Heya lads,

I've been on 4 real wheels lately too, boring wheels that, a 2001 Fiesta 1.25 16v zetec with some 60.000km or 37.000 miles on the clock. A friend says it should be fairly nippy, all things considered, but it isn't really all that quick. I don't mind that but the milage is poor too, normal highway (75mph) with some city driving gets me some 32MPG at best, or 13.5km for every liter or 7.4 liters per 100km.

Thats not very good and I wonder if it would indicate that something needs to be checked? For peace of mind and wallet mostly, its never going to be a quick car of course.

I just don't know anything about real cars so I'm clueless as to if / what might be slightly off!

Anyone?

Any un farmilliar dashboard lights?

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/ ... t/Detail.aspx?deriv=17815

I suppose with that city driving included it's not that bad going from the information on this site.

How are your tyres? If you havn't allready check how much PSI they have in them, I noticed quite a big differnce in my 1.2 corsa when the tyres were from around 20 psi up to 30. (Slow punctures...:shrug

on a side note, you still have those R888's?

or was that another dutch forum user

I used to drive a 1996 Fiesta with the 1.25 Zetec - great little engine.

Mine felt pretty nippy (at least, it did at the time - if I went back to it now it'd probably feel gutless) but naturally needed plenty revving. Despite that, when driving normally (eg. daily commute) I think I recall it getting pretty good economy. Mind you, 32mpg at a constant 75mph isn't all that bad, considering the short gearing and high revs of the 1.25 engine. Maybe I'd expect high 30s or low 40s on a perfectly healthy example - but I haven't driven one for 4 years so can't really remember. :-/

Consider a full service - oil, oil filter, air filter, spark plugs, gearbox oil change, check valve clearences.

Find the page in your owners manual about servicing, and do the one with the longest list. I'm sure you'll be able to prioritise which ones are the work of seconds or only require a small outlay (oil and filter is cheap, whilst checking valve clearences is a bigger job and might not be worth doing until you've checked the easier things).

But I'd say that 32mpg at 75mpg isn't all that bad actually. Is there an owners club that you could ask if it's normal or not?

This is unacceptable. We should start a little fundraiser to help Niels purchase the Corvette he obviously thinks about so much.

When I had a Fiesta with the same engine, it did about 35mpg without motorway driving, so I'd wager 32mpg is pretty average considering it revs quite high at 70mph. It needs a 6th gear damnit

And it did feel nippy at the time, but now I'm used to the Puma it does indeed feel a bit sluggish-er

Of course it depends on what you compare, but that car shouldn't feel nippy.
A modern Fiesta isn't a light tiny car anymore and plus that tiny engine hardly produces any bhp really. It should do 0-100 in 13 seconds you know.

7.4 liters per 100 km doesn't sound high for me, but I have never been after economy so I don't know what it should do on what conditions.

As tristan said, a full service is of course something what you could or maybe even should do.

BTW it's quite funny how the guy who is one of the few able to produce good physics on rF is the one also saying he doesn't know anything about real cars.

I can't find my real cars Engine.INI file so I can't tweak the torque curve

At 120km/h it does about 3550rpm. My GF's Corsa 1.2 (2002 model) does 4000 revs at 120km/h yet runs 37mpg and she's on the motorway most of the time.

Of course I have uber wide 185/50R14 tyres on mine and she only has 175mm wide rubber..

Quote :

A modern Fiesta isn't a light tiny car anymore and plus that tiny engine hardly produces any bhp really. It should do 0-100 in 13 seconds you know.

They were relatively light until the 2002 Mk6. And a 0-60 time of 13s is pretty good compared to heavy modern 'hatchbacks'- for example, the Mazda2 1.4 does that- and most of its competitors at the time (most of who were still using 8v).

Quote from TiJay :

They were relatively light until the 2002 Mk6. And a 0-60 time of 13s is pretty good compared to heavy modern 'hatchbacks'- for example, the Mazda2 1.4 does that- and most of its competitors at the time (most of who were still using 8v).

Well it just depends on what you compare, it is not a heavy car, but not a light one too, like my Sierra, but I think '02 Fiesta can be just a bit heavier.

Of course if you compare it to other slow cars (:razz It is nippy.
But it is just a 13 sec from 0-100 is slow and doesn't feel nippy for me.

Mu dads '96 Primera does 0-100 in just or just under 10 seconds and that is quite slow I think. Proper for everyday use but it doesn't feel nippy.

I also have a bad habit of comparing everything for my own car, so don't mind about it.

Hmm, that's terrible really. A big straight six from BM can manage that.

Should be getting around 40 on a steady cruise.

Check your tyres are inflated correctly, and book it in for the 40k service.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Hmm, that's terrible really. A big straight six from BM can manage that.

Should be getting around 40 on a steady cruise.

But that's a much torquier engine running at much lower revs in the 75mph cruise. The Fiesta wasn't really designed or geared for economy at motorway speeds. With the BM engines you can cruise almost without any throttle at all, but at 75 in the Fiesta it's going to be more than 50% throttle.

Quote from tristancliffe :

But that's a much torquier engine running at much lower revs in the 75mph cruise. The Fiesta wasn't really designed or geared for economy at motorway speeds. With the BM engines you can cruise almost without any throttle at all, but at 75 in the Fiesta it's going to be more than 50% throttle.

Eh??? 0-60 on my car is 16 seconds and that doesn't even qualify as "nippy" but it sits at 80mph with 25% easily.

/me gives Niels £1 that should just about cover a corvette zr1

Quote from Bawbag :

Eh??? 0-60 on my car is 16 seconds and that doesn't even qualify as "nippy" but it sits at 80mph with 25% easily.

A rough guess to be honest. But I'm still not surprised at the economy he's got.

New Fords seem to have forgotten how to be quick. I was going up a slight hill in a '08 Focus (1.8Zetec) at around 50MPH trying to hit 60MPH, foot so hard down on the noise maker that it was pushing through the bottom of the car, I could only watch in shame as an old Corsa went past me without even breaking a sweat.

You might want to check www.fiestaclub.nl I'm a member on there too. There you will certainly find everything you need!

Quote from BigPeBe :

Well it just depends on what you compare, it is not a heavy car, but not a light one too, like my Sierra, but I think '02 Fiesta can be just a bit heavier.

IIRC, the Mk4 Fiesta which I had weighed 970kg. The Mk5 version which I presume Niels has will probably weight slightly more since it has more airbags, but that's about the only difference.

It's not a heavy car - it's pretty damn light.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

New Fords seem to have forgotten how to be quick. I was going up a slight hill in a '08 Focus (1.8Zetec) at around 50MPH trying to hit 60MPH, foot so hard down on the noise maker that it was pushing through the bottom of the car, I could only watch in shame as an old Corsa went past me without even breaking a sweat.

Well they are pretty bulky nowadays but still, that's pretty surprising. I was in a 1,6 and 1.8 old focus and they are both still fairly fast cars.

Though arn't the new Zetecs the more eco friendly - High MPG versions?

If it makes you feel any better, if my car hits a hill I have to drop a gear to maintain speed, never mind increase it.

Quote from Bawbag :

Well they are pretty bulky nowadays but still, that's pretty surprising. I was in a 1,6 and 1.8 old focus and they are both still fairly fast cars.

Though arn't the new Zetecs the more eco friendly - High MPG versions?

If it makes you feel any better, if my car hits a hill I have to drop a gear to maintain speed, never mind increase it.

I think it is the bulk that kills it, as I was only in 4th and nosing 3,000RPM (I'd normally be in 5th by 2,000RPM). It is a nice car to drive, just never point it at a hill.

That wouldn't come as a shock, it is a company car after all, I guess I am just lucky it isn't a diesel.

I remember that problem driving in a '08 Corsa, hit a hill and just watched as the speed fell faster than the FTSE 100, had to drop it into 3rd to go up an almost non-existent hill. Well I suppose it wasn't non-existent as I was going East on the M62, so relatively hilly. But still, I was ready to cry at how gutless it was.

Quote from Bawbag :

Eh??? 0-60 on my car is 16 seconds and that doesn't even qualify as "nippy" but it sits at 80mph with 25% easily.

Well a long while ago, my dads old heap of sh*t 1.3 Escort Estate from 1990 managed 43mpg on a 120 mile journey at around 70mph.

I hardly doubt that a smaller, more efficient and newer car manages 10mpg less.

true, but smaller engine doesnt always mean more MPG. at higher speeds the bigger engine will be more efficent (in a way) as itll need less throttle to keep at a steady 70mph. a little 1.2 might need 50-75% tthrottle where a 2.0 is using 10%. even my 2.0 carbed engine gets 40mpg on a 70mph run!

Still, the 1.25 Zetec unit presumably has 16v's and fuel injection etc etc, the old 1.3 in (what was my Dad's) Escort was carbed, had done a million miles, had 3 people in the car and a weeks holiday kit for said people in the boot.

Make whatever excuses you like for this, but his Fiesta is not giving the economy that it should/can.

Just to add I've got a 2000 1.25 LX Zetec Fiesta and get between 290-310 miles out of a tank of fuel. Works out to about 40-45mpg. My driving is mostly single carriage ways, a lot of city driving in traffic and a bit of 70mph on dual carriage ways.

Mine feels nippy enough, although I'm comparing it to a Clio which took forever to accelerate!