## Ford begins production of new Fiesta ECOnetic with 71 mpg US

##### 26 March 2012
 Fiesta ECOnetic Technology. Click to enlarge.

Ford of Europe has begun production of the new Fiesta ECOnetic Technology, which offers fuel economy of 3.3l/100 km (71.2 mpg US) and CO2 emissions of 87 g/km, at Ford’s Cologne Assembly plant in Germany. The preceding version of the Fiesta ECOnetic carried a 95 g/km rating.

The car is powered by a 95PS (94 hp, 70 kW) 1.6-liter Duratorq TDCi diesel engine and provides 205 N·m (151 lb-ft) of torque; it will be available in three-door and five-door form and in a variety of trim levels, depending on market.

(Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions figures in g/km are from officially approved tests in accordance with EC Directive 93/116/EC. Fuel economy figures quoted are based on the European Fuel Economy Directive EU 80/1268/EEC and will differ from fuel economy drive cycle results in other regions of the world.)

The improved efficiency, which boosts the environmental performance of the Fiesta ECOnetic technology by more than 12%, was achieved through the introduction of range of ECOnetic technologies:

• Auto-Start-Stop;
• Upgrades to the 95PS 1.6TDCi engine including friction and combustion improvements and calibration optimization;
• Revised gear ratios;
• Smart regenerative charging;
• EcoMode;
• Improved efficiency of the air conditioning, cooling fan and alternator; and
• Lower suspension, undershield and wheel deflectors as well as low-rolling resistance tires to further reduce driving resistances.

Five engines in the Fiesta line-up emit less than 130g/km of CO2: the 1.4-liter and 1.6-liter TDCi diesel engines; the 1.25-liter 60PS and 82PS gasoline engines; and the latest 1.6-liter TDCi 95PS ECOnetic Technology engine.

Half of all Ford cars sold in Europe will carry the ECOnetic Technology badge by the end of 2012, showing they are leaders or among the very best in terms of fuel economy in their segment; that will increase to two-thirds in 2013. This is part of Ford’s commitment to reduce CO2 emissions of its cars by 30% between 2006 and 2020.

This car may compete with many small HEVs such as the Toyota Aris Hybrid.

It may become a matter of choice between ICE diesel and gasoline HEVs.

Those seem like two good choices if mileage is the main factor. It seems to come and go. When prices are up, people look for mileage, when they are back down, not so much.

Numbers like "3.3l/100" are NOT real world! The validation tests used are on a rolling road, with no aero load.

These cars are no more ENERGY EFFICIENT than any other ICE car, they're just making all engines Diesel, making them smaller and playing around the edges with stop-start and alternator regen.... It's all Greenwash basically!

Auto makers are now focused on MPG figures so much they are building cars specifically to score high numbers on these Dyno tests, just so they can paint it down the side of the car for PR shots (see above example)

@HarveyD
Why not a diesel hybrid (when − or if − someone will offer this...)? Too costly, perhaps…

The Focus version of the same car will follow shortly. The station wagon of the Focus can provide decent space. One could note that with the 1-liter 3 cylinder gasoline engine and the mentioned 1.6-liter diesel, Ford is able to offer good fuel efficiency without resorting to HEV and the increased cost associated with an electric drivetrain (although these cars might be considered "nano-HEVs”, after all). I do not know the price of the Auris hybrid in the USA (or Japan?) but in Europe it is way too high to be competitive.

The PNGV cars in 1999 were diesel hybrid and got 70 mpg. No reason people can not build diesel hybrids, but few do right now.

If it has "smart regenerative charging" is it a mild hybrid? or is that just the disconnect-the-alternator-when-battery-is-charged?

My first question would be: Will it be available in North America? and the next question would be: What will the EPA mileage ratings be?

I know that GM is supposed to have a diesel powered variant of the Chevy Cruze available for the 2013 model year but so far I have not seen any details on the car or the engine.

@ sd -

The EPA 5-cycle is typically about 20% lower than the NEDC, so about 57 mpg would be a reasonable guess.

If it were 50 mpg, you would have the choice between the Prius C and this. That would be an interesting market study in the U.S. If they both are the same price, get the same mileage, are the same size and performance, which would sell better?

I would guess that the Prius C would sell better. There seems to be a built in bias against diesel cars in the U.S. Some think of smokey clanky engines, that use fuel that is more expensive. If your neighbors don't own one, chances are you don't either.

The Toyota Aris Hybrid or Prius C will supposedly sell for $19K in USA. Peugeot makes a diesel HEV but it is more costly and not sold this side of the ocean. It seems difficult to build a light weight, low cost diesel. Somebody in India designed a small 2 cyls light weight (24 Kw) diesel for on-board genset but it went underground? "The EPA 5-cycle is typically about 20% lower than the NEDC, so about 57 mpg would be a reasonable guess." You also need to factor in the economy hit to bring the diesel to EPA pollution standards.. best bet would be to compare VW diesels that are both sold in the US and Europe. Also consider the cost of the engine and the additional cost of diesel fuel in the US. Its an iffy proposition when you consider the possible higher repair costs. @SJC The PNGV program was killed for political reasons; much to my regret, I must say. However, soon, the European manufacturers will market 70 mpg diesel hybrids of (almost) similar size. However, I do not think US consumers would buy them. @Dollared In my nomenclature, these cars are “nano” hybrids. @Paul The test method does take aero load into account! Kind of stupid if it did not… In short, a coast down test is made on a test track outdoor (with rigorous specifications on surface, inclination, etc…) and the settings for the chassis dynamometer simulate the road load. On the condition that the driving cycle is similar, the laboratory can very accurately match on-road measurements. Objections could, of course, be made against the driving cycle used, claiming that it should be “tougher”, include lower (or higher?) temperature, more use of auxiliaries, etc. Consequently, it would be very simple to come up with a test cycle that gives much higher fuel consumption than average Joe. Perhaps our authorities should consider that if it could make us all much happier. However, the main objective is to compare cars under similar conditions. Work has been going on for many, many years to come up with a world-wide harmonized test cycle. It might still take many years before such a test cycle could be implemented. Of course, this test cycle should be better than those we use today. However, we can be quite sure that it would never be representative for any country, any driver (Paul?) and so on. The main purpose is for comparison, period. I happen to have one of these “fuel-efficient” cars. It is much bigger and more powerful than the car in the article, so the fuel consumption is higher but 4,9 l/100 km is still very good for a station wagon. I may not live in a REAL WORLD but I can easily get 4,8 l/100 km, or below, in normal driving. This is actually what I have as a reading since my last refueling, although it is winter and my car is parked on the driveway in the cold all the time. Good? Yes, I think so! Peter, A diesel hybrid might sell in the U.S. if it was comfortable. This means mid sized, about the room of a Camry or Fusion and gets 50+ MPG. People would accept diesel in the U.S. if it provided enough advantages. A mid sized sedan that is smooth, quiet and affordable could work. I have a 2008 Focus wagon with this Engine fitted, albeit in 110 BHP 16 valve form. It's a smooth little lump and goes well enough but I get nowhere near the official combined economy figures despite pretty gentle use, much of it on the open road. I find you can expect a real world figure 20% down on official calcs with many cars, and I use that as a basis for ownership calculations. From what I have heard, diesels are good for highway mileage and hybrid is good for city mileage, this seems like a good combination. You know the people in the US I know, have been crying for high mileage diesels for years. From small pickups (Toyota, Nissan) to mid-sized cars. Other than VW where are they? I've been driving a Jetta TDI and averaging 40mpg since 2002. Running on bio-diesel for most of it. A few of us have been talking about diesel-hybrids for years. Where are they? Fuel consumption in this country could take a major hit right now with known tech without waiting for new battery tech or hydrogen. VW's new Diesel Hybrid Crossover concept claims 135 mpg. Volvo's likewise. Bring it on. Even stop and go tech diesels could blow gas ICE out of the water. Even with subtracting your 12% for gas equivelant. With new PM filters, Blue Tech for Nox and stop/go, bring it on. Now. Screw the Middle East and all other oil producing countries and our tendency to exploit the third world. Peace through diesel hybrid. This rig seems an efficient use of all of that 'excess' diesel currently being exported. The combo of stop start and highway mpg should be attractive to long distance commuters. Fair comparisons with hybrids would be very good for the market place. A diesel hybrid makes a lot of sense. Like, maybe GM will follow the hugely successful Volt with an even MORE "perfect" car. You are right, just proven HEV with NiHM batteries and diesel would do well. If you go from NiMH 1 kWh to 6 kWh lithium for a PHEV, it adds to the price tag. The PHEV Prius has a$32,000 price tag with a $34,000 price premium and not a lot of batteries. Why not a diesel hybrid Camry that gets 50+ mpg for$30,000?

The MPGe numbers on PHEVs do not account for the energy that it takes to make the electricity, so consumers are being a bit misled.

@SJC
I have such a car you mention. It is a BMW 320d Touring. It gives me 50 mpg, reasonable good performance and enough room for me (179 cm and 65 kg) and my family. It is somewhat smaller than a Camry but why not a 520d Touring if you need a bigger car. The fuel consumption is almost the same as the 320d. BMW already has a NOx catalyst ready since a couple of years for the 6-cylinder engines, so adapting this technology to a 4-cylinder engine for the US emission norms would not be a problem (a smaller engine would, in fact, further reduce NOx). A urea catalyst is not needed and would be more expensive in this size class. Why are these cars not marketed in the USA? Well, I presume that BMW has found that there is no market in the USA for diesels. Just the word “diesel” is the worst kind of label you could give to a car in the USA. Perhaps hybridization could change that perception but then performance and price would jump up to a level where the car would not be affordable any more. In general, BMW cars are expensive in the first place even with conventional gasoline engines.

With the price tags you suggest, I would choose the diesel hybrid for \$30 000. My city driving is fairly limited, so current PHEVs with the price tag indicated would not be a good option for me. Others might have different conditions and viewpoints.

Current EU regulation for fuel consumption is so biased that it gives totally ridiculous fuel consumption numbers for PHEVs. For example, an electric range of 25 km cuts fuel consumption by 50%. Car magazines have realized this and love to prove that “representative” driving patterns give far higher fuel consumption than the legislated numbers. In fact, the added battery weight can even result in higher fuel consumption and CO2 than a conventional HEV, in spite of if the electricity contribution is counted as zero. Sometimes, they even come close to a conventional car. Maybe a small 3-cylinder diesel engine in a parallel hybrid driveline that gives very good fuel consumption even in highway driving could be something to consider for PHEVs, since it would provide low fuel consumption under any driving condition.

BTW, the new efficient Ford Focus to be introduced this spring as well will have a NOx catalyst (Euro 6), so this could be an option for USA but I doubt that Ford will market it in the USA.

This is my perception of driving pattern in the US (the same applies in many places in Europe):

Green light: Floor it, high acceleration until 5-10 mph above the limit, maybe less in restrictive areas. Keep the foot on the gas until you slam the brakes for the red light. Then start over.

Shame on you, if you try to coast to the next red light, where there are already 5-10 cars waiting in line. If possible, the driver behind you will try to pass either way around you - and then slam the brakes even harder right in front of you.

When real world driving is based on stupidity (not all US drivers, just the ones who follow the above mentioned procedure), no wonder fuel economy suffers. I have never had problems getting the advertised fuel economy, and I generally go 5-10 mph over the limit. But not when there is a red light in front of me..! Duh!

Coasting to avoid stopping and continue at 30 mph instead saves an enormous amount of fuel and is less stressful.

I respect that hypermiling is a hobby for the few, but don't complain that official ratings are bogus, when they are easy to achieve if you drive the car as intended. And official ratings do not take into account going above the limit...

In the small econoboxes, fuel economy suffers a lot once you get above 70-75 mph.

It is possible to create a “driving route” instead of a “driving cycle” that takes engine power and driving style into account. Thus, a less powerful car will not accelerate as fast as a powerful car but the total distance will be the same. This has been discussed for the now World-wide test cycle. In contrast, congested traffic forces all cars to follow basically the same speed pattern. A mix of both options might be the best. We should also note that the basis for the EU and US test cycles was recorded in the 1970’s so neither one of these test cycles is very representative for the driving pattern today. So back to my original question: would our governments make us all happy if they used a test cycle that gives higher fuel consumption? Or should we educate all drivers in “ecodriving” to get the advertised fuel consumption? I would vote for the second option. Ecodriving actually implies quite brisk accelerations in most driving conditions, so it does not have to be slower than normal driving style. This is what I practice as the first crucial point. The second one – and this is very, very basic – I just keep the speed limits, or at least do not exceed them by more than 10%. By following these two simple rules, I get 50 mpg with my car.

Car sales in the U.S. follow a pattern. In the 1980s you could not get many to buy an SUV, by the 1990s the Ford Explorer was a big seller and it went from there.

It is the fad becomes fashion idea. When minivans were in, it was the soccer mom mobile. Then it became SUVs and then crossovers. This is the way it is, so when smooth, quiet, roomy and responsible become chic, there just might be some longer term sales.

@SJC
Maybe you have to encourage the buyers somewhat if you want to reduce fuel consumption. Examples from some EU countries have shown that relatively small incentives can change customer behavior a lot. Preferably, it should be some kind of feebate system, not just an increased tax or an incentive that is gives unjustified credits to some type of cars. If the feebate system is fully “internally” funded, it might be easier for customers to accept it.

The comments to this entry are closed.