Cheap. Fast. Reliable. Pick two. This is a conundrum that plagues enthusiasts of vast dreams and scant means. There’s very little out there that fulfills the requirement for an economical performance car that also works when you need it to. A garage-built tuner vehicle fulfills the first two criteria, but you can’t be sure it will start every time. Cheap and reliable will get you to work…and that’s about it. Fast and reliable? Yeah, maybe if you’re one of the lucky few who can afford a fancy sports car, and the associated running costs (insurance, tires and the now-astronomical price of premium gasoline).
Some of you have paid off homes, well-funded retirement accounts and jobs that pay handsomely, and can also afford something fun and exciting. I have precisely none of these, and thus my desire for automotive thrills has to be balanced with having the financial means to assemble the trappings of an adult life. In that light, a Mustang GT, a 370Z and even a new WRX (which loves to imbibe pricey 91 octane) start to look like options that would leave me endorphin-rich but cash poor (and also living at home well into my 30’s).
On the other hand, most entry-level performance cars still leave something to be desired: the Fiat 500 Abarth has but three doors (I’d prefer a second set) and sounds a lot faster than it really is. The all-new Volkswagen GTI is for a more mature crowd. The Honda Civic Si is a shadow of its former self. And the Ford Focus ST has just been made redundant by this car.
Yes, the Fiesta ST is a bit slower than its big brother. It makes 197 horsepower and hits 60 mph in 7 seconds flat. You would swear that those performance figures would be doubled and halved respectively. It might be fun to drive a slow car fast. It’s even more fun to drive a fairly quick, fairly small and fairly light (2,700 lbs) at a breakneck pace.
The boosted 1.6L mill feels heroically powerful in such a tiny package. You would have no idea that this is the same engine that struggles to motivate the Fusion and Escape, while drinking dino juice at a prodigious rate. Previous tests of the 1.6L engine have yielded subpar fuel economy, even on the highway. On our 800 mile drive through the Canadian Rockies on the way to Montana, the Fiesta returned as high as 40 mpg on relatively flat stretches of road. As the elevation climbed, the turns got sharper and the turbo worked harder, fuel consumption dipped into the high 20’s, but it’s hard to fault the car in those conditions.
The ST also has a way of preventing you from keeping your foot out of the throttle on said roads. Turbo lag is slightly perceptible below 1500 rpm, but once the turbo starts spooling up (which you can audibly detect with the windows down), power is delivered in a linear fashion all the way to the 6500 rpm redline. In the lower gears, torque steer is still present, but not nearly as much as the Focus ST – credit to Ford’s chassis engineers for somehow taming the 214 lb-ft worth of torque being delivered through the front wheels. Even so, this isn’t a car that will let you safely pass on a two-lane road by shifting from 6th to 5th, but the tall sixth ratio more than pays for itself given the excellent highway fuel economy.
But focusing on straight-line speed misses the point completely. Handling is the Fiesta’s forte, with Ford handing this car off to SVT to help liven the 5-door chassis for North American tastes (Europe gets a three-door version). The twisty mountain passes near Whitefish, Montana let us sample the full capabilities of the ST, and it soon became evident that this is a special car. Steering is direct and quick, but like most electric systems, it doesn’t provide the purity of feedback that hot hatch fans might expect. Initial turn-in is quick, with tenacious grip and only truly ham-fisted driving seems to invoke any semblance of understeer. The brakes are firm, scrubbing off speed quickly, at the expense of immense amount of brake dust (which you’ll notice even with the optional gunmetal wheels). The one flaw in the driving experience is the shifter, which has somewhat long throws and a bit of a vague feel. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a small price to pay for an otherwise thrilling package.
Inside, the Fiesta ST’s interior looks a lot like a regular Fiesta, save for the portion-controlled nav screen with MyFord Touch. If you’d never seen the full-size version, you wouldn’t think that there was anything wrong with the system, but it’s fairly small, and hitting the right keys on the touchscreen can be a bit challenging. The optional Recaros fit me just fine, but anyone with a stocky build might find them challenging. The thick shells of the seat backs also render the rear seats more suitable for objects than people, and you can forget about putting child seats in a Recaro equipped Fiesta.
Altogether may sound like hyperbolic praise for the smallest Fast Ford, but the team at SVT (and our own Tresmonos) have managed to assemble an astounding package: one that is quick, practical, efficient and affordable. It’s one of the most exciting cars I’ve driven at any price, and even though I have a paid off car, access to the press fleet and no real need for a new car, I’m seriously considering spending my own, hard-earned dollars to make this the next TTAC long-term test car. Who says young people don’t care about cars anymore?
N.B. Yes, the main image is a homage to our own Bigtruckseriesreview@youtube, who without fail, manages to leave the first comment on nearly every single article.
Sounds like fun but I need room for car seats.
Focus ST it is then.
I was really looking at a Focus in regular and ST trim since I doubted two child seats would fit in the back of a Fiesta.
One of my co-workers has a used rental Focus hatch and let me do a test fit with me and car seats in the car. I’m also in the 6-0 to 6-2 neighborhood depending on posture and shoes.
Sadly, me and child seats could not fit in the Focus.Yet there were no problems in the Mazda3 and Dart.
The new Fords are too big on the outside and too small on the inside. I am 5’10 and feel claustrophobic in the Focus. The footwell in the front ramps up in the weirdest way. The Focus should not weigh 3,200lbs. The Fiesta should not weigh 2,700 lbs.
We need to take today’s engines and transmissions and shove them into cars from the turn of the century. Cars from around then had airy interiors with great visibility, and you could get a car that fit a family of 4 with a smaller outside footprint than the current Focus, that was MUCH larger inside, that weighed 2700 lbs. The biggest caveat is those old cars only had 2 airbags.
In 2000, a family of 4 could fit in a Focus. Now, due to the intrusive pillars and other factors, they need to upgrade to a Fusion, or god forbid, and escape. In 2000 a cop could fit in a Crown Vic. Due to the screw-up of the Taurus, they now need an Explorer.
That said, I hear this is a fun car.
bingo, 6’0 here, and it boggles the mind why ford designed the focus to be so cramped.
Re current drivelines in cars from the early naughties; You gain visibility and lightness, but if my memory is right the things you give up are side impact protection, offset head on protection and crush resistant roof structures, plus Bluetooth, backup cam, and whatever active safety/driver alert gizmos the new one would have. Some of the makers seem to have met the safety req’ts with fewer compromises than Ford though (CamCord vs Focus)
“if my memory is right the things you give up are side impact protection, offset head on protection and crush resistant roof structures, plus Bluetooth, backup cam, and whatever active safety/driver alert gizmos the new one would have.”
Volvo achieved this in the MY99 S70 with optional side impact air bags, and made it standard on MY00 S70. The S70 btw is a derivative of an 850 which debuted in 1991. The idea of “losing safety features” in return for visibility is no excuse for half assed designers. FWIW “gizmos” like touchscreen interfaces, bluetooth, and backup cameras are simply that, gizmos. None of these are even remotely necessary to the car’s drive-ability or safety. If anything, cars are less safe with them due to additional driver distraction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_850
Evidently optional side impact air bags actually date to 1995:
“All U.S. 850s received standard equipment such as dual front airbags, anti-lock braking system, head restraints and three-point seat belts for all passengers, power windows, door locks, and mirrors, cruise control, and dual zone climate control. Side torso airbags became a world first when introduced as an option for 1995.”
Very glad someone finally brought that up.
My friend who owns the 2012 Focus Titanium hatchback I’ve mentioned before is only 4’11”, so she’s fine. Last month, I rode home in it, and while I fit up front like I do in my mom’s RAV4, I swear my seat was up against the backseat.
Being 6’4″, under 18 (which means using the backseat often), and having a 36 inch inseam, room is my first priority. I wish more carmakers designed their cars like the first-gen Rogue; when I drove it for the first time a couple days ago, I felt like I was reaching for the steering wheel, and my arms are long. Let’s not get started with the Focus’ other problems besides room.
Suto,
Less weight costs more money in terms of engineering time, tooling and materials. As far as interior space, I don’t have a clue except that it might mean a longer wheel base and more weight?
Maybe it’s because I stated flying small airplanes before I could drive, but at 6’1″ and 260 lbs I have no problems folding myself in and getting comfy. And that’s with the Recaros.
Or they could upgrade to a C-Max. That’s what I did.
I’m 6’4″ with a 36″ inseam too, and I didn’t have an issue driving a 2012 Focus as a daily driver. It’s no more snug in the backseat than earlier Foci. If you are 6’4″, being in the backseat of most vehicles sucks. For under $30K, minivans or large crossovers are the best bets. I’d love for someone to drive me around in my MKT. Its comfy back there.
Another issue may be that the seats in the Focus are especially huge. The Escape and C-Max have seats that have a lower profile.
Hear hear. Yeah, you don’t have a jillion airbags in a 15 year old car, or roof pillars thick enough to hold up buildings. Reality is, only a very small percentage of drivers will have an experience that tests the differences between 2000 and 2014 safety. We’re not talking about a 1959 vintage deathtrap here. You could add some electronic amenities, they don’t weigh anything to speak of. And you don’t need a backup camera because you can actually see out of the thing. Personally, I wish I had the choice.
I don’t have wagon levels of space, but a car seat fits in mine, no problem. I’m 6’2″ and it might be tight with my daughter behind me, but she can sit on the passenger side with my wife in front, and no one complains. We’ve taken some long-ish drives that way – no issues.
I’m intrigued by the ST, but at the same time, I just wish GM would do a little more with the Sonic hatch. For a minimal weight penalty, it’s noticeably less cramped inside, and not a bad little car to drive in its stock form. As much as the Fiesta can apparently baby seat (if you get the right seat and put it in the middle spot), the little Chevy would just be an easier sell to a single-car household (especially trying to justify hanging onto it through paying it off).
The Fiesta is good looking though, and the Sonic looks like a penalty.
Really? I find it the other way around – I mean, the sedans look like penalty boxes all around, but I prefer the Sonic’s wheels at the corners stance. The Fiesta looks decent in the right spec, especially with the new grille, but doesn’t do a ton for me (I mean, not my motivation behind liking either)
All I hear is praise for this thing. I want to like it, but right now with the steep discounts on the Focus ST to the point where it is cheaper, I’d have a really hard time justifying getting the smaller of the two.
That’s my biggest issue with this car. I feel like it should be priced thousands less than the Focus, but they’re pretty close in price, with the Focus being cheaper in its lowest trim.
“Some of you have paid of homes, well-funded retirement accounts and jobs that pay handsomely, and can also afford something fun and exciting. I have none precisely none of these, and thus my desire for automotive thrills has to be balanced with having the financial means to assemble the trappings of an adult life.”
The first two sentences of your second paragraph need revision.
Specifically, “paid oFF homes”, and only one ‘none’ in stead of “I have none precisely none”.
In case you thought he was being just generally critical of your style, that is.
Everybody begging for a Mazdaspeed 2, here’s your car. Even comes in GREEEEN!
I’m “of stocky build” and the Recaros in the Focus ST were very uncomfortable, so I know I could never own this car.
The engine sounds like it is far superior to the 1.6T in the Juke. That car had pitiable turbo lag, and still only got 30 highway on premium gas. (had the FWD 6MT model)
You can buy this car without the Recaros, so don’t cross off the “I could never own this car” box just yet.
If I recall correctly, this car is only available in one trim level, with the Recaros being the only significant option. And an expensive option, at that.
Yes, the Recaros with heated mirrors and seats are the only siginificant option. Its about a $2000 option. Another $795 for Nav. Both are worth it.
The guys at Smoking Tire bought one too. They gloat over the little car. .ir is currently at Cobb Tuning as a development vehicle.
I am not sure if the right word would be gloat. Matt Farah is madly in love with it though, and even launched the most subtle troll ever when he did a comparo with the E46 M3, and didn’t prostrate himself at the temple of M division.
My question is why is it so slow? a 2002 Acura RSX Type S with a 2.0 I4 – 200hp, 142 lb ft torque, similar weight with a 6 speed, was about 1 second quicker to 60. Gearing?
This makes so little sense. You sure on the weight? The ST has a much flatter torque curve and shift point optimization shouldn’t be near a second.
I looked it up..
I had one for years – he’s right on the weight, something like 2750.
The K20 actually has an incredibly flat torque curve. They basically make 120 to 130 ft/lbs at the wheels from 2,400 rpm to 8,250 rpm with a small dip at the cam lobe crossover point. HP is a function of torque times RPM divided by 5,252. It is cars with low speed hp peaks or managed hp plateaus that have jacked up torque curves.
http://image.importtuner.com/f/powerpages/impp_1203_2007_honda_civic_si_power_pages/39789063/impp-1203-01-o%2B2007-honda-civic-si-power-pages%2Bdyno-1.jpg
See the discussion below about how the Fiesta ST compares with the 86 twins (which actually record faster times).
In addition to those comments, I wonder if actually having torque limits traction off the line. I think it’s probably close enough to make no difference anyway. Besides, torque rules in daily driving. Even if the twins and RSX-S are faster, only an expert driver on the right track would notice.
So Derek, you drove an Ontario car to Sparwood BC in order to test it out? I’d half expect it to have Alberta or BC plates. Even Montana or Washington plates. Looks like the west is your new stomping grounds.
The scenery is incredible. You’re not that far from Highway 93A that you can take through the Kootenay pass, through Banff, and into Calgary.
Icefields Parkway is where you should take your next shoot.
Many fond memories of that part of Canada. That truck though, is a GM model…
No sir. The car is based in Calgary but wears Ontario plates. Don’t ask me why.
Canadian Ford public relations is based in Oakville, I believe.
Remineds me of the old omni turbo. But without the terrible torque steer and poor build quality. I could not stand the recaro seats longer then 20 minutes. But with the regular seats I can get one for $20,500 . there is nothing better for money.
Redundant? I will take my Focus ST any day over the Fiesta ST. The Focus is much better to live with as a daily driver, especially for those of us taller than 5’7″. Seriously, I felt like I was rummaging for loose change in the passenger side footwell every time I shifted into 5th. I’ll settle for slightly less perceived handling if it means more power, more speed, more functionality, better ergonomics, and a more refined interior.
Get that piece of s*it manual blue Verano out of shot!
/hehe
The F40-6 is a piece of sh!t, its true.
Its slowly ruining an otherwise great car.
Oh no! Is there another installment in your article series coming? I can’t remember if you said before.
I just got it back from dealer service and I am still not satisfied. I will be writing an update when I have time, as well as capsule reviews of some of my dealer rentals!
Nice, you’re getting lots of writing mileage out of this purchase!
yay….
“It makes 197 horsepower and hits 60 mph in 7 seconds flat… It’s even more fun to drive a fairly quick, fairly small and fairly light (2,700 lbs) at a breakneck pace.”
Almost identical specs to the 86 twins, which are roundly castigated by some as wheezy death traps.
The Toyobaru twins suffered from unreal expectations, then came in slower and higher priced than expected, so they get the fail. The Fiesta ST suffered no such prior expectations, so it isn’t letting anyone down. It just can be what it is, not what fanboys dreamed it would be.
This is why bench racing doesn’t work. On paper, they are identical. On the road, they could not be more different.
Also, torque.
My 2013 Malibu (2.5, 6A, 197HP non-turbo, 3,500 lbs) hit 60mph in 8.1 sec in CR testing.
So I’m not overly impressed by the Fiesta ST’s acceleration.
Edit: CR has the Fiesta ST 6 man @ 7.3 sec 0-60.
46 deg C = 114 deg F!
It was really that hot there?!
The Fiesta ST is lacking in proper rear end symmetry. Would not buy.
In my mind, dual exhaust on a car equipped with an I4 engine is a no-no regardless of symmetry.
But what about quad exhausts on an H4?
danio!
Discuss with me, if you will, I am interested in your opinion.
Is it the presumptuousness of dual exhaust on such a small motor?
Since I am not building or even really buying “performance cars”, I dont give much thought to the actual exhaust plumbing. So then it all comes down to looks. I am pretty sure the Verano T has the same type of exhaust plumbing as the 2.4 Verano, save the dual tips, and the only thing they add is looks.
I have no issues saying I like it just for looks alone.
Would the term “dual tips” or “dual outlets” be more palatable than “dual exhausts”? My feeling is “dual exhausts” might imply a performance designed exhaust system, which gets a mechanically knowledgeable guy such as yourself a bit rankled.
Exhaust tuning is an art and one performance tuners have a great deal of fun with. Fine tuning the point two pipes come together plays a big role in the torque curve. 4 into one is not as productive as 2 into one so 2 pipes for a 4 cylinder and 4 for an 8 makes perfect sense to me.
I assume you drive a car originally built for a driver’s ed instructor, since otherwise having a car with one steering wheel would fever your mind.
Nice review – I gotta say I love that green.
How tall are you, Derek? At 6’2, 170 lbs, I’m far from stocky and I could not get comfy in those Recaro seats. The salesman insisted that the seats would “loosen a little over time”, but I wasn’t convinced.
I also found pedal placement was surprisingly poor for heel-toe’ing. (I ain’t no racing driver but I like to pretend sometimes.)
Of course, the ST has econobox roots and they will show themselves in examples like that – but I came away from my test drive realizing if you aren’t the right height/build, and you need this car to be a daily driver, IMO the Fiesta will be more of a compromise than necessary, given bigger cars like the Focus ST are available.
The Recaros in my Focus ST have definitely loosed up over time, they now fit me perfectly. Actually, the driver seat fits me perfectly. In the rare occasion I’m in the passenger seat I remember how tight they both were when I first bought the car.
Timothy, glad to hear and good to know, thanks.
I don’t even like buying shoes on the promise of “don’t worry, they break in over time,” nevermind a $25k car.
Seat comfort is critical to enjoying a car (see the recent Piston Slap about the Mercury Milan). For the amount of money at stake, I would have to find the Recaros immediately comfortable.
After initially being a bit too snug I fit my Focus ST Recaros just fine now. Either they’ve adjusted or I have. I did find they require the back to be quite upright and you need to firmly slide your butt back into them before sitting up. Incidentally I’m 194cm / 89 kg (~6’4″ / 195 lb).
@Ooshley, are the Focus ST Recaros the exact same as in the Fiesta ST?
Based on that PIC, I just compared it to my car, I’d say yes.
Nobody seems to talk about the standard (non-Recaro) seats – how are they?
They probably don’t talk about them because a) they either get a fully-loaded variant or, b) as in Derek’s case a Canadian Fiesta…which comes standard with them (at a higher starting price).
Up here in Canada at least, Recaro’s are the only seats available in the Fiesta.
They are the same seats in the SE versions of the regular Focus. They are actually pretty decent but certainly lack the embrace that the Recaros provide.
I have a Focus ST1, so I have the base seats in my car. They are the same as my other Focus (2012 SE Hatch w/ sport package), but the seat foam does seem to be firmer, and the cloth material is more textured for better grip than the SE seats. Overall I find them to be very comfortable on my 50 mile daily round trip.
Love the Terex Titan mining truck in the background of the first picture; for a long time it was the largest truck ever built. 169 liter engine, 1,209,200 GVW, somewhat poor fuel economy. Interesting contrast to the Fiesta.
I wonder what the mileage of the Terex is per liter vs the Ford.
More like liters per mile. Probably astronomical.
They’re also hybrids, just like modern diesel-electric locomotives. The engine is a huge mobile generator that powers the giant motors that move it.
That is not a hybrid. Just a diesel-electric drive. The diesel cannot power the wheels directly, and there are no batteries. Which is also the case for most, but not all diesel locomotives. There are now some actual diesel battery hybrid locomotives. Mostly used for low-speed yard switching.
“…but the tall sixth ratio more than pays for itself given the excellent highway fuel economy.”
Derek, as crazy as it may seem, this is an incredibly big thing for me. Where does the engine rev around 120km/h in 6th with this car?
Not just you. A close ratio 5-speed with a tall 6th for cruising should the default for 99 percent of the manuals built these days.
And yet I ask this is multiple reviews and no one seems willing or able to respond.
Even Consumer Reports has stopped reporting these figures. ARGH.
You can figure out engine speed at a given road speed if you can dig up the transmission and final drive ratios, as well as the tire height.
Fiesta ST specs are @ edmunds: http: //www.edmunds.com/ford/fiesta/2014/road-test-specs1.html
I used the following site to do the math for me, though I’m sure there are plenty of calculators out there for this: http: //www.csgnetwork.com/multirpmcalc.html
I came up with 2816 rpm in 6th gear @ 120 km/h.
It’s funny that the Ecoboost system works just fine in a car where it isn’t being used to do what it’s advertised for. This isn’t a case of a downsized engine with a turbo. This is an appropriately sized engine with a turbo. When the same engine is stuffed in a sedan that should have a 2.5 liter engine, it is working hard at all times and using fuel less efficiently than an appropriately sized naturally aspirated engine.
This isn’t really true: the turbo uses fuel at about the same rate as a naturally-aspirated engine _of_ the same output _at the same output_.
A boosted engine makes more power sooner. That means it uses more fuel sooner. TANSTAAFL applies.
It’s best to think of forced induction as displacement-on-demand. Let’s say you had a car with a V8 that had cylinder deactivation. Drive that car in such a way that only three or four cylinders fired (and you were making the same power as an inline three) and you’d get great fuel economy; drive it like you stole it and it’ll suck fuel like a V8 would be expected to. A turbo is the same: you’re asking for a few extra cylinders’ worth of power in the same time.
People see things like a 1.5L engine and expect it’ll get great fuel economy, and it can: it just won’t do it when you drive it like it’s a V6. It’s pure cognitive dissonance.
“This isn’t really true: the turbo uses fuel at about the same rate as a naturally-aspirated engine _of_ the same output _at the same output_.”
Actually, that statement is not true. A boosted engine will consume more fuel at a given output (when in boost) than a N/A engine. Caveat, I am basing this on engine tuning that I’ve personally done using aftermarket engine management systems in classic cars. A modern car may actually be different.
The difference in fuel consumption at a given output arises as a result of safely tuning a turbo-charged engine against detonation. You are cranking up the the cylinder pressure when boosting an engine and thus you typically add more fuel and pull timing as a means of staving off the detonation monster.
Depending on the engine (each engine has their own sweet spot), you typically tune for an AFR of around 11.5 to 12.0. Again, depending on a variety of factors. It’s very common with rotaries to see AFRs in the 10s to low 11s.
N/A engines are usually run around 12.5.
Lastly, the BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) factor for an N/A engine is around 0.5 whereas a F/I engine its around 0.65. Again, this means for a given output, you would use more fuel for a F/I engine than an N/A engine.
I think someone confirmed this by comparing the mileage achieved by two otherwise identical F-150 trucks towing a fair amount of weight (7,000 – 10,000 lbs) over considerable distance in the mountains of the west. The “Ecoboost” V-6 used more fuel than the 5-leter n/a V-8 doing the same work. So, a carefully programed heavy car with a small turbocharged engine may ace the EPA tests, but it will suck more gas in real-world driving, probably because most drivers accelerate more rapidly than the protocol of the test.
It seems to me that if you want to use a turbocharged engine in a “performance” car, then driven normally it’s not going to be a fuel-sucker. But if you use a turbocharged engine in a plane vanilla car to give it adequate performance, fuel economy is going to be disappointing.
Is that Dave’s Verano turbo I see in the background of one of these pics?
So?
It is. Corey, why so defensive?
Oh, I was just feeding him back a bit of his nastyness he fed me when I made a very benign comment to something he said on the post about the Imperial.
Children play nice, don’t make me come over there.
lol
“N.B. Yes, the main image is a homage to our own Bigtruckseriesreview@youtube, who without fail, manages to leave the first comment on nearly every single article”
He’s been quiet today. Jinx.
Nice review on a car I hardly know about. The only thing I can’t like is the instrument cluster. It’s like looking into two long tunnels. Reminds me of a minivan…
I’m not a big fan of the two-tunnels design either, which seems to be pretty popular these days, sadly.
This is one of the best looking small autos I have seen to date.
IMO … its really hard not to like this car. The little 1.6 Ecoboost has a bunch of untapped potential. COBB has already proven mild bolt-ons and safe tuning can bring lots of power (211 HP and 272 ft-lbs). Put that together in a “relatively” small package and you created an instant winner. I have the pleasure of owning one of these cars, mainly due to a job requiring me to drive lots of miles and my desire to have something that doesn’t bore me to tears while driving those miles. I traded in a Fiat 500 Abarth for this car while deciding against a GTI, Focus ST, MS3, and MINI after multiple test drives in each. Despite the popular criticism, I have yet to feel the “cheapness” of the interior (keep in mind, its a 20-25k Fiesta) or the “cramped” interior/room from the same type of reviewers. My only complaint is the harsh ride, but one trip to Koni NA and coordinating with their Street Car department to develop a damper for this car solved that problem, greatly improving the ride and balancing it’s overall handling. Cheap Fast Reliable, only time will tell, but for now I have all three!
Would you mind elaborating on the Konis?
I have this car and that’s really my only beef, the ride quality.
To elaborate more on the Koni shocks, my car was the test Mule for Koni to size the non adjustable and adjustable shocks to the car. They tested the OEM shocks and found they were way over dampened on bump (approximately 4x that of the sport tuned Koni shocks for the non “ST” Fiesta ) and too soft on rebound to prevent excessive body roll in hard cornering. The Koni shocks currently on my car have much less low and high speed compression and increased low speed rebound. Rear stability was a major complaint of mine when I pushed the car in sharp cornering (autocross, quick steering inputs, off camber, etc). The new dampers seemed to correct much of it, at least on those same roads/courses where it felt unstable. Another friend and fellow FiST owner tried the rear sway bar route and claims it only made issues worse. The reduction in bump make the rough roads much more tolerable, making it similar in overall ride comfort of it’s bigger brother, the FoST. Koni should have these shocks available by late summer according to my last communication with them.
Thank you so much for that. Did you do front/rear/both?
Yes, both front and rear. If you are further interested, have your dealer contact Lee or Todd & Koni NA in the street car division for more info. They were the guys in charge of developing shocks for this car.
I too bought this car after drinving the FoST, the MS3, and Cooper S. Didn’t drive the VW, was afraid I’d like it.
Did you get the Cobb tune? I purchased the Livernois Motorsports tuner, said to add 65tq amd 18hp. But the interface on the Livernois tuner is super 90s, you can’t play with gauges, datalog, or anything else, just download the tune. I haven’t installed it yet, want to get to a thousand miles before doing so, let’s see if I make it.
Yes, suspension can be a bit harsh, but I’m okay with that, at least so far.
“Didn’t drive the VW, was afraid I’d like it.”
Why would you be afraid to like the GTI? I sat in an MK7 Golf (the new 2015 one) at my auto show, and it was really nice. Really roomy backseat for a two-door, nice interior, and a good value. The 2013 GTI is a whole ton more reliable on TrueDelta than the 2013 Focus ST, and about on par with the Cooper (but the Cooper has an awful 2012, so not much hope for that).
Honestly, I think the best choice would’ve been a Civic Si, but everyone has different preferences, and here, people seem to hate sedans. I hope you enjoy your Fiesta.
I have owned a 99 Si, 02 Si, 06 TSX, and 08 Si and other Hondas. I liked the 99 and 02, but dislike the rest in hindsight. I still have a couple S2000s for a fun weekend car and other race car (see Mark/Jack’s rants about them on TTAC), but gave up on Honda and it’s current offerings. The current Si feels like an Accord to me, and I feel the Hondas of old are long gone.
I’m waiting on the stage 2 to become available before I make up my mind. I’m fortunate to have 2 great ecu tuners within 1 hour of me, so once quality mods prove themselves, I’m anxious to buy and unlock some of the performance! Based on past experiences, the typical mods for a turbo car will greatly improve everything… from fuel economy and emissions , to power and reliability. We have 93 octane locally, but with added (reformulated) junk that is hard on cars. I fill up outside the city when I can, but a proper tune can help.
“Cheap. Fast. Reliable. Pick two.”
Sounds like the Engineer’s Credo to me:
1 – On time.
2 – No defects.
3 – Pick one.
No 3 door no purchase. I just do not like the 5 door version. Guess I will take another look at the new Mini. Or god forbide, the GTI.
My error with the GTI was 3 doors, at the end of the day 5 doors is winning because 3 doors, while is looks nice, is a PIA.
When cars get this small, I agree with you. One of the things I like best about my Abarth are those HUGE doors. I am a BIG guy, getting in a Fiesta is a major squeeze. The back seat is mostly worthless anyway, so why waste a pair of doors on it.
I test drove a Fiesta ST and really liked it. Rationally, I agree with Derek that it that it is a better, more resolved total package than the Abarth. But the Abarth is MUCH more fun! And I would much rather have a car that feels and sounds fast while not being fast to one that doesn’t feel fast. My license is much safer that way. Luckily, my Abarth is a toy – if I had to have only one car I would rather have the Ford. But I would still want it to be a 3dr.
I doubt many cross shop the two, but I might consider one of these before a Mustang. If I’m giving up that much passenger space, I might as well have the small footprint and low weight to go along with it, as well as a body style that allows easy access to luggage space.
There is also the substantial savings in purchase price. Even a V6 2015 Mustang optioned the way I want is knocking on $30k, compared to $24,440 for a well equipped Fiesta. I’m sure Ford is flexible with the Fiesta, while deals on the new Mustang will be hard to find for a while. These savings continue with fuel, insurance, and maintenance bills.
I would be curious to know how “flexible” Ford dealers will be with the top trim Fiesta.
They’ll deal on the Focus ST, so why not the Fiesta?
Meh. Invoice is very close to MSRP. Maybe $1000 off, tops. But when I bought mine I got 5 year 0% APR financing with $500 cash. Hard to beat.
Inexpensive enthusiast car with a turbo = appealing to younger lead-foots = high auto insurance rates. Anyone with real-world data? Is insuring one of these like having a Scion tC, or Subaru WRX?
Hmm…maybe insurance isn’t quite as low as I thought. Obviously lots of variables go into insurance rates, but I think we can look at Edmund’s TCO to get the general idea. Hopefully they use the same assumptions for all cars so they can be compared. A few samples (#s are five year totals):
2014 WRX sedan 5M: $11,948
2014 Mustang V6 coupe 6M: $13,867
2014 Focus ST: $10,806
2014 Fiesta hatch Titanium 5M: $11,368
2014 Scion FRS 6M: $14,156
Unfortunately, numbers for the Fiesta ST were not available. My guess is it will land somewhere just north of the WRX, but still less than the Mustang.
I’m sure these numbers will receive some criticism, so just to reiterate – although they might not make sense based on whatever you pay now, it should at least be an apples to apples comparison.
From the same Edmunds’ tool:
14 Corolla LE: $14,028.
14 Nissan GT-R: $13,835.
Apples to apples, but they’re horse apples.
Zip code impacts the results, and you apparently live in a very expensive place to insure cars. My zip code has $12,173 for the Corolla.
Nonetheless, that is still slightly more expensive than the GT-R ($12,005). That’s bizarre. It’s possible that the cost of a GT-R means only statistically responsible drivers are insuring them, though it might also mean that Edmunds’s TCO numbers fall apart when it comes to rare cars.
I think it’s more likely that GTR owners cost less to the insurance company, as far as claims go. Corvettes are also strangely cheap to insure, given their level of performance, because they tend to be owned by safer drivers.
With Corollas, there’s a lot of them on the road, and people commute, put lots of miles on them, etc. overall, corollas owners make more claims and cost the insurance company more money.
I didn’t pick the GT-R out of a hat. I googled “most expensive vehicles to insure 2014”, which brought up an insure.com study of quotes for 850 vehicles from 6 insurers each, the results of which were exactly the list of ridiculously powerful and expensive cars that you’d expect it to be with the GT-R at the top by a hair.
So I don’t believe it’s a case of responsible GT-R drivers in a world of Corolla drivers making claims. I believe it’s a case of Edmunds insurance estimate tool being full of chit.
Having driven these both in dealer test drives and at the Ecoboost challenge AutoX, this car’s at the top of my list. Shades of ‘Teg Type-R and Nissan B13 SE-R, in a modern (safe) package. That they only come in manual is just the perfect touch.
Americans don’t get hot-hatches.. !
It’s an european invention .. and in Europe actually Fiesta ST(not Renault Clio RS as it used to be for a long time..) is considered the best, ‘purest’ hot-hatch .. (and it’s one of the cheapest , and it’s got 2-door option) ..
Focus ST is bigger, and it’s lacking little Fiesta ST cool-car charm .. in Focus segment old Renault Megane RS is stil the best .. ,
maybe Focus RS will make some stir..