Topic: Test Drive: 2014 Ford Fiesta SE

[tpl]

...and goodbye Imperial MPG forever?

Hey it's 51 degrees Fahrenheit in Vancouver right now, better get ready for my 20 mile journey to work.

You are a traitor to Trudeau's legacy....you should be sent to a re-education camp to be indoctrinated into the glorious Système Internationale.   

[greengs]

Mpg measure is backward way of showing mileage.  Makes little sense when comparing fuel econ.

14 to 17 mpg is the same improvement as 33 to 50 mpg.   

[greengs]

...and goodbye Imperial MPG forever?

Hey it's 51 degrees Fahrenheit in Vancouver right now, better get ready for my 20 mile journey to work.

I kinda go for the combo on the weather. I like +°F for summer, and -°C for winter.  Below freezing should be anything less than 0°, 0 = cold.  Less than 0 equals shiit I hate this place. -10C = at least the highways aren't wet and slippery. +32F...well, that's HOT isn't it?  It's cold?  Oh no, that's +32C...dammit stupid F-hite!  Come summer...85°...yeah, I like that.  If it's +32 outside, is that warm, or cold?  I dunno, but at least it's not 0!  None of this improves my mileage though...I'm a product of the mixed up generation, at least when it comes to metric/standard.  I know where my tools go though. 

Mpg measure is backward way of showing mileage.  Makes little sense when comparing fuel econ.

14 to 17 mpg is the same improvement as 33 to 50 mpg.   

You're too young to know what you're talking about, or understand obviously.  Hopefully I can teach my kids better.    It's not a percentage thing, it's how far can you go on a gallon, and every road is 1 mile from the next one, not 1 km...but you might not know that (not sure where you live, but here, it's a big friggin grid of square MILES.)

It's not a percentage thing.  You save 1 gallon every 100 miles when you go from 14mpg to 17mpg.  You save the same going from 33mpg to 50mpg.  That makes it very misleading for an average person when looking at fuel econ ratings.  And yes I do live and work actually in an industry where every section of land is 1x1 mile and I do deal with bbl and mcf every day.  So I Have no issues dealing with mpg or L/100kms however one makes no sense to me the other does.   

Also I fill up in L and my odo is kms so it's much easier for me to do the math. 

[Rupert]

   I have been out of the workforce for a decade but SI has been here for going on a half century. Ten years ago the installations that we did for the US (or here for that matter) were all in inches and feet and pounds (don't think about tons...metric and short). I bet this is still the case now.
We still do number of stitches to the inch (on pain of knitting needle in the bum)...buy 2x4s...4x8s. Properties are measured in feet by feet and (less than 1/2 acre). I don't know is there a nautical kilometer? We still use AWG and probably BWG for that matter. There is still an hour and 24 of them in a day...measured from Greenwich for navigation...oh dear. I suppose with satalites it is a moot point now. We still use BSF and BSW (unified screw threads...mostly I suspect)
   When it comes to gas in the tank...better fill up at a half full in BC and be prepared to spend an hour doing so if the card system has broken down and you have to queue up to pay before pumping and then get back to the pump and find the guy on the other side using it. And then queue again to get yer change. Gas gauges on cars are wildly in-accurate.
   All of this being said...I don't mind buying sliced ham in KGs instead of half a pound or a liter of mouth wash and liters of gas for that matter. It was difficult to have mental awareness of the size of a purchase at first. I wonder how many use the L for a hundred, to put an amount of gas in their tank. Not many at all I suspect. I suspect also that if it had been km/L this would have been water under the bridge by now...forgotten, but all of the above quirks would be and are still around. They just are.
   Fill er up....for sure in BC.

[HeliDriver]

^^ You know, there are people in the U.S. who are pushing for a change to Gallons/100 Miles as their official measure of fuel consumption.

Why? Because it makes sense.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/cars/news/4324986

[Rupert]

I suppose they have nothing better to do. Still I think they have a more accurate method of quoteing fuel rating on their add literature.

[SaskSpecV]

^^ You know, there are people in the U.S. who are pushing for a change to Gallons/100 Miles as their official measure of fuel consumption.

Why? Because it makes sense.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/cars/news/4324986

Another US-based article pushing for a proper measure of fuel consumption, not mileage.  Same basic argument - mileage is a non-linear measurement.
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/mpg-is-stupid.html

[johngenx]

so you can talk to grandpa about your car.

Old people can learn new things.  Also, most people in Canada now should be very familiar with SI as it's been in place since I was in about gr1.  My father is well into his 70's and hasn't used Imperial anything since I was about 6.  (Well, except for building supplies and his own height and weight)

[dkaz]

I'm in buildings engineering, we still use imperial units extensively unless it's a government job or client request to use SI units.

Asking the Americans to use gp100? Whoa whoa one at a time! Don't want to overwhelm the Americans.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I'm in buildings engineering, we still use imperial units extensively unless it's a government job or client request to use SI units.

Asking the Americans to use gp100? Whoa whoa one at a time! Don't want to overwhelm the Americans.

We've used Imperial and metric, sometimes at the same location, but on different projects. It can be a clusterf*ck because sooner or later some drawing is going to get the units screwed up, and someone is going to miss it until construction and things don't fit.

The government should have regulated imperial out of existence and enforced it years ago.

[hemusbull]

so you can talk to grandpa about your car.

Old people can learn new things.  Also, most people in Canada now should be very familiar with SI as it's been in place since I was in about gr1.  My father is well into his 70's and hasn't used Imperial anything since I was about 6.  (Well, except for building supplies and his own height and weight)

Ya, funny how so many of us are metric except for in the context of 2x4, 2x6, etc and height/weight.  Don't think I have ever heard anyone discuss height/weight in cms or kgs.

