Realistic 0-60 expectations for the NA Fiesta?

[2000gm]

I'm just curious if anyone has any insight as to what to expect. I've seen some claims of about 7.8 seconds, but others as high as well over 9 seconds.

[eRic]

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 27.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 9.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.8 sec @ 83 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 118 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 170 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g

[PowerShift]

Those numbers almost have to be Euro spec.

[Chan]

Those C/D #'s are Euro spec, C/D also hits numbers that nobody else can magically replicate.

[2000gm]

The C/D quick drive vid on YouTube was 9.4 seconds.

[streetfiesta]

The 0 to sixty is faster than the 5 to sixty?

[Chan]

Originally Posted by streetfiesta

The 0 to sixty is faster than the 5 to sixty?

Lag from the drive-by-computer.

[2000gm]

Originally Posted by Chan

Lag from the drive-by-computer.

I'd believe that's the reason for sure. I'm on my 4th vehicle (3rd Ford) with drive-by-wire throttle and I HATE it. I don't like having the computer give the throttle it's own interepretation of what I'm telling it to do. Especially when you add into the mix an auto transmission that the computer is also controlling and deciding what to do with. I can really throw my F-150 for a loop sometimes and it takes a few seconds to decide which gear it wants to be in and where the throttle should be. I had a 2004 Dodge Ram and that was easily the best d-b-w set up I've experienced. It was very seamless and unobtrusive and felt like a regular mechanical throttle.

[Chibana]

C&D has explained in previous issues both why they tend to get quicker acceleration times than other magazines and the difference in the 0-60 and 5-60. They tend to get quicker acceleration times because they are willing to beat the hell out of the car to get it to move. They've stated this explicitly in previous magazines over the years. They will do whatever it takes to get the quickest time, regardless of how healthy it is for the transmission, motor mounts, control arms, etc. Road & Track, on the other hand, tends to follow a more manufacturer-approved method.

The slower time for 5-60 is simple: it basically turns a manual into an automatic. There's no clutch dump and wheels spinning with most cars when they're rolling along slowly. With most modern, smaller engines, the car bogs down when you simply hit the gas in first gear at 5 mph. They added the 5-60 several years ago to offer a test that would show the effect of low-down torque (or lack thereof), and also give a better indication at how quick the car will be at pulling away from a traffic light in a more real-world, car friendly driving fashion that would more closely resemble what most of us are willing to do to our cars in day-to-day driving. You'll notice that cars with lots of low down grunt will have smaller differences between their 0-60 and 5-60 mph tests.

[Chan]

Originally Posted by Chibana

C&D has explained in previous issues both why they tend to get quicker acceleration times than other magazines and the difference in the 0-60 and 5-60. They tend to get quicker acceleration times because they are willing to beat the hell out of the car to get it to move. They've stated this explicitly in previous magazines over the years. They will do whatever it takes to get the quickest time, regardless of how healthy it is for the transmission, motor mounts, control arms, etc. Road & Track, on the other hand, tends to follow a more manufacturer-approved method.

That just means that the car has the potential to do said 8.6 0-60 but just not consistently. 9.4 0-60 can be obtained on a constant basis. I really don't trust C&D as they don't even trust their own # to declare a winner (See S4 vs 335i).