If my old 1988 VW Jetta GLI 16V could spin 3500RPM at 75MPH(over 3000 miles coast to coast trip) and it drove for 190k miles without engine problems a Fiesta can do it.
1000 miles on $30 of gas?
- Thread starter Burt
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,187
Originally Posted by Burt
Originally Posted by Ihatetochangeoil
So how do you MERGE onto an Interstate? (Don't even dream of passing uphill)
The HP-to-weight ratio is pretty similar to a normal car and in fact the turbo 3 cyl is lighter, more powerful and faster than the larger NA 4 cyl fiesta. Its just making a lot of hp from a tiny engine. As much HP per ci as a Ferrari, it just doesn't have many ci's.
Amazing what they do with technology in economy cars.
Don't be ridiculous. Comparing a 15-17K econobox with a Ferrari? "Ferrari engineers avoided turbocharging in the past, and while the 488 GTB is not the first turbo Ferrari ever, it is the most power-dense. Its 3.9-liter twin-turbo V-8 makes 661 horsepower, which translates to 169.4 horsepower per liter." https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/g6482/10-cars-with-the-highest-specific-outputs/?slide=7
There are also certain laws that cannot be violated; known as physics. For example, you can talk all you want about the wonders of technology, and I agree that the Fiesta does a good job with limited engine size and overall cost, but there are trade offs for any smaller car: MotorTrend review of the Fiesta warns about the car's lack of stability in a crosswind: It's no surprise that the car is susceptible to crosswinds, and it does need a bit of help tracking straight on the highway even without wind blasting the doors....https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/fiesta/2014/2014-ford-fiesta-sfe-ecoboost-first-test/ It doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy driving across Kansas.
Other posters have mentioned the discomfort (maybe even misery) in an econobox on an extended trip where you would spend long hours in the car. I can and have driven 1100 miles nonstop (except for gas) in my Buick Tank, and, at the end of the day, I can get out and walk and not feel like I've been beat up, or blown off the highway by the draft from semis. Physical size of the driver and personal taste are also factors. Furthermore in ANY accident, the laws of physics apply, and I'd rather my daughter be in my Buick Tank than a pregnant roller skate. To each his own. I mean no offense, just stating my opinion. Peace.
Originally Posted by Ihatetochangeoil
So how do you MERGE onto an Interstate? (Don't even dream of passing uphill)
The HP-to-weight ratio is pretty similar to a normal car and in fact the turbo 3 cyl is lighter, more powerful and faster than the larger NA 4 cyl fiesta. Its just making a lot of hp from a tiny engine. As much HP per ci as a Ferrari, it just doesn't have many ci's.
Amazing what they do with technology in economy cars.
Don't be ridiculous. Comparing a 15-17K econobox with a Ferrari? "Ferrari engineers avoided turbocharging in the past, and while the 488 GTB is not the first turbo Ferrari ever, it is the most power-dense. Its 3.9-liter twin-turbo V-8 makes 661 horsepower, which translates to 169.4 horsepower per liter." https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/g6482/10-cars-with-the-highest-specific-outputs/?slide=7
There are also certain laws that cannot be violated; known as physics. For example, you can talk all you want about the wonders of technology, and I agree that the Fiesta does a good job with limited engine size and overall cost, but there are trade offs for any smaller car: MotorTrend review of the Fiesta warns about the car's lack of stability in a crosswind: It's no surprise that the car is susceptible to crosswinds, and it does need a bit of help tracking straight on the highway even without wind blasting the doors....https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/fiesta/2014/2014-ford-fiesta-sfe-ecoboost-first-test/ It doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy driving across Kansas.
Other posters have mentioned the discomfort (maybe even misery) in an econobox on an extended trip where you would spend long hours in the car. I can and have driven 1100 miles nonstop (except for gas) in my Buick Tank, and, at the end of the day, I can get out and walk and not feel like I've been beat up, or blown off the highway by the draft from semis. Physical size of the driver and personal taste are also factors. Furthermore in ANY accident, the laws of physics apply, and I'd rather my daughter be in my Buick Tank than a pregnant roller skate. To each his own. I mean no offense, just stating my opinion. Peace.
A bus maybe?
A day at 2500 RPM wouldn't bother me at all. Heck, my Subaru has done a day at 3500 RPM! Yay for dump truck gears
For the record, I don't expect that a 4 year old car with 36,000 miles will blow up because it's driven at 75 mph for 2,000 miles. I do wonder if it will shorten the life of the head gasket at say 75,000 or 100,000 miles. Not from the rpm, but from mean cylinder pressure being higher than on a large displacement engine.
Originally Posted by Ihatetochangeoil
Originally Posted by Burt
Originally Posted by Ihatetochangeoil
So how do you MERGE onto an Interstate? (Don't even dream of passing uphill)
The HP-to-weight ratio is pretty similar to a normal car and in fact the turbo 3 cyl is lighter, more powerful and faster than the larger NA 4 cyl fiesta. Its just making a lot of hp from a tiny engine. As much HP per ci as a Ferrari, it just doesn't have many ci's.
Amazing what they do with technology in economy cars.
Don't be ridiculous. Comparing a 15-17K econobox with a Ferrari? "Ferrari engineers avoided turbocharging in the past, and while the 488 GTB is not the first turbo Ferrari ever, it is the most power-dense. Its 3.9-liter twin-turbo V-8 makes 661 horsepower, which translates to 169.4 horsepower per liter." https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/g6482/10-cars-with-the-highest-specific-outputs/?slide=7
There are also certain laws that cannot be violated; known as physics. For example, you can talk all you want about the wonders of technology, and I agree that the Fiesta does a good job with limited engine size and overall cost, but there are trade offs for any smaller car: MotorTrend review of the Fiesta warns about the car's lack of stability in a crosswind: It's no surprise that the car is susceptible to crosswinds, and it does need a bit of help tracking straight on the highway even without wind blasting the doors....https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/fiesta/2014/2014-ford-fiesta-sfe-ecoboost-first-test/ It doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy driving across Kansas.
Other posters have mentioned the discomfort (maybe even misery) in an econobox on an extended trip where you would spend long hours in the car. I can and have driven 1100 miles nonstop (except for gas) in my Buick Tank, and, at the end of the day, I can get out and walk and not feel like I've been beat up, or blown off the highway by the draft from semis. Physical size of the driver and personal taste are also factors. Furthermore in ANY accident, the laws of physics apply, and I'd rather my daughter be in my Buick Tank than a pregnant roller skate. To each his own. I mean no offense, just stating my opinion. Peace.
It may sound ridiculous, but I'm sure I would not have to go to far back to find a non-aspirated Ferrari with the hp to displacement of 2.1. Of course it's not apples to apples, but still thought provoking. As an owner, I'm fully aware of the comfort or lack there of in a Fiesta. I've made the same trip in a 90's Eagle Talon and although it wasn't comfortable, it was fun.
Originally Posted by Burt
Originally Posted by Ihatetochangeoil
So how do you MERGE onto an Interstate? (Don't even dream of passing uphill)
The HP-to-weight ratio is pretty similar to a normal car and in fact the turbo 3 cyl is lighter, more powerful and faster than the larger NA 4 cyl fiesta. Its just making a lot of hp from a tiny engine. As much HP per ci as a Ferrari, it just doesn't have many ci's.
Amazing what they do with technology in economy cars.
Don't be ridiculous. Comparing a 15-17K econobox with a Ferrari? "Ferrari engineers avoided turbocharging in the past, and while the 488 GTB is not the first turbo Ferrari ever, it is the most power-dense. Its 3.9-liter twin-turbo V-8 makes 661 horsepower, which translates to 169.4 horsepower per liter." https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/g6482/10-cars-with-the-highest-specific-outputs/?slide=7
There are also certain laws that cannot be violated; known as physics. For example, you can talk all you want about the wonders of technology, and I agree that the Fiesta does a good job with limited engine size and overall cost, but there are trade offs for any smaller car: MotorTrend review of the Fiesta warns about the car's lack of stability in a crosswind: It's no surprise that the car is susceptible to crosswinds, and it does need a bit of help tracking straight on the highway even without wind blasting the doors....https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/fiesta/2014/2014-ford-fiesta-sfe-ecoboost-first-test/ It doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy driving across Kansas.
Other posters have mentioned the discomfort (maybe even misery) in an econobox on an extended trip where you would spend long hours in the car. I can and have driven 1100 miles nonstop (except for gas) in my Buick Tank, and, at the end of the day, I can get out and walk and not feel like I've been beat up, or blown off the highway by the draft from semis. Physical size of the driver and personal taste are also factors. Furthermore in ANY accident, the laws of physics apply, and I'd rather my daughter be in my Buick Tank than a pregnant roller skate. To each his own. I mean no offense, just stating my opinion. Peace.
It may sound ridiculous, but I'm sure I would not have to go to far back to find a non-aspirated Ferrari with the hp to displacement of 2.1. Of course it's not apples to apples, but still thought provoking. As an owner, I'm fully aware of the comfort or lack there of in a Fiesta. I've made the same trip in a 90's Eagle Talon and although it wasn't comfortable, it was fun.
Well I see Americans still hate small cars lol. Geez guys, its a 126hp modern vehicle, not a 40hp vw bug. I dont know if its a younger crowd on here or we dont remember how vehicles were. Best advice is make sure your tires are properly inflated, check levels ect... The advice about overfilling the coolant....Smh....Bad advice.
I used to have a 3cyl geo metro and it topped out at 80 to 85 mph on a level grade, that car spent many hours foot to the floor flat out.
The car will be fine.
I used to have a 3cyl geo metro and it topped out at 80 to 85 mph on a level grade, that car spent many hours foot to the floor flat out.
The car will be fine.
Originally Posted by Ihatetochangeoil
So how do you MERGE onto an Interstate? (Don't even dream of passing uphill)
Maybe its because Im a CDL Class A holder and im used to driving slower vehicles, but if you cant merge safely into the interstate in a fiesta, you need to some further driving instruction.
Dependent on whether its a hatchback or a sedan the Fiestas 0-60 time is 8.6 or 9.4. That is more than adequate. Back when I started driving many cars had 13 to 18 second 0-60 times, that was common.
OP dont let these illogical comments scare you away from it. Take that fiesta and let us know how much it cost you! Have fun.
So how do you MERGE onto an Interstate? (Don't even dream of passing uphill)
Maybe its because Im a CDL Class A holder and im used to driving slower vehicles, but if you cant merge safely into the interstate in a fiesta, you need to some further driving instruction.
Dependent on whether its a hatchback or a sedan the Fiestas 0-60 time is 8.6 or 9.4. That is more than adequate. Back when I started driving many cars had 13 to 18 second 0-60 times, that was common.
OP dont let these illogical comments scare you away from it. Take that fiesta and let us know how much it cost you! Have fun.
Last edited:
