http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/26/r...r-u-s-arrival/
That is pretty impressive. I wouldn't be surprised if this thing gets an EPA rating of something like 32/42. I've never driven a Euro spec car but I'm guessing that the gearing could be changed for the USA so that at 75mph the RPMs are lower. Ford is going to be positioned nicely when gas breaks $4 again a summer or two from now.

 

Gearing is important to both economy and performance. I don't think Americans would be willing to take the hit in performance for the economy.

 

4000 RPM to cruise at 75 mph? That wouldn't be annoying at all. Holy....

 

I got 40 MPG on the highway with my old 99 Saturn SL (1.9L SOHC and 5-speed transmission). I wasn't anywhere near that RPM at 75mph on the highway in 5th gear! Considering that was 11 model years earlier than this Fiesta, I can't really be impressed.

 

It better get good gas mileage, 'cause it won't win any beauty contests!

 

Its better looking than the Spark!

 

It is better looking than any "B" segment car on the market.

 

Considering My buddies 1987 CRX HF gets 45 MPG highway I don't consider your old 99 Saturan impressive especially since the CRX is 12 years earlier than your Saturn. Jackass.

 

I sat in a fiesta at my local airshow last month, and I was really suprised. I didn't know it was a fiesta until I walked away and saw the badge on the trunk. The interior was really modern and neat looking, even though I could tell it was cheap material.

38mpg is pretty rockin for a cheap-o base model car.

As for the high revs, my old 98 ford escort used to turn about 3800rpm at 75mph. It wasn't annoying at all. The interior dampened out the noise just fine. The only thing that bothered my about the high RPM was the fact that I grew up with large, low revving engines, and I felt like I was tearing the motor apart by turning it so high. The car has almost 160K on it now, and it's still running great.

 

You should be.

You should be hella impressed.

Like the other 90% of the people here that would look at these mileage figures, you forgot that the way these figures are reached changed in 2008..... today's rating are much lower for the same mileage than they were back when your 1999 Saturn was still new.

Second, like probably 90% of the people who look at that 38 mpg number, you missed the word "combined" that followed that "38 mpg".

Just to give you a taste of how far removed from that '99 Saturn the Fiesta is:

1999 Saturn 1.9 engine came in both a 100 and a 124 horse version, reaching 28/38 and 27/38 mpg city/highway respectively.

Adjust that to the post 2008 mileage rating, and that 1.9 Saturn mileage changes to 23/33 and 25/36

By today's way of measuring mpg, that Saturn 1.9 engine had roughly a 29 mpg combined rating with the EPA's current 55%/45% highway/city test cycle mix at higher speeds, and other more realistic changes.

That puts the Fiesta pretty close to an easy 10 mpg better than the Saturn.

..... or at least 30%.


Quite impressive by any measurment.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Saturn1999.shtml

 

guionM, you're right that I missed the "combined" part. I do consider that impressive! The 40 MPG figure I used was the common highway MPGs I experienced on long drives as I calculated it. I've always seen it officially listed at 39, but I measured it as high as 42 in the real world.

TrackMagicWS6, were you seriously calling me a jackass? What's your problem?

 

We can easily get better mileage than the EPA gets, just like we can easily get alot worse. All depends on how you drive. Especially true if you drive a manual, where you can almost toss the EPA numbers in the trash. You can get alot higher or alot lower mpg based on what gears you use.

The EPA figures are just for comparison, and nothing more. It's a number that can be used to compare with other vehicles tested the exact same way.

My old '97 LT1 Z28 6 speed was rated at 27 mpg highway by the old standard.

By the new standard, it's 24 mpg.

Car and Driver rarely managed more than 20.

I typically got 30 on my San Diego to San Francisco runs.

But I wouldn't compare my 30 mpg with the LT1 with the 29 mpg the EPA has the new Camaro V6 rated at. Since the EPA's new standard rates the new V6 at 5 mpg better, I'd expect 35 mpg driving the same roads.

 

Agreed. I'd say the 2008+ hwy ratings are pretty accurate at 74mph. At 60mph I've gotten as high as 36mpg with the Aura we used to have, and at 57mph I can get 29mpg in the '07 Equinox I just picked up.

 

First B-segment car I've ever been excited about.

I got to look at one in person via www.fiestamovement.com and it's an impressive little piece!

 

Doesn't look too bad. 2400lbs, that's not too shabby. Add another 50hp via an SVT model and I'd seriously consider this.