No, it isn't one way exactly...In Europe many things never were metric as well. For example all pipe sizes over there are in inch and only inch and ...rim/tire diameters are in inch, only inch and no one ever tried to even transfer them into centimeters. Never!

[Rupert]

It's history...forget it. Maybe we were on the wrong side of it. I'm going for a firkin.

[blur911]

No, it isn't one way exactly...In Europe many things never were metric as well. For example all pipe sizes over there are in inch and only inch and ...rim/tire diameters are in inch, only inch and no one ever tried to even transfer them into centimeters. Never!

I agree about pipes, but if you actually measure those pipes you will find a 1/2" is nowhere near 1/2", it's a nominal size.

As for rim/tires and nobody ever trying to convert.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_TRX

[greengs]

soooooo how about that Fiesta.  Where is the 1.0T engine that was talked about for the 2014 model year?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I think the ST and the 3 cylinder drop sometime after Christmas.

[Noto]

...while there wasn't really anything wrong with the Fiesta, there really wasn't any reason to buy it over the Rio5.

Tiny back window in Rio5, better fuel economy and drive feel in Fiesta - but these are subjective, so you are correct - for YOU, there wasn't any reason to buy it over the Rio5.

For me, I'd also likely take the Rio5, but I wouldn't say that there isn't any reason to prefer the Fiesta - I would, except for the driver's seat - I think the Rio has some of the best seats anywhere under $40k.

So post #11 by NOTO is wrong then and km/L is not used in the EU.

Did you even read what SirO posted [from the most reputable source: Wikipedia]?!  So according to you, "parts of Eurasia" are not parts of Europe...?!

SirO said:
"...kilometres per litre (km/L) is more commonly used elsewhere in the Americas, Eurasia, parts of Africa and Oceania."

soooooo how about that Fiesta.  Where is the 1.0T engine that was talked about for the 2014 model year?

I fear the 1L Turbo 3cyl set up will be taxed if I eat a perogie before driving it...on paper, turbos make sense, but if you've got to be in boost to get the power figures necessary to move the lil' putter around, it'll consume more juice than we want it to.  I can't wait to try hyper-milling it and see what numbers I can achieve.

[hemusbull]

No, it isn't one way exactly...In Europe many things never were metric as well. For example all pipe sizes over there are in inch and only inch and ...rim/tire diameters are in inch, only inch and no one ever tried to even transfer them into centimeters. Never!

I agree about pipes, but if you actually measure those pipes you will find a 1/2" is nowhere near 1/2", it's a nominal size.

As for rim/tires and nobody ever trying to convert.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_TRX

I don't say no one convert it, instead I mean it is common practice to use inch sizes even in Paris, the world headquarters of Le Système international d'unités (SI), you buy tires made by Michelin in inches. Period.
Regarding the pipe size - it is loosely related to the inside diameter of the pipe. Because of the pipe wall thickness, the actual diameter of the threads is larger than the nominal pipe size, considerably so for small sizes. But I don't think here is a place for metrology discussion.

[aquadorhj]

No, it isn't one way exactly...In Europe many things never were metric as well. For example all pipe sizes over there are in inch and only inch and ...rim/tire diameters are in inch, only inch and no one ever tried to even transfer them into centimeters. Never!

I agree about pipes, but if you actually measure those pipes you will find a 1/2" is nowhere near 1/2", it's a nominal size.

As for rim/tires and nobody ever trying to convert.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_TRX

I don't say no one convert it, instead I mean it is common practice to use inch sizes even in Paris, the world headquarters of Le Système international d'unités (SI), you buy tires made by Michelin in inches. Period.
Regarding the pipe size - it is loosely related to the inside diameter of the pipe. Because of the pipe wall thickness, the actual diameter of the threads is larger than the nominal pipe size, considerably so for small sizes. But I don't think here is a place for metrology discussion.

lol.. to throw the wrench on things,  tread size is measured in Metric..   195, 205, 255 etc...  millimetres!!

wheel's bolt pattern AND hub diameter is also in "mm" 

anyway. 

back to Fiesta.   

[hemusbull]

But the funniest thing is that the size is metric/imperial . For example 195/55 -15 means 195 (width in mm) by 55 (ratio in %) on 15 (rim diameter in inch)! Total mess everywhere around the world! Cheers!

[dirtyjeffer]

...while there wasn't really anything wrong with the Fiesta, there really wasn't any reason to buy it over the Rio5.

Tiny back window in Rio5, better fuel economy and drive feel in Fiesta - but these are subjective, so you are correct - for YOU, there wasn't any reason to buy it over the Rio5.

For me, I'd also likely take the Rio5, but I wouldn't say that there isn't any reason to prefer the Fiesta - I would, except for the driver's seat - I think the Rio has some of the best seats anywhere under $40k.

the Fiesta rear window isn't any larger (or if it is, it is negligible), so i'm not sure what you are getting at there (they can both be considered small)...plus, the Rio5 has a backup camera anyway (top trim), so not much of an issue either.





the "driver feel" may be better if you were going to track the car perhaps, but isn't much of a deal in regular driving...i didn't find anything about the Fiesta that said "Hey, the driving dynamics on this car are excellent"...it simply felt like a subcompact car, nothing more, nothing less...the same goes for the Rio5 when i drove it...but top tier driving dynamics weren't high on my list (or most people's list) for a car like this...if it was a nice Roadster or Sports Car, sure, but not a subcompact car for $20kish.

if i drive my car "normal", i can easily get high 6s for fuel economy...my current tank is at 7.4 and i have been driving it very spirited, because it is fun to do so...i think whatever the difference is between the two of them is minimal (in terms of annualized fuel costs)...factor in that i get a refund from Kia every year, there likely isn't any difference.