Just consider yourself lucky, my Mondeo 1.8 weighs two tons, has four horsepower, hits 60 inside a day and can reach 88mph before the front starts sparking... and the wheels shake themselves loose.

Quote from robt :

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!

You realise that due to pumping loss, maximum efficiency is achieved at full throttle (on a petrol)? That's why smaller engines are (generally) more efficient, it's because you're ragging them.

Quote from Bob Smith :

You realise that due to pumping loss, maximum efficiency is achieved at full throttle (on a petrol)? That's why smaller engines are (generally) more efficient, it's because you're ragging them.

Pumping loss? Give me a quick techy rundown please bob!

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.

The main issue is it has just got so much heavier for no real reason. Even the original Focus was a much better, lighter, car. I can't see what the newer model offers over the older one, it looks blander and fatter than the original, is probably no bigger on the inside and the original model lugged around air bags and aircon (which I'd choose to live without to save 100kg) anyway. In fact the rear leg room and seats are worse than the original IMO. The fact the current 1.6 model (100bhp variant) is nearly 200kg heavier than the same old model probably explains why it takes it an extra second to get to 60. I remember Autocar also rated the 1.6 Mk 1 as being surprisingly capable and far more enjoyable to drive than a lot of more expensive (heavier) material on a track test, they didn't think the same of the 1.8 Mk 2 the next year...

Quote from Niels Heusinkveld :

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?

It's a Ford, there's your answer, unless I'm too late of course.

Quote from STROBE :

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.

I dunno if Niels's Fiesta is mk6 or mk5, mk6 was started at '02. Mk5 is pretty light still, but mk6 weights around 1100-1200 kg.
I actually didn't remember the mk5 was produced till '02, I thought the mk6 got out a bit earlier.
But still, my original point, 0-100 in 13 seconds, it shouldn't feel nippy.

-EDIT- Well maybe it is more about who is driving it. Online dictionary tells me one definition of nippy as "(of a motor vehicle) small and relatively powerful". So maybe Fiesta is nippy then, I dunno.

-EDITEDIT- Aww crap the Niels's Fiesta was actually a '01. How did I end up think it being a '02.:slap:

Quote from ajp71 :

The main issue is it has just got so much heavier for no real reason. Even the original Focus was a much better, lighter, car. I can't see what the newer model offers over the older one, it looks blander and fatter than the original, is probably no bigger on the inside and the original model lugged around air bags and aircon (which I'd choose to live without to save 100kg) anyway. In fact the rear leg room and seats are worse than the original IMO. The fact the current 1.6 model (100bhp variant) is nearly 200kg heavier than the same old model probably explains why it takes it an extra second to get to 60. I remember Autocar also rated the 1.6 Mk 1 as being surprisingly capable and far more enjoyable to drive than a lot of more expensive (heavier) material on a track test, they didn't think the same of the 1.8 Mk 2 the next year...

I find the new one quite claustrophobic inside, I am about 6ft tall with another 6ft tall chap in the car rubbing his knee when I go to change gears isn't unexpected, there is very little space for my canoes, or feet as they are also known, in the foot well, the whole thing feels close like it is smaller than it needs to be on the inside and it means I struggle to squeeze under the steering wheel and I'm not what you'd call fat.

None of which makes sense as it is a rather large car on the outside, god only knows what they do with all of that space.

how come the 1,25 zetec is always referred to as 'nippy' ? is that something to be proud of? Are any other cars besides the fiesta called nippy?
define nippy please

Quote from Osco :

how come the 1,25 zetec is always referred to as 'nippy' ? is that something to be proud of? Are any other cars besides the fiesta called nippy?
define nippy please

It means it ain't fast, but still fun to drive... That's why the Fiesta is the only car called that, it's only slow car which is fun to drive

shall we call you nippy flippy then

ok thanks

and robt: no
he's one of those diesel drivers

Quote from robt :

Pumping loss? Give me a quick techy rundown please bob!

It's to do with air turbulence around a nearly closed butterfly valve. I'm sure it's been discussed on this forum recently but I can't find it now. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency for some more details.

thanks bob, intresting read. im guessing carbs and fuel injection would also have slightly diffrent reactions to the problem.

Quote :

Engine efficiency improves considerably at open road speeds; it peaks in most applications at around 75% of rated engine power, which is also the range of greatest engine torque

found that quite intresting, might explain why i get 37mpg at 80mph.