Ford Fiesta
hpmctorque
Member Posts: 4,600
in Ford
Ford announced that it will reintroduce the Fiesta small car in the U.S. in 2010. The Fiesta was known as the Verve while the vehicle was in development, so the Verve concept car will become the Fiesta in Ford showrooms.
The Fiesta will compete in the "B" class segment, between the Focus and the Smart. The Fiesta's direct competitors will be the Chevy Aveo, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Scion xD, Nissan Versa, MINI, and VW Rabbit, although the Rabbit and Versa are a little larger than the others. While the Smart is an "A" class two seater, it's not-so-low price, and the fact that it requires premium fuel (how dumb is that?) may prompt some Smart intenders to cross shop the four and five passenger B cars mentioned above.
Those with good memories will remember that there were two predecessors to the next Fiesta sold in the U.S., the '78-'80 Fiesta, and the Mazda designed, Kia built Festiva ('88-'93) and the slightly larger, more rounded Festiva derived Aspire ('94-97).
Although I've never owned a Fiesta, Festiva, or Aspire, here's what I know from being interested in these cars...
The made-in-Germany (I believe) Fiesta was Ford's answer to the original VW Rabbit. It was a decent, fun-to-drive, peppy car, but it was somewhat overpriced compared to what else was available at the time. One downside, for an economy car, is that although the Fiesta delivered good MPG numbers, it required premium fuel.
I understand that the Festiva, especially, was a tough little car, with many high mileage examples ( >200,000 miles, and even >300,000 miles on the original engine) to its credit. I occasionally still see one on the road, and the examples I've seen are in surprisingly decent shape for what, for many, would be a trow-away car. I've spoken to a few owners and they support the idea that, with proper care, these cars can last and last.
The successor to the Festiva, the Aspire, didn't fare as well as the Festiva. Many Aspires were sold to rental car agencies, and were equipped with 3-speed automatics, so that may account for much of the difference between the reputation of the Festiva versus the Aspire.
Do any of you readers who've owned or driven the Fiesta, Festiva or Aspire care to comment?
The Fiesta will compete in the "B" class segment, between the Focus and the Smart. The Fiesta's direct competitors will be the Chevy Aveo, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Scion xD, Nissan Versa, MINI, and VW Rabbit, although the Rabbit and Versa are a little larger than the others. While the Smart is an "A" class two seater, it's not-so-low price, and the fact that it requires premium fuel (how dumb is that?) may prompt some Smart intenders to cross shop the four and five passenger B cars mentioned above.
Those with good memories will remember that there were two predecessors to the next Fiesta sold in the U.S., the '78-'80 Fiesta, and the Mazda designed, Kia built Festiva ('88-'93) and the slightly larger, more rounded Festiva derived Aspire ('94-97).
Although I've never owned a Fiesta, Festiva, or Aspire, here's what I know from being interested in these cars...
The made-in-Germany (I believe) Fiesta was Ford's answer to the original VW Rabbit. It was a decent, fun-to-drive, peppy car, but it was somewhat overpriced compared to what else was available at the time. One downside, for an economy car, is that although the Fiesta delivered good MPG numbers, it required premium fuel.
I understand that the Festiva, especially, was a tough little car, with many high mileage examples ( >200,000 miles, and even >300,000 miles on the original engine) to its credit. I occasionally still see one on the road, and the examples I've seen are in surprisingly decent shape for what, for many, would be a trow-away car. I've spoken to a few owners and they support the idea that, with proper care, these cars can last and last.
The successor to the Festiva, the Aspire, didn't fare as well as the Festiva. Many Aspires were sold to rental car agencies, and were equipped with 3-speed automatics, so that may account for much of the difference between the reputation of the Festiva versus the Aspire.
Do any of you readers who've owned or driven the Fiesta, Festiva or Aspire care to comment?
Tagged:
0
Comments
My neighbors had an orange one when they moved into their house in 1985. Even though it was only 5-7 years old at that time (I can't remember what year it was), it looked pretty ratty by that time. They also had a 1977 era Corolla wagon that looked even worse I think the Fiesta was the better of the two, because that's what they mainly drove. The speedometer/odometer quit working, so they had no idea how many miles it had on it, but they guessed at least 200,000 by the time they got rid of it in 1991. At that time, they replaced both it and the Corolla with a CRX.
In college, one of my friends had a Festiva. All I remember was that it was white with a gray interior that was more plastic than vinyl, rode on what looked like 4 temporary spare tires, and the whole car just seemed paper-thin. It was roomy up front, though.
