Jump to content
Do Not Sell My Personal Information


Ford Fiesta 2016 1.25 82hp - Is it underpowered?


error
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Two weeks ago I bought a new Ford Fiesta 2016 with a 1.25 petrol engine and 82hp. I thought the 1.0 petrol engine was too small and the dealer didn't have a 1.5 diesel, which I initially wanted. 

I thought 82hp for a car weighing under a ton would be enough for a starter car, but I feel that the Fiesta is low on power. Overtaking on the motorway going up a hill is a nightmare with over 60 mp/h. In fifth gear I floor the accelerator but it isn't really going faster.

I drove about 1500km since I own it and I love this little car. I just feel that it is somehow slow. I usually shift later than the indicator says because I probably would't reach the top of a hill if I drove in fifth gear with 37 mph, which the car does suggest.

Btw, this is my first car I'm not "downgrading" from something more powerful. I bought it new because I can write it off as a company car and it is a lovely little thing.

Am I doing something wrong? Am I driving it wrong? May this be a fault or is the 82hp Fiesta just underpowered?

Best regards,

aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when I floor the accelerator in fifth gear at 70mph going up a hill slightly, it just can't go faster than that. I'm flooring it and the speed just stays the same! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what you have said about it is what I would expect it to be like. 

I find that type of engine (in the other sizes also) is not too bad on the flat but very gutless when you come to a long hill. They just get slower and slower.

The bhp advertised does not really go with how it feels in real life.  The diesel would feel much better even though no higher on the advertised bhp.

I have not driven 1 litre 3 cylinder (not sure if you mean the turbo charged one or not). The turbo (ecoboost) sounds very good for power & torque from what people say but in my mind I just feel it would be shagged out quickly as it working hard all of the time. Time will tell, I know a lot have failed due to coolant leeks, because it is so highly strung it can't cope with the coolant leak for more than 1 second. Other engines would probably survive a coolant leak better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, isetta said:

what you have said about it is what I would expect it to be like. 

I find that type of engine (in the other sizes also) is not too bad on the flat but very gutless when you come to a long hill. They just get slower and slower.

The bhp advertised does not really go with how it feels in real life.  The diesel would feel much better even though no higher on the advertised bhp.

What can I do to fix it? How can a diesel feel faster despite having the same bhp and the same weight? 

It feels like a 60hp car and this somehow ruins the experience. I love the car except for this :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 82bhp engine is a rev happy one. You need to thrash it to get anything meaningful. I've had many as courtesy cars. You just need to adapt your driving style to suit it.

I'm going to guess you learned in a small engined turbo car. The power delivery on turbo cars is very different normally aspirated ones as much of the power is lower down the rev range.

Also keep in mind that its top speed is only around 100mph. You're getting comparatively near that on a motorway. Of course a small engine is going to run out of puff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 minutes ago, GaryPL said:

The 82bhp engine is a rev happy one. You need to thrash it to get anything meaningful. I've had many as courtesy cars. You just need to adapt your driving style to suit it.

I'm going to guess you learned in a small engined turbo car. The power delivery on turbo cars is very different normally aspirated ones as much of the power is lower down the rev range.

Also keep in mind that its top speed is only around 100mph. You're getting comparatively near that on a motorway. Of course a small engine is going to run out of puff.

But don't higher revs mean a lot more fuel consumtion?

I learned to drive in a smaller VW Polo Diesel with 72bhp. I dpn't know if it is turbocharged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, error said:

What can I do to fix it? How can a diesel feel faster despite having the same bhp and the same weight? 

It feels like a 60hp car and this somehow ruins the experience. I love the car except for this

TBH the diesel will probably have a little bit more torque thus feeling a little more powerful. In my opinion more torque the better. As for what can you do to fix it with out sounding rude as that's not what I mean at all, sell it and get one of the bigger BHP  3 cylinder it may be better for you as because of the very small engine no matter what you do it  will not  produce significant real term gains. A way to look at it my ST was 225 BHP when I got it its now 345 BHP I have spent £1000's to get it there if I had bought the RS  instead and spent much the same on mods I would be running something like 400+ BHP pretty much because the RS has a much stronger engine than the ST from factory even thought its virtually the same to look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, error said:

But don't higher revs mean a lot more fuel consumtion?

I learned to drive in a smaller VW Polo Diesel with 72bhp. I dpn't know if it is turbocharged. 

It would have been turbocharged. And diesel power comes in one lump low down. So it'd feel very different to a small normally aspirated petrol.

Yes, more revs means more consumption. A high revving small engine can use more than a low revving large one.

This is all just physics. Can't really cheat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Gizza11 said:

TBH the diesel will probably have a little bit more torque thus feeling a little more powerful. In my opinion more torque the better. As for what can you do to fix it with out sounding rude as that's not what I mean at all, sell it and get one of the bigger BHP  3 cylinder it may be better for you as because of the very small engine no matter what you do it  will not  produce significant real term gains. A way to look at it my ST was 225 BHP when I got it its now 345 BHP I have spent £1000's to get it there if I had bought the RS  instead and spent much the same on mods I would be running something like 400+ BHP pretty much because the RS has a much stronger engine than the ST from factory even thought its virtually the same to look at.

you're not rude, that's just an honest opinion. I bought the Fietsa on a lease because I needed a company car I could write off, that's why I got a new one. I love the Mondeo, but at the moment I just can't afford it without having to think if I got some money left at the end of the month. I'm 21 and insurance rates are hell for me... :-(

I'll be paying it off in 2 years if business is going good and get something more powerful. I just expected 82bhp to be a little quicker. I didn't expect it to go 0-60 in 6 seconds, but I did expect it to be able to accelerate going up a hill. :-/

I like the ST, but I need a 5-door car. I tried to sit in a 3-door Fiesta, but I just didn't like it. And I kind of dislike "sporty" cars. I expected 82bhp to be reasonable, but it sometimes feels very slow. Should've looked at the torque figures..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, error said:

Hello,

Two weeks ago I bought a new Ford Fiesta 2016 with a 1.25 petrol engine and 82hp. I thought the 1.0 petrol engine was too small and the dealer didn't have a 1.5 diesel, which I initially wanted. 

I thought 82hp for a car weighing under a ton would be enough for a starter car, but I feel that the Fiesta is low on power. Overtaking on the motorway going up a hill is a nightmare with over 60 mp/h. In fifth gear I floor the accelerator but it isn't really going faster.

I drove about 1500km since I own it and I love this little car. I just feel that it is somehow slow. I usually shift later than the indicator says because I probably would't reach the top of a hill if I drove in fifth gear with 37 mph, which the car does suggest.

Btw, this is my first car I'm not "downgrading" from something more powerful. I bought it new because I can write it off as a company car and it is a lovely little thing.

Am I doing something wrong? Am I driving it wrong? May this be a fault or is the 82hp Fiesta just underpowered?

Best regards,

aj

Shame you thought the 1.0 litre would be too small as it's a much more powerful engine than the old 1.25, after test driving the 1.25 on behalf of a friend I couldn't believe how sluggish it was and advised him not to buy it. All I can say is keep shifting at a high rev other than that nothing you can do other than talk to the dealer about getting the 1.0 litre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've had a few of the 1.25 litre fiestas as curtacy cars and my gawd what an awful car/engine combination. Awful lack of power and fuel economy is dire. I get more out of my titanium x sport ecoboost mondeo.
The 1.0 litre ecoboost fiesta is absolutely superb and if you can Swap for one. You'll be quids in on fuel costs alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as mentioned above, torque is important too, not just bhp. and what rpm it is at max power and torque (Nm)

I have here the 2007 fiesta brochure, i know it's old but the figures illustrate the point well.

1.25 petrol  75bhp (6000rpm)   110Nm(4000rpm)

1.4 petrol 80bhp (5700rpm) 124Nm (3500rpm)

1.4 diesel 68bhp (4000rpm) 160Nm(2000rpm)

1.6 diesel 90bhp (4000rpm) 204Nm (1750rpm)  - i had this one , absolutely loved the way the power and torque was delivered at low rpm

if you compare 1.4 diesel to 1.25 petrol the diesel has less max power (but the max power is much lower rpm) &  the torque is almost 50% more and at half the rpm of the petrol's max torque.   I would much prefer the diesel.

Makers do not always show you this much info, particularly the rpm of max torque. But this info can tell you more about how the car will feel to drive and whether or not you have to keep the revs up high to make it move well.  Ideally I would like them all to show a graph of bhp and Nm curves against the rpm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diesels have always had more torque, no matter what engine. That's why they are used on trucks and tractors. I would still have the petrol unless I was doing long distance stuff. And yes, the 1.2 is very slow, but not as slow as any Peugeot driver. Rental Fiesta's are a different story, they're really fast hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re comments above about how good the 1.0 ecoboost is.

partly comes down to cost i guess and maybe dealers were offering better deals on 1.25 as it was an outdated engine and I would imagine not many people wanted it.

I have a sept 2016 price list.

engine size/bhp/torque / extra cost on top of 1.25 price

1.25 / 82 /114 (this is higher road tax than the others and lowest advertised mpg)

1.0 / 80 / 105  /+ £500

1.0 ecobost/ 100/ 170 /+ £1000

1.5 (diesel) / 75 / 190  / + £1600

I know it's easy to say in hindsight but the 1.25 does not look like a wise choice based on the above (nor would the 1litre 80bhp). But as said before, the ecoboost does not seem to  tolerate coolant leaks longer than the blink of an eye and many people have needed new engines because of this, and maybe discounts were more generous on the 1.25

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, isetta said:

1.25 / 82 /114 (this is higher road tax than the others and lowest advertised mpg)

I guess the new road tax system sucks for new Fiesta owners. It's going to be great for me though. After a Subaru in a couple years, so I will be saving over £350 a year on tax if I get a 2017 model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, error said:

I like the ST, but I need a 5-door car

The new ST and RS are 5 door now a days I'm not entirely sure but I don't think they come in three now a days for some reason shame really as that real sporty 3 door look has gone. Also the wonderful 5 pot engine has gone now 3 or 4 cylinders you can't beat the T5 in the mk2  for that sound and mod ability

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gizza11 said:

The new ST and RS are 5 door now a days I'm not entirely sure but I don't think they come in three now a days for some reason shame really as that real sporty 3 door look has gone. Also the wonderful 5 pot engine has gone now 3 or 4 cylinders you can't beat the T5 in the mk2  for that sound and mod ability

Stupid emissions regulations. They're still making them faster though. Glad they went with AWD on the RS, the mk2 being front was a little daft really, especially when it's not uncommon to find them running 400bhp. I agree though, those Volvo engines really lived up to their name of being indestructible.

The new ST and RS are only 5 door. Would've loved to see a Focus RS 3 door. The mk2 looked amazing, especially considering the base models were so bland, boring, and don't look the prettiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Luke4efc said:

when it's not uncommon to find them running 400bhp

Yes I agree unfortunately because mine is as ST I would need to do the following to get 400 or over rebuild the bottom end with forged pistons and rods and then a bigger Turbo probably injectors  and a new map and the little bits to go with it. An nother few thousands to do that lot may do it but we will see. Now if I had the RS I would not  have to do that a remap with what I have would have done it. The biggest ST  I've seen is 650 + Bhp by BD performance in Wrexham (not far from Me )but at £17000(yes you read it right) ill give that a miss.Like you I would have liked to have seen the new RS and ST with 3 doors.My St is a ST3 so its all leather recardo inside so not to bad for a mk2.I have to smile to think when I was a younger man a 1 ltr  ( no turbo but carburettor) engine you could probably get out and run faster in those days now they go like stink and better mpg too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My last and first car I had was a Peugeot 107 which had a 1 litre petrol engine. The disadvantages I found with having a small engine was that I would have to downshift when going up a hill when on the motorway and when you have more than 1 passenger in the car you would have to rev it a lot more to move it off. Advantages it was fun to rev and was cheap on tax and fuel. My new car is a mk6.5 fiesta zetec s 1.6 TDCi. When I first drove it I noticed the oomph in power. Road tax is £30 which is only £10 more than the pug and is claimed more mpg which I have to see for myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, error said:

when I floor the accelerator in fifth gear at 70mph going up a hill slightly, it just can't go faster than that. I'm flooring it and the speed just stays the same! 

That's the way it is. Base petrol engine cars are typically geared in 5th such that they can only maintain speed up a 5% incline. There is no solution other than to shift down if you want to pick up speed. 

The other thing that you might take into consideration is that when you are behind someone you get the benefit of their slipstream. This can give you the feel of having enough headway to overtake and change lane. You happen to be on a barely perceptible incline and there is a headwind (even a 5mph wind is enough to make a difference depending on whether it is head or tail); you get to the point where you pull level with the car you're overtaking and find you can't get any further because you've lost the slipstream and the other car is picking up on yours. Now a Range Rover is sitting two inches from your bumper. You're stuck. It's a matter of learning to anticipate and to shift down before the need arises.

I have a spreadsheet with a simple mathematical model to predict 50-70 times. I consider this increment to be much more useful than 0-60 times. For your car the times are 9.6, 13.4 and 17.6 seconds in 3rd, 4th, 5th. By comparison the 100 Ecoboost works out as 7.3, 10, 13.2. So whereas the Ecoboost has enough in top to pick up on a motorway incline in a headwind, you can see how you need to be a gear lower.

You did ask about fuel consumption. Yes, it will use more juice when you shift down. But it's only for a few seconds. If the gearing was set to make the car more responsive it would be less economical the whole time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Luke4efc said:

Diesels have always had more torque, no matter what engine. That's why they are used on trucks and tractors.

Actually, diesel engines do not produce more torque than petrol engines. Commercials use diesels simply because they are cheaper to run.

The error is that people compare petrol without turbo to diesels with turbo. Like for like, diesel is 20-30% lower (they can go higher but start producing black smoke).  Even with turbo you can see the difference in a post above from Isetta. 1.0 Ecoboost 170Nm = 170Nm per litre. 1.5 diesel 190Nm = 127Nm per litre.

The comparison is rather irrelevant because capacity doesn't cost anything to manufacture so the engine is built to suit the requirement. Cars with bigger engines cost more at the dealer because that's how marketing works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David73 said:

Actually, diesel engines do not produce more torque than petrol engines. Commercials use diesels simply because they are cheaper to run.

There is quite a bit more to it than that. Commercial vehicles tend not to require high engine speeds and so engine designs are far less constrained by problems associated with movement of mass. The extra mass enables higher compression ratios (increasing torque, particularly from diesel given its higher energy density) and longer stroke length (increasing torque given the increased leverage this has on the crankshaft).

There are also the benefits of direct injection (giving higher cylinder pressures and longer pulse widths) and turbos (effectively increasing the capacity of the cylinders) found as standard on diesel engines but these are of course becoming more commonplace on petrol engines too. Indeed, many of the small petrol engines these days (including the Ecoboost) are effectively diesel engines designed to run on petrol (i.e. using spark ignition instead of compression).

Diesel engines are also more reliable (generally), more robust and simpler to maintain - all round they are just far more suited to environments where heavy lifting and shifting over long periods of time is required hence them being the common choice. Of course, running costs do tend to be less but that is very much a secondary benefit in the commercial world given that there are few petrol-based alternatives due to diesel engines being far more suited to satisfying the core requirement as described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MJNewton said:

There is quite a bit more to it than that. Commercial vehicles tend not to require high engine speeds and so engine designs are far less constrained by problems associated with movement of mass. The extra mass enables higher compression ratios (increasing torque, particularly from diesel given its higher energy density) and longer stroke length (increasing torque given the increased leverage this has on the crankshaft).

 

Increasing stroke (within reason) does not increase torque because piston area reduces. Taking the first large lorry engine I came to (Cummins 6.7l) the proportions aren't significantly different to a small car engine. Higher compression increases the mechanical energy harvested out of the energy released in combustion so if all else is equal the higher efficiency should convert to more torque. (Torque, of course, being energy per radian.)

Except all else is not equal. A petrol engine can consume all the oxygen in the combustion chamber whereas the diesel engine cannot otherwise there is a serious black smoke problem; fuel delivery has to be limited to keep a substantial amount of unused oxygen in the exhaust. So the overall result means lower torque. There is no way for a diesel engine to draw more oxygen into the combustion chamber except by using a higher manifold pressure.

But such are merely reasons. There is plenty of practical data to allow comparison to be made so it shouldn't be necessary to discuss the reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Forums


News


Membership