Thirsty little Fiesta

[Ben85]

Originally Posted by silverzetec

after ceasing to use the Vpower, the morning issues stopped.

You were talking about the Vpower Racing werent you? Because the standard Vpower doesnt have any Ethanol in it. Only the Racing 100Ron has the Ethanol.

[south21]

I have a cl manual ws fiesta and I'm getting 6 litres per 100ks on 91 ron unleaded, 348 ks It used 21 litres, around town with a little bit of freeway driving.

[JClarke]

My car only and only will use the old plain unleaded petrol, I travelled my WS Zetec for 100+kms and I still have 400km more to go until the fuel runs out -- Me like the fuel enconmy!

[Ben85]

Its each to there own really. But the higher RON fuel is better for the engine, and if you can find the extra $1-$3 per tank to put in atleast 95RON (as recommended by ford) thats your decision, but if are intending to own this car for an extended length of time i'd put the better fuel in. As my old man always told me, look after your car and it will look after you. (good tyres, good fuel, regular maintenance, and keep it clean)

[Fi.ES.TA]

Could'nt of put it better myself ben.

[Zetec Dave]

Very well said Ben. This issue is pretty much debated everywhere but at the end of the day, its down to each individual, their financial circumstances, how tight they generally are in the pocket, how long they want to keep their car, how much they love their car and overall knowledge of good car maintanence not to mention how lead footed you are or those that drive your car which is on top of all other variables which is going to be extremely hard to compare with if its not a controlled study. he he he. Talking scientific term now. I think its time I get a rest from the books. LOL.

[silverzetec]

Originally Posted by Ben85

You were talking about the Vpower Racing werent you? Because the standard Vpower doesnt have any Ethanol in it. Only the Racing 100Ron has the Ethanol.

One last comment on this one; I was using the just the standard Vpower fuel at the bowser.

[BruceT]

Originally Posted by zetec jim

i know that dealers/car-makers will say anything... but in todays engines that are calibrated in such detail...especially the new WS compared to my WP, i'd say if the manual suggests 95 or higher... i'd use it, regardless of better economy on plain ULP.

Firstly, the Australian manual doesn't mention which grade of fuel to use but does say that E10 is OK. I've read the manual from cover to cover. I would expect a mention of premium ULP (95 RON0 if that was recommended).

The WS has a new engine, so the WP is not comparable. TRhere was much more mention of 95RON recommended with the WP. The Ford site (in a tiny footnote) says, "For optimum performance use fuel of 95 RON or higher." But what is 'optimum performance'? It doesn't sya 'optimum economy, best cold starts, etc. I think it refers just to power. The new WS engine has a sophisticated system for knock sensing and adjusting ignition timeing and fuel-air mix for the RON of the fuel. I doubt using 91 ROn would make the slightest difference to how long the engine lasts - otehrwise Ford would make an issue over it - it would affect warranty.

Finally, I would not trust the marketing of the petrol companies. It is possible for 98 RON and/or 95 RON to have more or less energy density than regular 91 RON ULP. E10 is about 95 RON, but has a lower energy density than ULP, and poorer economy. The fuel companies are not required to publish their fuels energy density, so this is almost certainly a cost-optimisation issue covered up with fancy marketing. And there are very few refineries in Australia - 2 in Sydney. There is a lot of sharing of fuels between the distributors. Given so much is kept secret, can you trust the petrol company marketing?

[dannyhilton]

Originally Posted by BruceT

Firstly, the Australian manual doesn't mention which grade of fuel to use but does say that E10 is OK. I've read the manual from cover to cover. I would expect a mention of premium ULP (95 RON0 if that was recommended).

Page 29 of your Ford Service Guide. Ford says a minimum of 91RON with no more than 10% ethonol. However, the performance figures were attained using 95RON.

[BruceT]

Originally Posted by RapidTyphoon

Page 29 of your Ford Service Guide. Ford says a minimum of 91RON with no more than 10% ethonol. However, the performance figures were attained using 95RON.

Thanks RapidTyphoon,
I hadn't read the service guide - I'm only just at 3000km. Yes it does say 91RON minimum, but it doesn't say that 95 RON is recommended in the guide (as far as I can see).