I'll always have good memories of this car, as it carried me through college when my "fun" cars (Mach 1's) were being wrenched on. It started no matter what the weather, got great mileage (45 mpg on the highway), and was fun to drive. The downsides included 12-inch rims (try finding tires for those), hydroplaning at highway speeds (very light weight) and, I'm guessing, poor crash protection. All in all, though, I felt it was equal to or superior to all the other competition, save the GTI.
I sold it to a friend who ran the clock up to around 130K or so before he sold it. I had the opportunity to drive it one last time, after having purchased a new 1988 CRX, and was shocked at how primitive it felt, particulary the lengthy shifter travel. I guess we acclimate ourselves pretty quickly to the latest and greatest, but in fairness, I think the '88 CRX was so far ahead of its time that it would look quite at home on the dealer's lot today.
These were actually very good cars that were rugged and they lasted a long time.
they used the 1600 "Cortina" engine that found it's way into some early Pintos.
I remember you couldn't add air conditioning to these.
The Festiva/Aspire is the Ford-badged Mazda 121.
Both the Fiesta & Festiva/Aspire co-existed around the world for a while, & eventually combined as the same car w/ its Euro-platform adopted by the Mazda version called the Mazda2 started in '02:
http://archive.cardesignnews.com/news/2002/020809mazda-2demio/
I've heard that the Festiva's rear strut suspension can fishtail badly in the wet, which reminds me of My '90 Protege twin cam.
The Fiesta 1.6 won the acceleration test in July 1978 Car & Driver's small car comparison, followed by the Civic 1.5 & Rabbit 1.5.
After growing up, I eventually got to drive both the Fiesta & Aspire, but not the Festiva.
The Fiesta competes w/ the VW Polo/Derby, not Rabbit/Golf. The Escort does. & the Cortina/Sierra competes w/ VW Passat (Dasher/Quantum). Ford of Europe also had their version of V6 sedan -- the Granada/Scorpio.
Starting '91, our Euro-derived Escort got switched to become a twin version of the Mercury Tracer -- a rebadged Mazda 323/Protege called Ford Laser in the Pacific region. & British Car magazine liked it even more than their Euro-design Escort. But after the Euro-Escort got replaced by the state-of-the-art Euro-design Focus w/ the Control Blade multi-link rear suspension in the late '90's, Mazda 323/Protege eventually abandonded their Japanese-designed platform by '04 & joined the Focus II platform as the Mazda3, ditto the Mitsubishi-platform Volvo S40.
Today, the FWD Rabbit/GTI/Passat/A3 all had their rear suspension switched to multi-link by the original Focus engineer(s). That means the Rabbit, now sharing its high-tech suspension w/ the Focus, does not compete w/ the low-tech torsion-beam B-cars such as Verve/Fiesta, Polo, Fit and Yaris. The Astra will also switch to multi-links soon. The Corolla finally got it as an option in this country. The Civic had it since '92!
The new Fiesta sedan is beautiful:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/ford-verve-sedan-concept/498251/full/
As an '07 Focus ST owner, I am jealous. Thank God my car still has better suspension.
A 35mpg small car that has a huge gasoline powered engine... I'll have to pass. That doesn't even do better than a Yaris, let alone the 55-60mpg(in U.S. gallons, no less) a Polo gets in Europe.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/212784/ford_fiesta.html
Edit: Maybe I should clarify that it's the new Fiesta (2011 MY?).
As for the Focus, it really really REALLY needs a TDI engine. 25mpg or so average isn't going to be adequate or even close to it. What impresses me is the models they have in Europe that get insane MPG ratings. I want one of those.
I'd have already bought a VW TDI, but the things are full of problems as they age. I don't know of anyone who has a VW that isn't about as reliable as a typical 1980s car. What I and many others want is someone... Anyone else other than VW to come out with small and fun TDI.
http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/NewFiesta/NewFiestaECOnetic
Ford Fiesta EcoNetic
UK Gallons: 61.4 City 88.3 Highway 76.3 Combined
US Gallons: 51.1 City 73.5 Highway 63.5 Combined
That's mind-boggling. 73.5mpg highway?
If Ford puts an engine out of a Mazda 3 series in it, forget about it. I'm not settling for only 30mpg. The U.K. version gets twice the MPG of the U.S. version. :sick:
Lastly, I don't buy the "We can't do it" whining by the auto makers. If VW, which is about as technical and advanced as a golf cart compared to Toyota, Honda, and the other top-tier makers can manage it with almost every car they sell, then it's just an excuse and nothing more. If they want it bad enough, they can make it happen. Shoot, even the Mini is coming out with a TDI next year. Ford surely can manage something. The car is already made. It can't cost THAT much to convert the cleanest Ford TDI on the market there to pass U.S. standards.
