Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost 125
Discussion
To be honest, yet the build quality is pants on the fiesta.
In the time we have been together the other half as had a Ibiza, Yaris, 500 and then the Fiesta. In term of build quality
1, Yaris (by a mile)
2, Ibiza
3, 500 (well screwed together for a Fiat)
4, The shocking chav-tastic Punto sporting (In a rather fetching Mettalic gold) that I had when first past my test years ago.
5, The Fiesta
It was the first Ford either of us had and was really shocked at the creaks and rattles. A yeah the dealers really do seem to think that's par for the course and don't offer more a courtesy attempt at resolving.
NB: Not of the above cars where more that 3 years old when she traded in so does say something about them!
In the time we have been together the other half as had a Ibiza, Yaris, 500 and then the Fiesta. In term of build quality
1, Yaris (by a mile)
2, Ibiza
3, 500 (well screwed together for a Fiat)
4, The shocking chav-tastic Punto sporting (In a rather fetching Mettalic gold) that I had when first past my test years ago.
5, The Fiesta
It was the first Ford either of us had and was really shocked at the creaks and rattles. A yeah the dealers really do seem to think that's par for the course and don't offer more a courtesy attempt at resolving.
NB: Not of the above cars where more that 3 years old when she traded in so does say something about them!
budgie smuggler said:
AnotherClarkey said:
budgie smuggler said:
ORD said:
For the same money (just about) you could get a decent 2 litre engine (in the new Mazda 3).
I wonder how Mazda only managed to get 120PS out of a 2 litre engine?
carmagazine on the Mazda said:
The fact that this car doesn’t use a turbocharger for its extra shove gives it a much crisper throttle response than its downsized force-induction rivals. Nevertheless, the 3 suffers a lack of mid-range urge, thwarting opportunistic overtakes that a TSI-powered Golf or Ecoboost Focus would gobble up. And more horses haven’t improved the engine’s singing voice either, which is as uninspiring here as it is in the lower-powered version. In short, this most powerful of Mazda 3s just doesn’t feel as nippy as we’d hoped.
evo on the Fiesta said:
Bring the three-pot engine to life and its sound is more refined than a Fiat or Alfa Romeo TwinAir’s off-beat warble. As you move away it’s obvious that this is indeed a very refined unit, comparable to the best four-cylinder engines out there. I’m pleasantly surprised by the amount of urge available too. Spinning up the turbo is absurdly easy and you revel in the instant surge of torque.
Untalented82 said:
To be honest, yet the build quality is pants on the fiesta.
In the time we have been together the other half as had a Ibiza, Yaris, 500 and then the Fiesta. In term of build quality
1, Yaris (by a mile)
2, Ibiza
3, 500 (well screwed together for a Fiat)
4, The shocking chav-tastic Punto sporting (In a rather fetching Mettalic gold) that I had when first past my test years ago.
5, The Fiesta
It was the first Ford either of us had and was really shocked at the creaks and rattles. A yeah the dealers really do seem to think that's par for the course and don't offer more a courtesy attempt at resolving.
NB: Not of the above cars where more that 3 years old when she traded in so does say something about them!
To be fair, if you want build quality, practicality and reliability then the Honda Jazz is all you need. However, the Fiesta is much nicer on the road and more comfortable with a nicer interior. In the time we have been together the other half as had a Ibiza, Yaris, 500 and then the Fiesta. In term of build quality
1, Yaris (by a mile)
2, Ibiza
3, 500 (well screwed together for a Fiat)
4, The shocking chav-tastic Punto sporting (In a rather fetching Mettalic gold) that I had when first past my test years ago.
5, The Fiesta
It was the first Ford either of us had and was really shocked at the creaks and rattles. A yeah the dealers really do seem to think that's par for the course and don't offer more a courtesy attempt at resolving.
NB: Not of the above cars where more that 3 years old when she traded in so does say something about them!
Untalented82 said:
Yeah it's probably the most engaging to drive of the lot, but the rattles just get on your nerves and honestly will not miss it when it goes back a month.
Roll on Volvo, now that had some bloody comfy seats!
Couldn't agree more, Volvo seats are fantastic and their stereos are top notch too.Roll on Volvo, now that had some bloody comfy seats!
BlueJazz said:
To be fair, if you want build quality, practicality and reliability then the Honda Jazz is all you need. However, the Fiesta is much nicer on the road and more comfortable with a nicer interior.
Jazz is brilliant - if you can see past its image problem. It's just not a car that a young lad could drive - although apparently in Asia Pacific countries that's exactly the main customer.We only looked at it after the Ford dealer pissed us off, and when it came to time to change it, Mrs NPI didn't even want to look at anything else so got another.
