Back
Cars and Car Conversions - Technical: Rally Fiesta Development
"Back to front"
March 1979
Next

 

 

Home » Magazine Articles » British UK » Cars and Car Conversions »

Technical: Rally Fiesta Development




Cars and Car Conversions - Technical: Rally Fiesta Development - Front Cover

Cars and Car Conversions - Technical: Rally Fiesta Development - Page 1

Cars and Car Conversions - Technical: Rally Fiesta Development - Page 2

Cars and Car Conversions - Technical: Rally Fiesta Development - Page 3

Cars and Car Conversions - Technical: Rally Fiesta Development - Page 1

Copy of Article Text Below


Back to front

Peter Newton gets acquainted with Ford's initial moves in front wheel drive competition development on the Fiesta


You might think that three seconds per kilometre is a considerable period of time for one rally car and driver combination to be extracting from another over an identical stretch of road. You'd be right. In this case however there are mitigating circumstances: like the essential inequality of the contestants, a 1600cc 120bhp pushrod Fiesta with a hack engine versus a 260bhp full house G4 works Escort in Monte Carlo Rally trim; like the fact that Ford Competition department's experimental Fiesta had never been out of England before, never been up a mountain pass before; never even been on snow before.

In 2½kms of a snowbound Turini in the closing days of 1978, the Fiesta dropped 10 seconds going uphill, and eight seconds going downhill with the company's three contracted Scandinavian rally drivers each taking turns at the wheel .... even the extremists among Fiesta sceptics, who numbered Walde-gaard and Mikkola among them, had to agree, the damn thing had potential!

Fiesta development, if that is the correct description, began in a very low key fashion some 16 months ago in response to the competition department's increasing realisation that Fiesta (and particularly FWD) rather than Cortina would represent the company's major future interests.

Fiesta, and its future stablemates locked deep within the walls of Dunton and Merkenich research and development departments, were the cars with a future, and thus the sooner something was found out about the competition feasibility of such a machine, the better. To be able to have answers to questions not yet even asked is to keep one's head above water. Since Boreham knew next to nothing about FWD in competition, save to regard it with considerable scepticism (hardly surprising in the light of Lancia and Saab's experience) there was no time like the present to find out some answers.

Besides, it was felt with considerable justification that should a marketing decision fall upon Cortina as the model with which to promote the marque through competition, then Boreham already had the "know-how" and Ford the instant hardware to make it a rapid runner despite a comparatively short gestation. All those 3.4 litre Essex block V6s etc would see to that.

All of the above should also be seen in the light of European motor-sport trends. Disregarding, for a moment, the ostrich-style posturing of Ballestre's naively idealistic CSI, it's clear to most of us equipped with logical thought processes that Europe's motor manufacturers should and will have a considerable share in the framing of regulations governing motorsport. Whether they achieve this end by civilised negotiation and compromise, or by high handed Ecclestone-style methods is largely irrelevant since the outcome will be the same.

It's also clear to most of us with a passing interest in motoring trends that the majority of Europe's motor manufacturers see their corporate futures lying in front wheel drive for all but the luxury executive end of the market. Modern technology, engineering and mass production skills have rendered FWD no more of a challenge than conventional cars of the recent past. FWD is now at least as reliable and efficient as RWD, and in terms of space saving and marketing, makes obvious sense. So sure are Europe's major manufacturers of the commercial necessity of FWD that they have staked a massive fortune on the success of certain long term projects.

The ranks include Europe's first true "Eurocar", the Fiesta, which is assembled in vast numbers at a new plant in Valencia, as well as being assembled in whole or part at Cologne, Dagenham, Saarlouis. Bordeaux and Wulfrath. In similar mould are Fiat's vitally important new Ritmo; the new generation Audis; VW Golfs; AlfaSuds, Renualt's ubiquitous R5, the Peugeot 104 etc etc.

All these models represent powerful companies which are to a greater or lesser extent keen to promote a youthful and aggressive image in the market place through direct product association. Under existing rules, current Group Two regulations provide a suitable way of joining in successfully at an acceptable cost.

These manufacturers are of course in a position to influence the new FIA Appendix J regulations due for 1982, but until then, Group Two rallying provides good exposure in return for comparatively minor modifications and hence outlay. Ford enjoy a great reputation for marketing and product planning; it's not unnatural that they should wish to be fully equipped to take advantage of a change in regulations, especially as one does not need a crystal ball to surmise that their small and medium car future lies in FWD along with GM (Opel) whose Kadett is being phased out this year; Vauxhall (eventually, after Opel); and Chrysler (presumably).

Other major manufacturers besides Leyland are already in the dining room, sitting down and eating; one would hesitate to be so bold as to suggest that Leyland even have a future. Perhaps if the company, either in the guise of JRT or Austin/Morris can hang on until 1981/2 when the desperately required LC10 replacement for the Allegro range, and/or the new Mini are alleged to be appearing, there may be a chance. Who knows.

Fiesta and group two (like R5, Ritmo etc and Group two) were an obvious combination from the outset. Anyone will tell you that to compete in Group One with a chance of success, you must have a very well homologated car and very well homologated cars take time to "create". Group two looked far more attractive.

Fiesta is sold in 1600cc form in the United States using a five main bearing Kent crossflow engine all but identical to that currently used in the Escort. Modifying it within the regulations was thus no problem at all, utilising old tuning equipment which has been tried and tested on hundreds of performance engines in the past. The engine project was thus delegated to the capable care of Brian Hart and these engines now give an impressively reliable 160 bhp on twin 45DCOE Weber induction and dry sump lubrication. Using the standard cast iron block and much modified but still cast iron head, a tuftrided iron crankshaft (on which no doubt more money has been spent than if steel were allowed) rolled journals, shot peened connecting rods, Cosworth rocker gear and an A6 Cosworth camshaft these essentially "old hat" engines present no engineering imponderables. Act One was thus a simple matter of commissioning the hard pressed Brian Hart to complete the necessary work to the letter of the regulations.

Low key the project was, and low key it still is, but Ford (and others) were greatly inspired by Renault's successes in G2 during 1978 with the diminutive R5. To finish the gruelling Bandama Rally so reliably and in such high overall placings suggested that small FWD cars could rapidly be made suitable for endurance rallying, and the French company's magnificent efforts on the '78 Monte Carlo Rally, where they finished second and third overall, prompted encouraging thoughts in the minds of the men at Boreham.

The story of how the 1979 G2 Monte Carlo rally Fiestas evolved is a story of sporadic high pressure development rather than continuous year-long work. There were many who felt that Fiesta was not the right way to go in competition, many who were openly critical, even in the department. Besides, Ford were at the time running a major programme in Britain and an occasional World Championship sortie in Europe with the Escort, so resources in terms of time and manpower were simply not available in the sort of quantities that would have allowed them to tackle the project alone.

That the venture has so far proved to be encouragingly successful is due in no small measure to the painstaking and patient detail design work of Len Bailey, the direction of John Griffiths (upon whose shoulders responsibility for the project eventually came to rest), the unquenchable enthusiasm of John Taylor who carried out almost all testing and development work on the car, the support of Haynes of Maidstone who undertook much of the initial workload; and to the research and development information readily available via Dunton, from whence throughout the project's gestation, came a continual flow of cooperation, encouragement and interest.

Knowing comparatively little about front wheel drive, it was logical to take the advice of a number of competitors, engineers, etc, with experience of trying to make the layout successful in competition. Three Fiestas were lent to Barry Lee, John Young and John Taylor with a view to accumulating data on the car in various different guises (none of which appeared, or were ever intended to appear, in competition) and at the outset, work started on development of the transmission.

The essential problem of FWD in competition, and specifically rallying, surrounds the transmission. How does one make the car easy to drive and handle, light on the steering and with the minimum of "fight" while combining such desirable qualities with a suitably business-like LSD to endow the car with grip and traction in extremis?

It was expected that gearbox and driveshaft failures would also intervene at an early stage. Thus, Hewland were commissioned to develop a series of heavy duty close ratio. gearsets to fit the standard casing, and after a number of singularly unsuccessful test sessions with Hewland pawl-type differentials and the usual plate types (John Taylor: "I grew horns overnight!"),.....