RE: Ford Fiesta 1.4 Ghia | Shed of the Week
Discussion
s m said:
Blackpuddin said:
Blakewater said:
This is the June-August 1989 Ford range brochure that I still have a copy of. Steel wheel covers were standard for the Ghia and S.
Good chance the alloys might have become standard by 1994 though?s m said:
GCH said:
Used to pootle about in one of these after passing my test - H plate in silver.
Awful, awful thing.
And the non-original wheels on this one are
On a Ghia of this age they are the original wheels. Correct size tyres too. Awful, awful thing.
And the non-original wheels on this one are
XR2i would have had 185s on using this alloy
This is wearing Ghia correct 165s
The entirely original & correct wheels on this later model one (in contrast to the entirely original & correct wheel trims on the earlier model I had) are
Even as a Ford fan, I’d have to say I’m not a fan of Fords from this era. This is equally as bad as the 1990 “Mk5” Escort in that it was an all-new model replacing a car that was “off the pace” at the end of its 10/13 year cycle, and yet barely improved on it. Most aspects were either the same or inferior to the previous model!
My Mum ran a (Red) 1977 “Mk1” Fiesta 1.1L for many years during my youth. It was a great car and would be the first car I would drive after passing my test in the late 80s. Fast forward to the mid-90s and my brother is looking for his first car. He finds a Red 1989 “Mk3” Fiesta 1.1L (I actually tried to persuade to look for a 1.4, as others have indicated, despite the CVH’s issues, it’s still preferable to the OHV). I was amazed at how little it had improved over the 1977 version! A larger cabin was about the only thing I could identify! The engine was the same, the interior wasn’t any better and the steering/handling were inferior.
A work college had a 1990 “Mk3” XR2i and I was really looking forward to experiencing it. However, I was really disappointed. Didn’t handle particularly well, seem to have trouble getting the power down and the seats were awful. I was running a 1988 Orion 1.6i Ghia at the time (which was no Golf or Peugeot GTi), which was superior to this XR2i.
CVH was a coarse engine that wasn’t keen on revs! My other brother ran a Cavalier at the time, and the engine was noticeably nicer and keener to rev. (The rest of it was awful though – handled like a boat!)
Except for the RS1800 (and maybe the later 1992 on 1.8 Zetec XR2i), I would give the Mk3 Fiesta a wide berth. If you want an old Fiesta, get a Sigma (1.25/1.4) powered Mk4. Such a massively superior car and one of the best superminis of its era (whereas the Mk3 is one of the worst!). The difference is almost equivalent to Sierra vs Mondeo and Escort vs Focus.
This particular car is a later updated Mk3 Fiesta introduced in 1994. Featuring Airbag, improved crash protection, Mirrors & side indicators from the Mondeo and a Fuel flap!! In addition, the 1.6 16v Zetec engine was introduced and a 1.4 CVH with multipoint EFi (on earlier models 1.4s were either with carbs or CFi).
I did wonder whether it’s actually a 1.4 CVH or 1.3 CFi (HCS/OHV) ? As the ad has no pictures of the engine bay, the spec says 1.3 and power & performance figures are all over the place!
Also, I thought alloy wheels were standard on the Ghia, by this point but…..
Looking through my brochure collection:
Up to Oct 1992 standard wheels on Ghia are steel. Afterwards the alloy wheels previously optionally available on the XR2i are standard (XR2i gets new optional alloy wheels & 1.8 Zetec engine). Until March 1995 (or sometime between May 1994 & March 1995) where alloys become optional again!
In May 1994 Ghia petrol engine options are 1.3CFi (Manual or Auto) or 1.6 Zetec.
In March 1995 Ghia petrol engine options are 1.3CFi (Auto only), 1.4CVH EFi or 1.6 Zetec
See scans from May 1994 and March 1995 Brochure and play “spot the difference”!
So, it appears that if this car is a later 1994/early 1995 model with a manual box, then it’s a 1.4 CVH (or 1.6 Zetec!) and the alloy wheels are optional! Or it’s a slightly earlier 1994 1.3 CFi (or 1.6 Zetec!) manual and the wheels are standard!!
Power/Performance from March 1995 brochure (All 5 door, 5 speed Manuals):
1.3 HCS CFi 60PS/101Nm 95mph/14.2s
1.4 CVH EFi 75PS/109Nm 104mph/12s
1.6i 16v Zetec 90PS/134Nm 110mph/10.4s
Also see Review from Autocar of 1994 Mk3 Fiesta and compare to the 1995 Mk4 !!
May 1994 brochure
March 1995 brochure
My Mum ran a (Red) 1977 “Mk1” Fiesta 1.1L for many years during my youth. It was a great car and would be the first car I would drive after passing my test in the late 80s. Fast forward to the mid-90s and my brother is looking for his first car. He finds a Red 1989 “Mk3” Fiesta 1.1L (I actually tried to persuade to look for a 1.4, as others have indicated, despite the CVH’s issues, it’s still preferable to the OHV). I was amazed at how little it had improved over the 1977 version! A larger cabin was about the only thing I could identify! The engine was the same, the interior wasn’t any better and the steering/handling were inferior.
