GM and Electric Utility Industry Launch Collaboration in Support of Commercializing Plug-in Vehicles
Study: Minnesota Can Achieve Transportation GHG Reduction Goals Using a Combination of Vehicle Efficiency, Low Carbon Fuels and Reduced VMT

Ford of Europe Introduces Fiesta ECOnetic; 63.6 mpg US

The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic.

Ford of Europe introduced the Fiesta ECOnetic—the most fuel-efficient model in the European range—at the British International Motor Show in London.

Powered by a specially-calibrated version of the 90 PS (66 kW, 89 hp) 1.6-liter Duratorq TDCi, combined with coated Diesel Particulate Filter, the Fiesta ECOnetic offers fuel consumption of 3.7 L/100km (63.6 mpg US) with CO2 emissions of 98 g/km. Extra-urban highway fuel consumption is 3.2 L/100km (73.5 mpg US). The Fiesta ECOnetic accelerates from  0-100 kph in 12.3 seconds and has a top speed of 178 kph (111 mph).

The Fiesta uses similar approaches to fuel efficiency as applied in earlier ECOnetic models,  with improved aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires and enhanced lubrication. Lowered ride height and aerodynamic details such as wheel covers and wheel deflectors build on Fiesta’s  drag co-efficient (Cd) of 0.33.

The low rolling resistance tires in a 175/65 R14 profile, a longer final drive gear ratio and special lubricants support efficient powertrain performance, especially in highway cruising.  In conjunction with BP, Ford has developed low-viscosity transmission and low-friction engine oils for ECOnetic models.

All new Fiestas feature Electric Power Assist Steering (EPAS), using less fuel and engine power than a standard hydraulic power assist system, without compromising driving dynamics or steering feedback.

Extensive use of high strength steels and a focus on weight saving has also reduced the mass of new Fiesta by 40 kg versus the previous model, despite improved safety equipment and sound insulation.

New Fiesta ECOnetic will be on sale across Europe later this year and completes an initial trilogy of models in the company’s European vehicle range that also includes a 139 g/km Ford Mondeo ECOnetic and a 115 g/km Ford Focus ECOnetic.



Hello, Ford? Those things would sell like hotcakes here.


Ok, who wants to bet that they won't bring it to the US "because nobody would buy it" and then whine that nobody is buying Expeditions anymore while Toyota literally cannot produce enough Priuses to keep with demand?


They won't bring it to the US because it is a diesel.

It would, however, be interesting to apply those changes to a 1.4 or smaller petrol car and see what you ended up with. It wouldn't be as economical as a diesel, but it would still be very good.

Also, the "econetic" Focus might appeal to people requiring a larger steed.


What many people forget is that vehicles that are manufactured for Europe don't have the same crash/impact standards as the US. So, Ford can't just ship these across the pond and start selling them. (I used to be an automotive engineer for Ford.)



Do you mean that EU cars are unsafe to drive? Many people doubt that is true.

Isn't it just one more excuse not to sell very low fuel consumption EU diesel cars in USA?

Sooner or latter, this type of latent protectionism will have to go.

If Ford can build decent cars in Europe, why not in USA?


Ford is planning on bringing the Fiesta to the US, and also building it in the US. See today's NY times article at

It doesn't specifically mention the ECOnetic model, but clearly, US consumer tastes have suddenly shifted to gas efficient models, and the US manufacturers like Ford are responding.


The US goverment has created standards that are higher than what Kings are use to living by, in the building codes and the automotive standards that are so high that only millionaires can afford them.

Why can't we have a 63.6 mpg car here in the US?
Maybe the Senitors that are preventing this should be voted out of office.


Just because you can take someone's words and forcibly misinterpret them does not make it true!

She said the crash standards were DIFFERENT and not specifically lacking.

I'm sure they tailor their engineering to the lowest requirements necessary for the respective country of sale rather than trying to build an all around safe car - could be some of the requirements in either market cause mild conflicts in the equipment configuration. For example, they could specify one particular type of safety glass in US and a different type (that may be just as safe) in the EU.


I don't buy the argument that European cars or small cars or Diesel cars cannot be sold in the US due to safety or emissions standards. We have the Smart car and Mini Cooper here, both European and very small (but not available as Diesel in the US). We will soon have a 50 state legal VW Jetta TDI. Some European manufacturers are willing and able to make small cars and/or Diesels available in the US. Others, notably GM and Ford, who both have European subsidiaries that sell small Diesels in Europe refuse to bring their small Diesels to the US and then wonder why they are doing so badly. Why is GM spending so much money developing the Volt when they could bring a Diesel Saturn/Opel Astra to the US today? By the time they are ready to produce the Volt, they will be out of business. Ok, I think the Volt would be great, but a more fuel efficient car today is worth two-hyper efficient cars at some point in the future.


Peter, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

However, there are differences in the regulatory regimes between the US and the EU, particularly in safety and emissions. The problem is that it is terrible industrial policy to create those differences. For the US car manufacturers, they get a level of protectionism, and they definitely sought that protection. But it means that US-build cars are not exportable, and most of their high value-added parts (e.g. engines and electronics) are not exportable.

And of course, it denies us US consumers the ability to choose efficient european diesels, minicars and minivans.

We should never have granted the Big Three's wish for protection. Now they are paying the price because they cannot compete - and we burn probably 1-2million BBLs of petroleum/day more because they bought and sold our legislators.


They wouldn't be able to keep these things on the lot here.

Charles S

Did people actually read the specs on the horsepower and acceleration?

I'm perfectly HAPPY with such performance and would love to see more cars in US with such moderate numbers. But let's come back down to earth and look at the reality here in US, please. The number ONE selling car in US is not a 89 horsepower compact car. Cars like Honda Fit and Yaris combined sales still do not make half the sales of just Camry.

No, Ford would not only be losing money shipping a Euro-made vehicle to US, but it would not sell well here at all.


The DOT and EPA regulations are nothing more than a way to control auto imports by individuals. Protectionism.
It keeps the US fleet of cars using more gas and therefore making more money for the oil guys.


I find the comments about crash and emissions standards completely spurious, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, VW etc etc etc all sell the same cars in Europe as they do here.

If Ford, GM and Chrysler were too shortsighted in their development programs, despite the warnings of global warming, and peak oil, and the actual run up in oil prices that is several years old now then they probably deserve to die,more fool them.


@ Charles

While I agree to some extent, the Yaris does not get 69 miles a gallon. That is the difference. I believe most folks would sacrifice performance for that type of mpg.


The Big Oils have increased the Diesel pricing in United States that I am no longer sure if people will buy these cars even if they were available. Once fuels are priced according to their energy content then diesels lose out.

I do like the reduction of horse power that Ford had done which can bring some improvement in efficiency.

stas peterson

The biggest method to interfere with trade is now the governmental regulatory agencies, not tariffs.

A bureaucrat can always dream up a unique regulation that makes it difficult to import another product.

The Euro Greens have so corrupted their original mission to cleanse the air and water, that they don't give a damn about true toxics, that everyone agrees are unhealthy.

SOx, CO, NOx, and PMs are ignored, in favor of chasing the will'o'the wisp, the harmless plant food trace gas, CO2. A gas that now is being shown isn't even capable of altering the climate any appreciable amount. The world may warm (and now cool) but CO2 has next to nothing to do with it.

America has chosen another route. Our air standards for controlling genuine pollutants are in place, effective, and being addressed FIRST. We are 25 years ahead of Europe in such standards that reduce real genuine pollutants. It shows; our air is much cleaner than ambient air in Europe.

Meanwhile, we are within 6% of officially meeting 1990 Kyoto standards without ratifying it The the phony Europeans are 21% over their 1990 Kyoto committments.

If we only calculate it,just as others do, and credited ourselves with making the prior land use restrictions, in favor of wilderness and parkland,correctly. If we allowed a tree on such restricted and reserved property to propagate and grow a tree, and count them in the tallies, we met Kyoto long ago.

It is not that we are so progressive; its that they are so backward. I would say on purpose, by corruption from their automakers, with the watermelon Greens.

It is routine for their automakers to build cleaner cars for export to the USA, than with what they poison their own EU citizens. Such watermelons are eager to talk a good show; but have never demonstrated any urge to actually do anything but than to make an environmental cesspool wherever they are put in charge.

True "clean diesel" will come when the world adopts T2B2 standards for CI ICEs. But the entry point to "clean", is "cleaner" T2B5, an order of magnitude stiffer than EU 6, and that is the US entry point for diesels.

EU planned promulgation proposals for EU 6 is pure phony watermelon eyewash.

EU Automakers can conform. Daily, they announce such vehicles for sale in the USA, but not in Europe. As a consequence, EU automakers who would build better cars, are forced to build polluting pigs to maintain price competitiveness, in Europe.

If you want these cars here, you must defund NHTSA and EPA while requiring them to negotiate uniform OECD standards for automobiles.

But our government friendly politicians, who never met an opportunity to expand government, or lord it over the Peons, would never countenance shrinking such bureaucracies. The outraged roar would be massive that the Polluters or the Uncaring were in charge here. Unlike the deafening silence to the same and VALID charge in Europe.

And most of the critics that would be leading the charge are right here. The charges would be leveled by the self-same impatient ones, who complain that such autos as this Ford should be allowed into the USA.

In due tiem ,when these vehicles meet genuine emissions standards anthey will come here. Beleive it or not, The world will survive a delay of a few months.

Gerald Shields, Seattle, WA

Whether or not the Fiesta gets sold here is dependent upon emission standards. Given this, I can't see why it can't be sold here.


American auto companies built what Americans bought, which were gas-guzzling bohemoths. They did not force us to buy them.
Shortsighted? Yes.
If americans start buying hi-milage cars, the auto companies will follow suit.
SOme variant of this car will soon appear in the US because now people will buy it.


Are the standards in Europe different because the driving conditions are different?

Seems to me if it was simply some bureaucratic business that industry would work to override it to gain profit by making and selling more of one kind of vehicle.


Stop Global warming: Buy American Made CARs: no pollution due to shipping from overseas

Dan A

Now that there seems to almost be a shortage of diesel worldwide (hence $5+ per gallon diesel), the US is probably better off sticking with gasoline. This seems to be the case for the long-term future as the rest of the world switches to diesel while gasoline demand is falling off a cliff.

IMO, ford would do good to perhapse borrow the in-develompment 1.4 liter gasoline TDI engine that they're putting in their cobalt replacement. Either that or a 4 cylinder version of the new ecoboost engine, but I'm pretty sure they're only making the ecoboost engine for V-6 and? V-8.

Dan A

It seems to me that the US is better off sticking with gasoline at this point as there seems to be almost a shortage of diesel worldwide (hence $5 a gallon diesel). This trend is likely to continue as the rest of the world switches to diesel while gasoline demand falls off a cliff (and will likely continue as the US downsizes and uses new gas saving tech).

IMO, Ford would be best off introduces it into the US with GM's 1.4 liter gasoline TDI engine that they're developing. The ecoboost engine would be good, but I believe they're only offering them as V-6s and? V-8s.


Stas Peterson: Get Real! You make it sound like the sky is black in Europe and people are dying from pollution-related ailments all the time. Have you been there? The sky is blue and life expectancies in France and Germany are higher than ours.


The engineers, technicians, designers working in europe on small cars are experimented for that but in u.s.a they are more trained and experienced in building s.u.v
with 1970's technology like leaf spring and base camshafts.

The comments to this entry are closed.