Fiesta ST Forums banner
81 - 99 of 99 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Maybe range is the reason for no electric Fiesta but it doesn't hold back the E mini which gets good reviews as an electric warm hatch but probably it's more likely down to Ford pairing up with VW for electric platforms and the ID3/Born platform is closer in size to the Focus. That said even the Focus name won't carry over but given the current fad for bringing back past names I'm going for it being a new Ford Escort 🤷‍♂️
ha - I wouldn't mind the Escort name coming back, growing up I loved them and always wanted one, never quite made it. Suspect it would not be the same tho, the mustang mach E should NOT have been called a mustang

You're joking, right? A transportation pod version of a Fiesta ST is WORSE than sending it to its grave.
Noise wise I agree, but electric cars have great acceleration and handling would not necessarily be worse with Fords capabilities there. Its a change, not the end of things
 

· Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #84 ·
@AMc I was planning to revive it anyway though. 😅😂

Here is an another comparison point. And there is a different kind of question here too.

The 100 to 200 times. I have taken a number of video tests that showcase the metric (eight for each car) and calculated the average time it takes both cars to do the thing. Although each Fiesta in these videos was a pre facelift model that is actually what we need to create context for the main question and I will get to it much later. In addition to the times I marked how full was the the fuel tank (where visible) and how well the content creator was shifting the gears (shifting lights based). Not every tester had result correction for slopes and such and there is also a wind problem plus weather and temperature, but since these are more or less same unknowns for both cars it feels okay to just accept that this comparison is obviously not completely scientific, I think it still tells the story. And needless to say that the clear downhills and such were not used for the comparison.

The i20N averaged at 20.65 while it had more extra weight in the amount of fuel and shifting was worse. But I have to add that the tank capacity in the i20N is 5 litres lower so maybe not all that much extra weight. The Fiesta ST averaged at 21.45 while carrying less fuel and with better timed shifts more often. For the sake of fairness it also needs to be said that the i20N results looked kind of nicer across the board but there was one outstanding worse result that obviously hindered the average. But it wasn't all that bad really. Meanwhile the Fiesta ST was able to replicate some of the best times set by the i20N but also posted results around 22 seconds too often that balanced those out. It's overall pretty close as usual. There is an 80 milliseconds difference in the available sample group (small one; take away one good result for the i20 and one average result for the Fiesta and the gap shrinks to 0.30) but this time range is less sensitive for gaps then say 0 to 100 times.

So as we know from the quarter mile videos for example among other things from 1st to 3rd gear due to the gearing itself and you could say the engine setup plus lower traction limitation the i20N gets going quicker (earlier slightly higher peak power, less time to get to it, less time past ~6200 where the stock i20N sees a drop off), but in 4th the Fiesta ST seriously comes back and the shorter gearing is actually helping this time on top of the slight torque difference (slight in the pre facelift). The Fiesta ST is earlier in 4th and is closer to peak power by the time the i20N shifts up and still has to climb up the rev range in a gear that takes considerably more time than even the previous 3rd (for both cars) or so it feels to me. Then there is also the point that the i20N needs to stay in 4th past 6200 and experience the drop off (meanwhile shifting earlier should not be really helpful since you land into lower RPM further from where you want to be) while the Fiesta ST doesn't have Virtual Turbo Speed technology reducing the boost and keeps on pulling. But what is happening in 5th is not clear then because of the average 100 to 200 results. The Fiesta ST jumps into 5th earlier yet again and that seems like it should be an advantage in a higher gear once more but maybe it isn't. I was not paying attention but maybe the RPM they both land at are higher in 5th (favours the i20N), maybe it's the fact that the gearing difference is less drastic (i20 can stay in 3rd until ~138, Fiesta until ~120; i20 stays in 4th until ~180, Fiesta until ~170; the gearing is supposedly getting closer), maybe both or something else too. But the point is that the i20N must be getting something back in 5th because 4th is all Fiesta ST territory. Or am I just missing something? These cars cross the quarter mile line at ~165 if I recall correctly and you can often see the Fiesta ST noticeably catching up to the i20N in 4th, but there aren't any half mile or full mile videos out there unfortunately. If those would even be enough. So it's impossible to see what happens from that ~170 mark when the Fiesta ST shifts into 5th and so does the i20N just a bit later. But I am curious if the reasons for the i20N posting a slightly quicker 100 to 200 average are close to what I've mentioned before about the 5th or what else could it be too. Would you also presume that the 5th is the difference or am I wrong (why if yes)?

And now to the facelift. So we all are aware of the extra 30 NM that are useful but aren't really too helpful in the upper rev range. So in the realm of 0 to 100 times it seems to not do all that much outside of helping keep an average time closer to the claimed 6.50 probably if you adjust to the traction limitation. Because if you don't all that torque will only help to spin the wheels even more than that car already does. But in the 100 to 200 domain there could be a little more for the torque to achieve. Or not? Going from 3rd to 4th you drop into something like 4500 RPM if I am not mistaken and the peak torque in the Fiesta ST runs out at 4000. The drop off is rather quick but that's to be expected I guess. Anyhow it's one thing to be dropping off from 290 and the other from 320. A more gradual decline would be great but we work with what we have. A difference of 30 could be meaningful. Nevertheless I don't think it wouldn't change the average way too dramatically but it could improve upon the results of the original model. Bring it closer or maybe make it more even. Could it possibly pull ahead slightly? I am not sure about anything here hence the question how do you people think the extra torque could influence the 100 to 200 metric (within the comparison or regardless of it) or is it exclusively for even harder low and mid range pulls in gear?

Sheesh, thanks for reading, cheers.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
30,745 Posts
I honestly believe that you are going far too deep with this. 80 milliseconds difference when comparing 2 200bhp small manual hatchbacks driven by different people in different conditions is negligible.

Without seeing the dyno graphs and the correlating pulls to see where in the revs the cars are performing, nothing can be deduced.

I wouldn't lose any more sleep over such a trivial issue.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #86 ·
@AMc Yeah, I know, but that kind of stuff really interests me. As you can see I guess. It's not even about comparing the two cars, they just serve as good examples, it's about these subtle differences and the effect they have. In my mind there is no actual competition between the two, the marked is blessed with both existing obviously and by the difference in the approach between them, everyone can choose what suits them more. Because we all know that the Polo is not bringing of value anything to the table. :LOL:

But in general ever since the MK8.5 was announced I've been curious in where the extra torque will manifest itself. If you would call owning and driving a hot hatches a hobby talking about them is the free part. ;)

@mightbemeangreen Harping? And then this person complains about some users not being friendly with them. You could have just walked by if small scale performance figures are not your thing. Of course I own an ST. Probably already mentioned it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #88 ·
@AMc Yeah, especially with how early the ST gets peak torque. Ever since I got the ST there is a feeling that I am becoming lazier as a driver because I shift down less. 😂

But anyway it is very real about the power figure staying exactly the same.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
@AMc Yeah, I know, but that kind of stuff really interests me. As you can see I guess. It's not even about comparing the two cars, they just serve as good examples, it's about these subtle differences and the effect they have. In my mind there is no actual competition between the two, the marked is blessed with both existing obviously and by the difference in the approach between them, everyone can choose what suits them more. Because we all know that the Polo is not bringing of value anything to the table. :LOL:

But in general ever since the MK8.5 was announced I've been curious in where the extra torque will manifest itself. If you would call owning and driving a hot hatches a hobby talking about them is the free part. ;)

@mightbemeangreen Harping? And then this person complains about some users not being friendly with them. You could have just walked by if small scale performance figures are not your thing. Of course I own an ST. Probably already mentioned it.
Some excellent, analytical posts. Don't worry, forums worldwide often have fanboys who have a tough time dealing with reality. Your posts are appreciated. Keep up the good work!
 

· Premium Member
Fiesta ST Edition
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
The only 2 really differences between the ST and i20N is what you personally prefer to look at and how many different driver settings you like to play with.

Personally I find the i20 hideous inside and out, the i30 is a much nicer looking machine, but I did welcome it to the market thinking it would keep the ST "honest" as all other competition seemed to be dwindling. Then Ford killed off the Fiesta 😔
 

· Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
The only 2 really differences between the ST and i20N is what you personally prefer to look at and how many different driver settings you like to play with.

Personally I find the i20 hideous inside and out, the i30 is a much nicer looking machine, but I did welcome it to the market thinking it would keep the ST "honest" as all other competition seemed to be dwindling. Then Ford killed off the Fiesta 😔
I agree with that. Both good cars. Probably down to little things like personal taste.
I think the i20 N looks cool actually. Whereas the ST looks too tame. Despite being a 'hot' version, it still just looks like the old geezer's bog standard Fiesta across the road. As much as I try, the ST got absolutely no 'turn back' and look in awe factor after you leave it parked up.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
948 Posts
I agree with that. Both good cars. Probably down to little things like personal taste.



I think the i20 N looks cool actually. Whereas the ST looks too tame. Despite being a 'hot' version, it still just looks like the old geezer's bog standard Fiesta across the road. As much as I try, the ST got absolutely no 'turn back' and look in awe as you leave it parked up.
Sounds like you bought the wrong car then...
 

· Registered
2023 8.5 Mean Green hopefully
Joined
·
112 Posts
to me the hyundai thing looks cheap, tacky, styling add on extra bits from halfords sort of look. I mean, what are those red flashes all about?? to me the shape is instantly forgettable and will date fast. Probably the sort of car for someone who likes dull cars like Polos and Golfs but cannot afford that step up.
 
81 - 99 of 99 Posts
Top