I couldn't find performance figures in the Service Guide either. It's true they are here (uinder specifications):
http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/Conte...=FOA&c=DFYPage
Also the comparisons are done with 95 RON here:
http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/Conte...ection=compare

But, I'm willing to bet that all this testing was done in Germany to Australian standards (ADR 81/01). They would have the lab setup -all they would have to do after measuring the performance to European standards is adjust the test to Australian standards and do it again. (The emission levels are quoted to EURO 4. Are European economy standards the same as ours? Is the UK different from the continent?)

Germany doesn't have 91 RON fuel - the lowest is 95 RON. I'm sure that the engine is built to give the best power/economy with European 95 RON - probably a specific formulation. The WS gives good power/economy with our 91 RON ULP in my experience anyway. They've done a good job of making the new engine flexible with respect to fuel RON. I'm sure it will give a bit more power and better economy with the optimum 95 RON, but is that what we buy here? (E10 is 95 RON).

I'm a little concerned that the service guide says the tank is 42 litres, but the web site says its 43 litres! What's the truth?

[kiwijohn42]

Optimum performance is going to vary from driver to driver. Most people won't care & will just stick in 91.
"Optimum economy, best cold starts, etc" too many variables when they sell the same car from Tassie to Townsville.
As for the engine, it ain't all new. "All new" sells better than "we tarted up the old one". Underneath it's still the Zetec SE. The VCT was used on the 1.7 Ford Racing Puma. All modern engines use knock sensors.

[Ben85]

Originally Posted by BruceT

Germany doesn't have 91 RON fuel - the lowest is 95 RON. I'm sure that the engine is built to give the best power/economy with European 95 RON

Then that is wat i suggest you use, lets face it, unless you are scrouge mcduck im sure, if you have bought a brand new car you can afford to pay the extra couple of dollars for the better fuel.

[Mike in OZ]

Hello all, this is a very interesting thread. I guess you all have the air con turned off so that you get the most out of your fuel!

[dannyhilton]

Originally Posted by Ben85

If you have bought a brand new car you can afford to pay the extra couple of dollars for the better fuel.

Well said.

[BruceT]

Originally Posted by Mike in OZ

Hello all, this is a very interesting thread. I guess you all have the air con turned off so that you get the most out of your fuel!

I usually run with A/C on and recirculated air (except on long trips). Just a personal preference.

[GoesLikeAZetec]

So the fuel usage on this review doesnt seem realistic going by what most have said?

http://www.caradvice.com.au/20722/fo...rm-conclusion/

http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-conte...fuel_chart.jpg

[greenfoam]

You can't expect better than 6.0 on the average highway and maybe low 6's in town in the manual. Add another litre to both for the auto I guess . Low 5s are possible in the manual on hot mixed freeways but the amount of those in Australia is next to nothing so not much chance there. My Wife gets 6.6L/100 on her route to work, however I can make the same trip in 5.7L/100 now, but that involves trickery like clutch coasting down hills only accelerating on downhill slopes etc that she doesn't do or understand

[dannyhilton]

How on earth they achieved those figures I'll never know. I got 5.4L on a recent 800km trip, but the trip computer lied (was actually about 6.2L) so perhaps he used the cars trip computer to calculate those figures, because I think we can all vouch that they are not real figures.

I don't think I've ever owned a car that when you drive it like a cranny it uses the same amount of fuel when you give it a good poke every so often (nothing over five grand).

[BruceT]

Originally Posted by GoesLikeAZetec

So the fuel usage on this review doesnt seem realistic going by what most have said?

http://www.caradvice.com.au/20722/fo...rm-conclusion/

http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-conte...fuel_chart.jpg

Great review. I agree with just about everything they say. I drove the Mazda 2 auto and manual before I chose the manual Fiesta (didn't test drive the auto) and I chose it for exactly the reasons they state plus a few more. It's certainly a lot more fun to drive.

So far I have averaged 7.2 L/100km over 3000 km+ based on the odometer and bowser. I've mostly used ULP, with two refills with V-power and Caltex premium respectively. I use A/C on recycled air pretty always, and am doing a "city cycle" with about 50% on the M2 motorway in Sydney, which is sometimes stop-go, but mostly smooth flowing at the times I travel.

The figures given in the article are to 2 decimal places, eg 7.34, so must be bowser calculations, as the trip meter only reads to one place, eg 7.3 l/100 km. His two city cycles with 98 RON are similar to my 7.2 L/100 km experience, and as a journalist he probably gets more freedom to choose when and where he drives. The E10 results he gets are shocking - remind me not to try it!

The "great note from the twin tube pipe under heavy acceleration, making the higher end of the tacho an enjoyable place to spend time" is much more noticeable when using 98 RON, but I didn't get noticeably better economy or performance in my try with it.

[BruceT]

Originally Posted by RapidTyphoon

How on earth they achieved those figures I'll never know. I got 5.4L on a recent 800km trip, but the trip computer lied (was actually about 6.2L) so perhaps he used the cars trip computer to calculate those figures, because I think we can all vouch that they are not real figures.

I don't think I've ever owned a car that when you drive it like a cranny it uses the same amount of fuel when you give it a good poke every so often (nothing over five grand).

He's been driving through the Dandenongs, and probably other curvy country roads. Even from my experience the economy at 80 km/h is better than at 100 or 110.

If you give it a poke every so often it wont make much difference. If you always drive like speed-racer it will.

He has no idea how to calculate average economy, which is:
(total fuel in litres)/(total distance in hundreds of km)
This gives 171.84/25.362 = 6.78 L/100km
The 171.84 litres is worked out from the economy times the distance for each tank.

[greenfoam]

Originally Posted by BruceT

The "great note from the twin tube pipe under heavy acceleration, making the higher end of the tacho an enjoyable place to spend time" is much more noticeable when using 98 RON, but I didn't get noticeably better economy or performance in my try with it.

Funny that got mentioned today, I noticed tonight that a full throttle a spin up to 5500 in second gear made quite a pleasant induction whistle and exhaust note, very very nice I thought . I'm not sure if the Fiesta is going better and better all the time or it's just because I haven't driven a car with serious power for a couple of months but it really does seem to be getting better

[JClarke]

At this stage, I am unable to decide whether the ULP or PULP (caltex Preumuim or BP ulitmate) is better?

[BruceT]

Originally Posted by JClarke

At this stage, I am unable to decide whether the ULP or PULP (caltex Preumuim or BP ulitmate) is better?

Well the exhaust note sound better with PULP - are you deaf or something? :

Only kidding. I know the answer.

I seem to be get better economy on ULP than PULP (Caltex). I suspect this was due to traffic variations when I tried it. I could not detect any difference in performance, but I've not repeated a 0-100 trial with ULP.

I suspect it makes no difference. ULP and PULP (ie RON) are all about engine design, compression ratios and control of knocking. I have not felt knocking in the Fiesta with 91 RON ULP. I suspect you would notice it better with your heightened sense of touch. It's a mechanical engine roughness a bit like a diesel engine makes & has the same cause.

A lot of people are drawn in by the slick marketing around PULP and 98 RON. Fuel companies have bigger margins there, so they have an incentive to market the stuff, and it's mostly wealthier drivers that can afford the European cars (plus sports cars) that MUST have it.

[JClarke]

Originally Posted by BruceT

Well the exhaust note sound better with PULP - are you deaf or something? :

Only kidding. I know the answer.

I seem to be get better economy on ULP than PULP (Caltex). I suspect this was due to traffic variations when I tried it. I could not detect any difference in performance, but I've not repeated a 0-100 trial with ULP.

I suspect it makes no difference. ULP and PULP (ie RON) are all about engine design, compression ratios and control of knocking. I have not felt knocking in the Fiesta with 91 RON ULP. I suspect you would notice it better with your heightened sense of touch. It's a mechanical engine roughness a bit like a diesel engine makes & has the same cause.

A lot of people are drawn in by the slick marketing around PULP and 98 RON. Fuel companies have bigger margins there, so they have an incentive to market the stuff, and it's mostly wealthier drivers that can afford the European cars (plus sports cars) that MUST have it.

BruceT - Yes, I am actually deaf......didn't you just notice my profile on the left?

Guess, I used the normal ULP to refill yesterday as I noticed that it has a good fuel economy when I drive as the car uses 7.2 litres per 100km and it can travel up to 560 - 600km depending on where you are driving, haven't done the highways though, will have to do it when ever I get the time to visit Sydney

[EDManual]

Its all about autos in small cars, they always use around 2 litres more than a manual in my experience. That is in new Corollas, Camrys, Elantras, Getz, Swift, accent. etc. Large new cars seem to be a different story, with falcons getting better economy than manuals.

Buy an auto small car, forget about economy, its only for your convenience.

I hate auto small cars!! !!!

[BruceT]

Originally Posted by JClarke

BruceT - Yes, I am actually deaf......didn't you just notice my profile on the left?

Guess, I used the normal ULP to refill yesterday as I noticed that it has a good fuel economy when I drive as the car uses 7.2 litres per 100km and it can travel up to 560 - 600km depending on where you are driving, haven't done the highways though, will have to do it when ever I get the time to visit Sydney

Yes I did notice your profile and I was JUST kidding.

My economy on ULP has also averaged 7.2 litres per 100 km for city driving - about half of which is on a motorway that is sometimes congested. The 7.2 L/100km is calculated from bowser fillings and my odometer. The trip meter usually says about 6.4 L/100 km just before I refill.

I'm interested to hear how you go on a highway trip - I'll do one myself in 2 weeks. My suspicion is fuel economy would actually be best at a steady speed of 60-70 km/h. By 100 km/h I suspect it will be around 6-6.5 L/100km, at least partly because there is no 6th gear. At 100 km/h in 5th the engine is doing 3000 RPM, and still has plenty of torque to accelerate and go uphills.

To me that suggests 5th is not a genuine "cruising" gear and the car is geared for city economy, which makes sense. A properly geared highway crusier (Magna, Falcon) will do only 2000-2300 in top gear at 100 km/h.

[JClarke]

Originally Posted by BruceT

Yes I did notice your profile and I was JUST kidding.

My economy on ULP has also averaged 7.2 litres per 100 km for city driving - about half of which is on a motorway that is sometimes congested. The 7.2 L/100km is calculated from bowser fillings and my odometer. The trip meter usually says about 6.4 L/100 km just before I refill.

I'm interested to hear how you go on a highway trip - I'll do one myself in 2 weeks. My suspicion is fuel economy would actually be best at a steady speed of 60-70 km/h. By 100 km/h I suspect it will be around 6-6.5 L/100km, at least partly because there is no 6th gear. At 100 km/h in 5th the engine is doing 3000 RPM, and still has plenty of torque to accelerate and go uphills.

To me that suggests 5th is not a genuine "cruising" gear and the car is geared for city economy, which makes sense. A properly geared highway crusier (Magna, Falcon) will do only 2000-2300 in top gear at 100 km/h.

I knew that, but please accept my apology.

Will let you know how my car goes on a highway trip sometime, but I am not sure when, on the other hand, if you go on a highway trip before me, please do share the story about how the car went, I am 100 per cent sure that you will be driving it on cruise control and will take a huge effect on the economy!

[EDManual]

yes, thats another thing, cruise control on small cars is terrible for fuel economy.

I drove in my new elantra from Sydney to Geelong on a tank the other month. 935km! not using CC.

Driving with CC sees the economy drop an astonishing 200km to around 700km!! Still ok, but so much worse!

Whats going on? Well going up big mountains/hills without CC I dont put my foot down up the hills and actually let the speed drop a bit from 120-125ish cruising speed back to 110 105 100... instead of putting my foot down to keep the speed.

CC would keep the speed, which is fine, however the throttle position is so far down when you get back to a flat, leaving it at that spot on the accelerator I would be doing not just 150, but more like 180km/h! And so using more like 20 to 25 litres per hundred at 120 instead of 6l/100!

So dont bother with CC, its useless.

[dannyhilton]

Funny? I drive with cruise control most the time, and my economy is among the best on the website? On trips I've been into low fives and high fours (the later only once and was only over a short period). Both times I've been using cruise control? Keep in mind those figures are from the trip computer, not the actual consumption...

[GoesLikeAZetec]

We got 550kms on the very first tank on 91 octane that the dealer put in. I was pretty happy with that...