Realistic 0-60 expectations for the NA Fiesta?
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
Those numbers almost have to be Euro spec.
Joined
·
81 Posts
The 0 to sixty is faster than the 5 to sixty?
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.
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.
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.
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).
I notice this effect in my present automatic Yaris. From a standing start, it will lurch off the line and wind up pretty quickly (well, maybe moderately quickly). From a rolling start, it will almost feel as if I'm starting off in too high a gear, but it's an auto.
Traditionally, acceleration numbers for cars in the "record books" have always been the fastest times verified to be trustworthy, not what can be done on a constant basis by a so-so driver. Personally, I want to know how fast you can get it to go if you beat the hell out of it--what's the best a car can do? The 5-60 mph test is a better determination of real world acceleration abilities of a car without beating on it too much, which is why C&D does both. In addition, I don't *think* C&D adjusts their acceleration numbers for environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, altitude) as do many other magazines, including my favorite mainstream auto magazine, Road & Track.
While Car & Driver is not my favorite automobile magazine (I think the writing and technical articles in Road & Track are better and more fun, and Grass Roots is probably my all-around favorite), I do think Car & Driver is the best place to go for numbers, which is why I have subscribed to them, almost uninterrupted, for almost 30 years.
You need to adjust your time for sea level.
Forget about the transmission or/clutch lasting the life of car! I remember my old Neon was 7.9 at Car and Driver, Consumer Reports was like 10.5. I did beat C+D's time for my Ford Tempo, I should add I did "beat" my Ford Tempo too. Yet my Toyota Matrix had to have the tran$mi$$ion replaced! I treated my Matrix like I was the Grandma going to church on Sunday. Dan
65 Corvair
Joined
·
264 Posts
OMG< you had a TEMPO too!! My first car was an 88 Tempo. Paid $640 bucks. Ran for another 60,000 miles. Not bad for a car that had 160,000 on it originally.You need to adjust your time for sea level.
Dan
65 Corvair
/OT
My wife and I had matching red Tempo's when we met. I shall never speak of that terrible car again, other than it was AWD and could drive sideways in the snow like a rally car. I wrecked a new set of tires on that thing in less than a year from cornering. People did not know a Tempo could go around corners that fast, nor could they believe they were seeing one drive sideways in the snow. AWD+handbrake+no fear=massive drifts in the winter. I only owned that thing for a little over a year, and then bought my ZX3.
I trust Car and Driver over Road and Track or Motor Trend. The fact that Motor Trend recently had BUICK on the cover killed any remaining credibility that they had. at least Car and Driver has their raw test data available for download. they take notes as to how they launch and when they shift to get the best acceleration. on the opposite end of the scale is Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports launches the car from idle. no clutch dropping or brake torquing. they just floor it from idle and go from there.
Joined
·
893 Posts
My first Ford was my mom and dads 85 Tempo GL with the blue pin stripe bought brand new for an impressive 10K. That car was pure comfort and just all around great to drive. Five speed manual, AC, Tilt Wheel, AM FM Radio with cassette and the 2.2L I4. I miss that car and would probably still own it if I didn't roll it.
![]()
This car is the reason why I am so attracted to the Focus aside it being European. The similarities in the body, not to mention the ST Foci interior with that of the Original Tempo Interior struck me cold.
![]()
This car is the reason why I am so attracted to the Focus aside it being European. The similarities in the body, not to mention the ST Foci interior with that of the Original Tempo Interior struck me cold.
You have a problem with the Buick Regal? It's a nice Opel, especially the GS version with AWD turbo I4. I'd take it over any offering from Lexus or Acura.
Yeah, in MT's defense those were some nice Buicks on the cover. I'd buy a new Regal without hesitation, provided it's the Turbo.
Hi Matt,
My first new car was an 85 Tempo GL. $9,511. 5 speed manual. Very nice car. AC cruise and power locks as well as a four speaker cassette player. No power windows and I don't think remote locks were out yet. Had the nicest interior of any car I ever had. The power steering and the shifter were the best of any car I ever had. First car was a used 76 Pontiac Astre,
a Chevy Vega clone. I don't know any words bad enough to describe the quality and I don't want to get banned form the forum! Then I bought the Corvair as a hobby car which I still have. It was a far better car! 11 Feista waitting to ship.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