My prediction:
- The first company to offer a small, reliable, and affordable TDI car in the U.S.(read: under $15K) will own the market like the Mini did for several years. The same goes for smaller trucks. The first company to offer a modern TDI engine in a small pickup will sell as many as they can make.
Ford - if anyone from Ford is actually reading this - it's a golden opportunity to bring back a ton of younger customers to your company. Especially since GM and Chrysler are dying. (yes that's sad, but it's also business - you WANT all of that market share to go to Honda and Toyota?)
Can't see it getting to USA in my lifetime, I'm afraid.
Ford Ka
I don't think it is a matter of "we can't do it", I think the issue is more "we might not be able to sell it at a profitable price in the US".
US Gallon is near enough 0.833 of a UK Gallon.
UK mpg figures, (i.e. EU Sequence Tests), are said to be "up to" 8% optimistic vs "real world" figures. Manufacturers don't dispute this but point out that these are the only the figures they are allowed to officially publish. Handy, but true.
If you factor in these two you'll arrive at generally achievable US mpg figures. Comparing those figures to official US figures, you'll need to understand just how "real world" the US test sequences are. I have no idea but you guys are closer to it than my 3000+ miles. Of course, on the road, some folks will better the figures, some equal them and some struggle to match. C'est la vie.
Hope this helps a little. At least UK still quotes mpg rather than L/100km - even though we buy fuel in litres.
Still, even 50+ mpg for EPA "combined" rating would be amazing in a non-hybrid.
At least UK still quotes mpg rather than L/100km - even though we buy fuel in litres
That's really peculiar...the extra layer of confusion probably helps reduce complaints about poor mpg, though
I drive an '06 Volvo S60 with the 185bhp D5 engine and 6A Geartonic 'box. Last summer we did a 1700 mile Euro trip. Mix of roads; 120mph cruising on the Autobahns, rushing un and down Swiss valleys, ambling around the countryside and some town stuff. Overall mpg, (calculated on fill-ups), was 40.1 UK mpg so that's around 31 US mpg which, I think, is pretty good for this car and its EURO IV diesel. Think that could sell well over in your part of the world - but I'm guessing you'll not see it.
Diesel and gas engines have different pollution profiles. Diesel engines produce more NOx and less CO than gas. In Europe they acknowledge this and have different emission standards for gas and for diesel, where the CO limit is higher for gas engines and the NOx limit is higher for diesel engines. In the US, they only have one standard and it is written for gas engines. Thus, a diesel engine can meet the CO limit easily, but meeting the NOx limit requires expensive modifications. The US will not see a large variety of diesels until the EPA buys a clue.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Either way, it's not helping your consumption of hydrocarbon fuels.
Can understand the Euro makers not rushing to spend a fortune complying with your EPA regs when they already have a home market of 400 million people - plus some other big chunks of the globe - to play with where the USA makers are no real threat...................other than with locally-built stuff. And you can't even buy the best of your home-based makers' cars; Ford Focus, Mondeo, Vauxhall/Opel Corsa, Astra, Insignia etc, all of which have good diesel options. Ultimately, then, the EPA is denying you choice and hurting USA-based makers a more lucrative home market.
Most odd.
Maybe they'll discover e-Bay and bid for a clue on there.
Other parts of EU may tax gas and diesel differently - I'm not certain but the days when diesel was a fair bit cheaper than gas seem to have gone forever. Recently, UK diesel prices have typically been 4 - 5p/Litre higher than gas - but that was actual fuel cost; same Duty but higher VAT cost as that's a %.
Here's a hot video posted on the Fiesta practicing for XGames: Fiesta XGames Rally practice
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/26/review-2010-ford-fiesta-euro-spec-almost-read- y-for-u-s-arrival/7#comments
4000 rpms at 75 mph is ludicrous. im sick of these subcompacts being geared so low, especially with the manual transmissions. when will they get that those of us who choose manual transmissions are more than happy to downshift when we need more power.
even the yaris isnt geared to where it would hit anywhere near 4k rpms at 75 mph. the honda fit manual comes close, and it is a very noisy, unrelaxed drive at interstate speeds.
I appreciate that they are actually giving us the same sporty transmission that they offer in Europe. With proper gearing you don't need massive amounts of HP.
There is supposed to be a ("power shift"?) DSG type transmission also available.