A work college had a 1990 “Mk3” XR2i and I was really looking forward to experiencing it. However, I was really disappointed. Didn’t handle particularly well, seem to have trouble getting the power down and the seats were awful. I was running a 1988 Orion 1.6i Ghia at the time (which was no Golf or Peugeot GTi), which was superior to this XR2i.
CVH was a coarse engine that wasn’t keen on revs! My other brother ran a Cavalier at the time, and the engine was noticeably nicer and keener to rev. (The rest of it was awful though – handled like a boat!)
Except for the RS1800 (and maybe the later 1992 on 1.8 Zetec XR2i), I would give the Mk3 Fiesta a wide berth. If you want an old Fiesta, get a Sigma (1.25/1.4) powered Mk4. Such a massively superior car and one of the best superminis of its era (whereas the Mk3 is one of the worst!). The difference is almost equivalent to Sierra vs Mondeo and Escort vs Focus.
This particular car is a later updated Mk3 Fiesta introduced in 1994. Featuring Airbag, improved crash protection, Mirrors & side indicators from the Mondeo and a Fuel flap!! In addition, the 1.6 16v Zetec engine was introduced and a 1.4 CVH with multipoint EFi (on earlier models 1.4s were either with carbs or CFi).
I did wonder whether it’s actually a 1.4 CVH or 1.3 CFi (HCS/OHV) ? As the ad has no pictures of the engine bay, the spec says 1.3 and power & performance figures are all over the place!
Also, I thought alloy wheels were standard on the Ghia, by this point but…..
Looking through my brochure collection:
Up to Oct 1992 standard wheels on Ghia are steel. Afterwards the alloy wheels previously optionally available on the XR2i are standard (XR2i gets new optional alloy wheels & 1.8 Zetec engine). Until March 1995 (or sometime between May 1994 & March 1995) where alloys become optional again!
In May 1994 Ghia petrol engine options are 1.3CFi (Manual or Auto) or 1.6 Zetec.
In March 1995 Ghia petrol engine options are 1.3CFi (Auto only), 1.4CVH EFi or 1.6 Zetec
See scans from May 1994 and March 1995 Brochure and play “spot the difference”!
So, it appears that if this car is a later 1994/early 1995 model with a manual box, then it’s a 1.4 CVH (or 1.6 Zetec!) and the alloy wheels are optional! Or it’s a slightly earlier 1994 1.3 CFi (or 1.6 Zetec!) manual and the wheels are standard!!
Power/Performance from March 1995 brochure (All 5 door, 5 speed Manuals):
1.3 HCS CFi 60PS/101Nm 95mph/14.2s
1.4 CVH EFi 75PS/109Nm 104mph/12s
1.6i 16v Zetec 90PS/134Nm 110mph/10.4s
Also see Review from Autocar of 1994 Mk3 Fiesta and compare to the 1995 Mk4 !!
May 1994 brochure
March 1995 brochure
Rob 131 Sport said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Ah the old CVH trope, owned loads when I was younger and genuinely preferred some of them to the 16v golf gti engine in the mk2.
Why. MK 2 Golf GTI 16V was a great car with a superb revvy engine. That's a whisper away from where I live.
The old spot is a great pub, but further than the article suggests!
I think that is an interesting car for the money, with the potential to go up in time.
I don't have personal experience of CJS, but they do seem to have some slightly more interesting cars, seem to be sensibly priced and I haven't heard anything negative about them.
The old spot is a great pub, but further than the article suggests!
I think that is an interesting car for the money, with the potential to go up in time.
I don't have personal experience of CJS, but they do seem to have some slightly more interesting cars, seem to be sensibly priced and I haven't heard anything negative about them.
My non car savvy mate used to run his oil low enough for the engine to rattle, and topped it up only then. It went on for years until one day he had a collision whereby the bonnet went through a chip shop window, and his fingers were pulled out of their sockets as the steering wheel was wrenched out of his hands - yikes
GhiaInjection said:
Horrid, wheezy boat anchor of an engine that had no place in the 1990s, and to be honest would have been considered average a decade before. The Sigma lumps that arrived in the mk4 were a revelation. Unbelievably, Ford kept this ancient pushrod clunker going for a while longer.
Edited by Limpet on Wednesday 5th January 16:51
Limpet said:
Horrid, wheezy boat anchor of an engine that had no place in the 1990s, and to be honest would have been considered average a decade before.
My late Mum's last car was a W-plate (1999 I think) 1.3 with that engine - she obviously didn't ask me for any advice. Edited by Limpet on Wednesday 5th January 16:51
Although it probably didn't matter how wheezy it was given how she used it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff