Copy of Article Text Below
.....about a decade ago) is such a success in the UK!
That is the sort of thing we've seen in the UK - thousands of second generation front wheel drive cars pouring in from Europe and Japan, and all of that following hot on the heels of the Mini being outpaced by conventional cars on race track and rally stage.
Okay, some of you might say that the above is all very unpatriotic and point out that the Mini is still one of the best selling models in Britain. Yes, it is a "big seller" in UK terms, but that is not much to brag about; and I don't believe the above to be in any way 'anti-Britain' just in the same way as I don't expect an air travel passenger to be so-accused for flying in a Boeing, or for driving to the airport in a Ford Fiesta - less than 20 percent of which are build in the UK: the majority being of Spanish origin.
We must approach Fiesta in the same way; we must forget that most UK cars are Spanish - we should think of it globally; and we must forget that, had we been led to the driver's seat blindfold on first meeting, we'd never have guessed it to be a Ford. At the same time we should take a little time to examine some of the reasons why it's the configuration it is, before considering why it drives and handles like it does.
Of particular significance is why it is front wheel drive, and for Ford the primary reason is one of manufacture: not space saving or fail-safe handling, although those factors are, obviously, not far behind.
With the Mini, the factors were not so arranged, for the Mini's creator. Sir Alec Issigonis, put the engine sideways and made it transmit drive to the front wheels primarily to save space, with failsafe handling being a secondary bonus. The reason of manufacture was far from the front of the list, for the adapted 'A' Series engine with its complicated and power-sapping series of transfer gears has never been cheap to produce, and it was 'created' long before car makers started thinking in more 'lateral' terms.
An example of the modern approach comes from Fiat which was eager to have a finger in South America for a variety ot reasons, and -one example only - ships completely assembled 127 engine/transmission units from Brazil to Italy. Just like the Fiesta practice. Fiat found that it was economically advantageous to use one labour market for one sub-assembly, and fit one into the other with no more than a few connections and alignments, by utilising modern 'container' palletized cargo systems and reap two benefits: politically it is a provider of labour, and economically, it benefits from the cheaper cost of that labour.
When thinking of the Fiesta, the above system of manufacture allows Ford to more carefully control the cost of the product so that the customer benefits by paying less (or, conversely, the maker takes a more realistic cut and stays in business and firmly in the game of R&D from which we all benefit); while more immediate benefits include reliability and ease of service. Don't laugh; the 'third' generation of front-drives are very well thought-out in such respects; they are lighter for given overall dimensions, which means you use less fuel, or, conversely, go more quickly for an equivalent amount of fuel in a rear-drive car, and, of perhaps more interest to CCC readers, there is significantly less unsprung weight. Less gearbox intrusion, no axle intrusion and more space for a given volume are all plusses without any minuses.
It was no mistake that Ford used no less than 33 Fiat 127s at its Merkenich Technical Centre, before evolution caused the company to switch and concentrate on comparisons with the VW Golf, Polo and Audi 50 models. Neither is it any mistake that the Fiat 127 was consistently the European best seller during those times in which Ford worked on the design and building of its front drive 'front runner'.
Unlike the Escort, which when compared with the Fiesta, was a much less significant car, being thoroughly orthodox Ford practice from front bumper to rear bumper, the Fiesta has taken some time to emerge as a vehicle to be backed by Ford as a competition car on the race track and /ally stage. It will be remembered that soon after the Escort's launch, Ove Andersson took a Twin Cam to third place on the Rally of the Flowers, an event later to become the San Remo WRC counter.
After years of indoctrination into Ford's model creations of 'GT' TC' and 'RS' high performance models, it was, for some time, quite worrying (for this writer, at least) that Ford offered no more than the largely cosmetic Fiesta 'S' and the Supersport' limited edition model. Luckily, that all seems to have changed, and although Ford doesn't appear - on the surface anyway - to have put as much effort into go-faster Fiestas as it has done since the days of the first Cortina GT, the little space and energy conscious Fiesta is, at last, competing with the best of them and doing very well in its classes.
The road car spin-off has begun, and all now looks set for a long and interesting future for which the same must also be said of the new Escort as it uses a modified and lengthened Fiesta floorpan and utilises several other mechanical parts.
So we've now had out first proper look at the Fiesta from the 'plus performance' point of view. We've sampled Ford's 'X Pack' idea of what constitutes a quicker Fiesta; a more budget conscious tuned example from Janspeed, courtesy of Geoff Mabbs; we've taken a look at Fiestas in Group One saloon circuit racing, and we've spoken to the right people when it comes to tarmac and loose stage rallying. Read on. IS
Progression... This is the Fiesta which Ford has served up as an integral part of X-Pack philosophy, with modified 1600cc Kent engine, the full Ford "go faster" look and, thankfully, some somewhat more subtle suspension alterations. Does it work? Read on. . . .
By the time I jumped into Ford's 1600 X Pack Fiesta, it smelt right. Nothing to do with deodorants, air fresheners, or otherwise. It was still warm from someone else's driving, and the car was emitting to the air around it a few parts to the million of those adrenalin stimulating wniffs, like pollen, microscopic quantities with much more effect than cause.
Unlike the irritation of pollen or the attraction of a woman's perfume, these subtle odours registered straight to the nerve endings of excitement. It was a combination of hot oil, the slightly acrid tang of friction linings, and the bitter aroma of hot paint, all accompanied by the quiet tick-tick-tick, the heat-sink of hot metal beginning to cool and beginning to contract.
It felt right, too, from the 'S' pack driver's seat; (nothing as good as a Recaro, but quite firm and not unpleasant); to the four-spoke thick-rimmed steering wheel, an impressive tiller designed exclusively for competition Fiestas by John Taylor.
All these nuances came together to tell the driver one thing. . . . "This is going to be an enjoyable experience."
Such, virtually autonomic, instant assumptions can be dangerous if the car goes on to disappoint. This one didn't - but not without provisos.
Ford's X Pack car is quite an expensive indulgence: £1674 on top of a Fiesta 1300S. You can see from the accompanying table that the greatest single cost involves the engine. It uses engine parts from an Escort Sport in the block of the 1598cc engine as fitted to Fiestas for the North American market (where the extra capacity is needed to offset all the gulp valve, converter, and recirculation palaver required). The Escort parts (pistons, cylinder head, distributor etc.) fitted into the 'Federal' block and topped with a Weber 34 DATR carburettor, makes it quite a unique engine. It.....
|