Nobody is lugging the engine unless they choose to with a manual. If a 5th or 6th gear gets you over 4k rpms at 75, add a 6th or 7th gear. I am not disabled and enjoying shifting down for more rpms when necessary. If you are scared to have to shift at highway speeds, get an automatic it will do it for you.
I'm a fairly aggressive driver and even I went to an automatic when I bought a car a couple years ago, because there were no longer any practical advantages to a manual (other than saving a few bucks up front, which you give right back if you ever sell). My primary reason for having had manuals was never the supposed thrill of stepping on a clutch and moving a shift lever around,
Europe doesn't have many stretches where you have to buzz along at 75mph for 4 hours on straight boring roads like so many areas in NA. This should be able to be adapted.
I assume this really means that there has to be enough torque to handle a high gear ratio. But on many cars the gear ratio in the top gear of the auto is significantly higher than the top gear in the manual (I have no idea if this is or is not the case with the Fiesta).
In my car, which has a 2.3 L engine, 4th gear in the (5 speed) auto is nearly the same ratio as 5th in the manual.
Nothing...I mean NOTHING...will strain and break an engine faster than lugging it in too high a gear with a manual transmission. In the same way, towing a heavy load in OD with an automatic will overheat the transmission.
This is why on many new cars, the electronics won't allow you to shift into OD in an automatic until engine temperature is sufficient.
Well, no, actually. Once upon a time the choice was often 3 speed auto vs. 5 speed manual. Then it became 4 speed auto vs. 5 speed manual. In those cases, at least in my experience, the top gear in the manual had a higher ratio than top gear in the auto. There was also a significant mpg advantage for the manual in those days.
I think it turned pretty close to 4,000 rpms at that speed too. I think 60 mph was right around 3,000 rpms so 75mph had to be close to 4,000. Its been so long since I drove it I can't remember exactly. I did get used to using the tach to figure out speed since the speedo was in the center of the car.
Of course that engine had the positive displacement roots type supercharger on it so its actually displacement was maybe 2.3 liters. That supercharger is an M45 eaton so about .75 liters of displacement.
Maybe use Fords exclusive "RevoKnuckle" suspension setup to handle any FWD torque steer that they use on the Euro Fiesta RS... doesn't need AWD and handles well...
That would be a joy in the Fiesta, bring it on Ford...!
You have to be careful though, about a 4 cylinder in-lilne engine that exceeds 2.5L--without some complex internal balancing devices, a 2.5L four cylinder in-line is approaching unacceptable vibration levels.
Not a smooth running engine at all. Managed to be buzzy and lumpy at the same time.
You don't need a sewing machine engine in a SUV or truck, after all.
Yikes.... :surprise:
The 2.7 in the tacoma is a very, very tall engine. Even laying back on an angle like the older 4 cylinders in the camry I don't think it would fit.
and anyone who truly understands the joy of driving a stick DOES NOT need the final gear to be low. thats the point of driving a manual. you actually downshift to get the grunt you want. crusing at 70 mph isnt where i want grunt, its where i want the engine more relaxed. if i need acceleration, ill downshift.
its a more convincing argument that the low geared manuals are not for the enthusiast who doesnt mind shifting, but for the lazy who dont want to downshift when they need an extra push. they are precicely the ones who should just get an auto.
all a high final gear does is take away the need to downshift when you need a little boost of acceleration, but its at the cost of a more relaxed engine at cruise.
ironically, this gearing is only good for the lazy, and their precisely the ones who should go buy an automatic. give us true enthusiasts a proper final gear for highway cruising, and we will gladly get off our lazy asses and downshift when needed.
if the fiesta we get cruises at 3500+ at 70 mph, it will be off my list. if i wanted that id already be driving a fit.
Driving a Toyota definitely makes one not an "automotive enthusiast".
Therefore, it is not surprising that Toyota would actually have the rare manual that is designed for fuel economy, rather than for the enthusiast.
The enthusiast would typically want a close ratio manual transmission. That is not to say the this would not also appeal to the lazy, who do not want to have to downshift. However, more likely would be that the truly lazy, such as myself, would just go to an automatic.
Having said that, it pretty much ran out of steam at around 70 mph---the gearing matching the maximum HP right about there. One could verify that by the drastic drop in MPG after 75 mph. Sure you could go faster, but it got very busy in the interior, with all the noise, and the stability at those speeds above 75 mph was not confidence-building. I'm not sure if the car was lifting, or needed even wider tires and wheels, but I've driven enough around a track to get a rather bad feeling at high speeds in the xA.
These small subcompacts are very good for urban and inter-urban use, but long-haulers they are not IMO.