No problems with MPG either that some of the 3cyl cars seem to suffer - it'll do an easy 50MPg in everyday driving.
hora said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I know thats what I thought. Could be my driving style however I've found that in 1.9TDI VAGs I often beat the official mixed mpg and in a Legacy I once averaged a consistent 55mpg on the motorway I think (for some drivers/driving style) if an engine doesn't have the perk/torque etc in the right place for your style you'll take the edge of the figures trying to compensate to hit your own sweet spot? If that makes sense?
Went to the dealer today for paperwork etc. It seems our car is a 14MY and it says in the 2014 brochure ( which they didn't have when we ordered) it should come with reversing camera as standard. Collect Thurs so will soon know. I am not bothered but it would be a useful addition if it saves doing paint, as said it's the wifes car!
currybum said:
The 125ps Titanium X just over £16k on the ford website, the Zetec S 125ps is just under £15k before any discounts.
If you are paying £18k you will be driving away in a fully loaded ST.
If people want to get all excited about how much new cars are at least take the 30 seconds to see how much they actually cost.
Well, we can only go on what the purchaser tells us:If you are paying £18k you will be driving away in a fully loaded ST.
If people want to get all excited about how much new cars are at least take the 30 seconds to see how much they actually cost.
arun1uk said:
That's really strange...my dealer confirmed that it was all included! But yes, I agree - Ford seem to chop and change whenever is convenient for them, and at £18k it should be very well equipped!!!
If you took less than 30 secs to look through this thread, you would have seen that.
I test drove the new Mazda 3 (in 165PS guise) this weekend. It is so much better than the 1.0 Focus that it amazes me that the prices are so similar.
The motoring journos have embarrassed themselves massively on this one. The 1.0 turbo unit is such a boring and uninspiring engine. The 2.0 NA in the Mazda is a really nice engine - it revs fairly freely, has excellent throttle response (for its class) and has plenty of mid-range torque.
Another small point - which engine would you trust to be running at 100k miles - a fairly under-stressed 2.0 NA or a tiny turbocharged engine?
In terms of ride and handling, the cars are very similar (although the ride in the Mazda is a bit more comfortable and the Ford may just about have the edge in high speed cornering).
The gearbox in the Ford is probably a bit better, too - the throw in the Mazda box is very small and it's a bit "notchy" compared to the Ford unit.
The motoring journos have embarrassed themselves massively on this one. The 1.0 turbo unit is such a boring and uninspiring engine. The 2.0 NA in the Mazda is a really nice engine - it revs fairly freely, has excellent throttle response (for its class) and has plenty of mid-range torque.
Another small point - which engine would you trust to be running at 100k miles - a fairly under-stressed 2.0 NA or a tiny turbocharged engine?
In terms of ride and handling, the cars are very similar (although the ride in the Mazda is a bit more comfortable and the Ford may just about have the edge in high speed cornering).
The gearbox in the Ford is probably a bit better, too - the throw in the Mazda box is very small and it's a bit "notchy" compared to the Ford unit.
ORD said:
I test drove the new Mazda 3 (in 165PS guise) this weekend. It is so much better than the 1.0 Focus that it amazes me that the prices are so similar.
The motoring journos have embarrassed themselves massively on this one. The 1.0 turbo unit is such a boring and uninspiring engine. The 2.0 NA in the Mazda is a really nice engine - it revs fairly freely, has excellent throttle response (for its class) and has plenty of mid-range torque.
Another small point - which engine would you trust to be running at 100k miles - a fairly under-stressed 2.0 NA or a tiny turbocharged engine?
In terms of ride and handling, the cars are very similar (although the ride in the Mazda is a bit more comfortable and the Ford may just about have the edge in high speed cornering).
The gearbox in the Ford is probably a bit better, too - the throw in the Mazda box is very small and it's a bit "notchy" compared to the Ford unit.
Again, I don't think you are comparing like-for-like there.The motoring journos have embarrassed themselves massively on this one. The 1.0 turbo unit is such a boring and uninspiring engine. The 2.0 NA in the Mazda is a really nice engine - it revs fairly freely, has excellent throttle response (for its class) and has plenty of mid-range torque.
Another small point - which engine would you trust to be running at 100k miles - a fairly under-stressed 2.0 NA or a tiny turbocharged engine?
In terms of ride and handling, the cars are very similar (although the ride in the Mazda is a bit more comfortable and the Ford may just about have the edge in high speed cornering).
The gearbox in the Ford is probably a bit better, too - the throw in the Mazda box is very small and it's a bit "notchy" compared to the Ford unit.
The Titanium-X mode Fiesta (top of the range) is £16145. The top of the range Mazda 3 with that 2L engine you mention is £21000.
Secondly the engine in the Mazda is criticized in every review I've read for not having enough mid-range torque, exactly the opposite of what is said about the Fiesta.
Also the engine in the Mazda is not 'under-stressed'. It is running a very high compression ratio in an attempt to keep emissions low on the official cycle (which it has, but not as low as the Fiesta's, hence higher VED band).
BTW out of the two I'd have the Mazda as I prefer N/A, so it's not that I'm slagging off your choice of car, just that your comparison is not fair.
Edited by budgie smuggler on Monday 28th April 11:14
Rawwr said:
hora said:
Are we talking about the 1.0 turbo Ecoboost Fiesta?
If so- I had one for a long distance trip over a long weekend last year. I got nowhere near the claimed mpg figures. 35mpg averaged. No better, good on motorway/in general etc and good space inside. I 'think' the new Fiesta is akin insize to the MK1 Focus? Certain looks the same size.
How on earth were you driving it to average 35mpg over a long distance trip?If so- I had one for a long distance trip over a long weekend last year. I got nowhere near the claimed mpg figures. 35mpg averaged. No better, good on motorway/in general etc and good space inside. I 'think' the new Fiesta is akin insize to the MK1 Focus? Certain looks the same size.
I break into a rash if I drop below 55mpg average.
budgie smuggler said:
Again, I don't think you are comparing like-for-like there.
The Titanium-X mode Fiesta (top of the range) is £16145. The top of the range Mazda 3 with that 2L engine you mention is £21000.
Secondly the engine in the Mazda is criticized in every review I've read for not having enough mid-range torque, exactly the opposite of what is said about the Fiesta.
Also the engine in the Mazda is not 'under-stressed'. It is running a very high compression ratio in an attempt to keep emissions low on the official cycle (which it has, but not as low as the Fiesta's, hence higher VED band).
BTW out of the two I'd have the Mazda as I prefer N/A, so it's not that I'm slagging off your choice of car, just that your comparison is not fair.
I do wonder about the compression ratio, but I do not see that as creating the same kind of stress (and reliability concerns) as a tiny engine with turbos that may fail and a tendency to encourage high loads at low revs. I may well be wrong.The Titanium-X mode Fiesta (top of the range) is £16145. The top of the range Mazda 3 with that 2L engine you mention is £21000.
Secondly the engine in the Mazda is criticized in every review I've read for not having enough mid-range torque, exactly the opposite of what is said about the Fiesta.
Also the engine in the Mazda is not 'under-stressed'. It is running a very high compression ratio in an attempt to keep emissions low on the official cycle (which it has, but not as low as the Fiesta's, hence higher VED band).
BTW out of the two I'd have the Mazda as I prefer N/A, so it's not that I'm slagging off your choice of car, just that your comparison is not fair.
Edited by budgie smuggler on Monday 28th April 11:14
I have not driven the 120ps Mazda, but I doubt it is hugely different from the 165 as regards mid-range. The one I drove has no mid-range problem at all. Journos have simply got used to driving turbo all of the time and say stupid things like "It wont pull hard from 1,750 rpm so isnt good for overtaking" - what kind of nutter tries an overtake at such low revs in an NA car?! I think drivers deserve a bit more credit - what the journos mean is this "If you do not know how to change gear/drive, you might find this car harder to overtake in than a turbo (esp diesel)".
In any event, I think of mid-range as 3,000rpm to 4,500rpm, but I am one of the few drivers (it seems) that is not scared of revving an engine into its power band. If 2,000rpm is "mid-range" - and I would agree that most NA engines wont have much torque at that kind of point - what is low range?
All of the reviews that I have read are actually complimentary about the 2.0 (with the only "criticism" being that it does not behave like a diesel/tc unit).
I do wonder how the specific output of the 2.0 120PS unit is so low, though, but I guess it is an emissions thing.
It is not yet my choice of car. I am a huge fan (as you can tell), but my wife still wants to mess around trying out worse cars for a while until I am bored to death. A Golf?! Are you kidding me?! £7k more for the same spec with a worse engine... Madness.
I am not sure you are right re Focus pricing - is that price comparison with the 125PS car including all the stuff the Mazda has as standard? Even then, it is about 40bhp do so I would allow £1-2k just for that
I drive one.
Very tall gearing makes it feel inflexible and around town at speeds under 30 it needs 2nd gear.
The throttle is a bit switch like (on/off).
Visibility out the sides and rear isn't great (like many cars now).
Other than that, it's very good to drive and economy isn't bad but not as good real world mpg as my Nissan Note.
Very tall gearing makes it feel inflexible and around town at speeds under 30 it needs 2nd gear.
The throttle is a bit switch like (on/off).
Visibility out the sides and rear isn't great (like many cars now).
Other than that, it's very good to drive and economy isn't bad but not as good real world mpg as my Nissan Note.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff