)?
I can’t speak for Ford’s automated manual lifespan, but I have two Freightliners with over 900k (each) on their Eaton automated manuals. The technology is sound; the quality of execution is up to Ford.
Your mileage may vary.
Does anyone know if Ford’s DSG equivalent will require service at 40000 mile intervals like VW’s do? That would keep me away from one along with the initial cost for the option.
Low hp ones, like the Fiesta have dry instead of wet clutches. The clutch fluids need to be changed at regular intervals. The gearboxes themselves, in both cases, only need 100,000 mile or so change intervals.
The Fiesta DSG (or as Ford calls it, Powershift) is a sealed design, and does not require service.
Ford is using Getrag to manufacture the units.
NullModo:
Could you explain a tad further on which portion of the DSG is sealed, and which component does not require service?
According to this guy, sealed is sealed.
http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/03/29/ford-kicks-off-production-of-powershift-dual-clutch-6-speed-transmission/
Brettc and others, from what I’ve read, manuals require motor oil to lube the gears and thus require changing out every so often, as one does with a traditional automatic, that said, Ford has made it so one does NOT have to replace the oil in their automatics but the clutch still needs replacing and they say it’s good for 150K miles or something along those lines if I’m correct in my thinking.
Wait till I get my GM Chevy Volt. I’ll blow those MPG numbers right out of the water!!!!…LOL. IMHO the Volt looks a hundred times better to boot.
I think that your $40,000+ Volt might be in a different market category.
If you’re happy paying $40k (or the price of 2 well decked out Fiestas) for the privilege then knock yourself out. The Fiesta’s not competing with the Volt.
Trust me it won’t cost anywhere near 40K! But that said it will still be considerably more expensive and in a different market than the Ford. But then considering what your getting, it should!
I suspect the Fiesta will probably take the “fun to drive” category hands down. Thanks, but no thanks.
you’ll pay $40k, then get $7.5k back from the gov’t. so perhaps not “close” to $40k, but way more than a likely $16k Fiesta transaction price.
Volt is neat, but just like any hybrid, there are not purely economic reasons to buy one.
Michael Karesh — I’ve seen TTAC writers state that the Fusion Hybrid doesn’t get anywhere near it’s EPA mileage, and is much closer in real world driving to the Camry (34 MPG). I looked it up on TrueDelta, and saw that it averages 39.1. Is that correct, or did I do something wrong on your site? Thanks for your help!
I believe the issue is more that when compared apples to apples on a non-EPA test, like the one consumer reports ran w/ the Altima hybrid and the Camry hybrid, the difference between the hybrid fusion and the others is less than 3mpg or so. I have no doubts that people can get 39mpg out of them. Driving 55mph highways, my GTI returns in the upper 30s and it is rated at 29mpg on the new system. On Michael’s site, the Camry Hybrid averages anywhere from 35mpg to 39mpg (depending on model year). So, it isn’t so much that the Ford doesn’t get the numbers. It is more that the Ford doesn’t beat the other full hybrids by the margin implied by the EPA testing.
Why shouldn’t the Fiesta get 40 mpg? The other week I drove a 2006 Corolla with 4-speed auto and overdrive on a 500-mile Interstate trip. 41.3 mpg, and I was not hyper-miling it at 55 and coasting down hills, instead I was moving along at 70 mph.
So, yeah, it’s not just possible, it’s probable.
FWIW I’ve driven 3 different manual Fiestas over the past two years and the average fuel consumption is 36 mpUSgallon for all 3. That’s at an average speed of 36 mph, split between 1/3 of the time at 60-65 mph, half on tarmac, half on gravel roads, the rest at mixed city and suburban driving.
On long trips the average improves markedly.
My neighbour claims to beat this by 10% or so. Probably not a lead foot, and probably not driving on gravel which tends to increase fuel consumption by 10-20%.