New Generation 1.5 Fiesta ST Spanks the 1.6 Old Generation ST

[apex1]

The title of this thread says it all. Thanks Ford

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQfND8jOtJ8


Edit: I just noticed that this video has already been posted in another thread--sorry for the double post.

 

[TheSixtyFive]

I saw it in July...I'm not glad at all......I love the MK7 Fiesta, and I would have liked she won the race…Probably, on my personal opinion, the fault could be identified in the 1st gear..too short to gain precious seconds...

 

[CarGuy]

I'd love to buy the new one but I'd keep the older one too!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[Tommyspanner]

The title of this thread says it all. Thanks Ford

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQfND8jOtJ8

Edit: I just noticed that this video has already been posted in another thread--sorry for the double post.

The 3 pot won,t spank many 7.5,s , ! It,s mid range torque isn,t good enough with 3 pot , !! It only got ahead due to launch control , !! It,s uglier and doesn,t even live in the ""shadow"" , of handling anything like, the Mk 7.5 version , 4 cylinder !! , !! I,ve driven both , and will keep my ST Mk7.5 thanks !! not as raw or fun. as the Mk 7.5 !! My Mountune MR 265 would have It for breakfast !! even when it was "stock" !! , sorry ford , you blew it !! when you had already had the best hot hatch globally !! check the Mk 7.5 reviews and bet you won,t even match them !! with that 3 pot Imposter !! good luck though as it,s better than the French crap !!

 

[DoomsdayMelody]

The 3 pot won,t spank many 7.5,s , ! It,s mid range torque isn,t good enough with 3 pot , !! It only got ahead due to launch control , !! It,s uglier and doesn,t even live in the ""shadow"" , of handling anything like, the Mk 7.5 version , 4 cylinder !! , !! I,ve driven both , and will keep my ST Mk7.5 thanks !! not as raw or fun. as the Mk 7.5 !! My Mountune MR 265 would have It for breakfast !! even when it was "stock" !! , sorry ford , you blew it !! when you had already had the best hot hatch globally !! check the Mk 7.5 reviews and bet you won,t even match them !! with that 3 pot Imposter !! good luck though as it,s better than the French crap !!

I feel that you owe the forum an apology for the eyesore this is the above grammatical abomination. Not only is it inaccurate, it’s just terribly written. If English isn’t your first language I understand, but then don’t talk shit in a language you don’t understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clint Beastwood]

I feel that you owe the forum an apology for the eyesore this is the above grammatical abomination. Not only is it inaccurate, it’s just terribly written. If English isn’t your first language I understand, but then don’t talk shit in a language you don’t understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dunno, shit talking is a pretty legit way to learn a language








About the video - why was the dude racing with an empty tank?

 

[Jerickson88]

I dunno, shit talking is a pretty legit way to learn a language








About the video - why was the dude racing with an empty tank?

Empty tank is lighter yo.

 

[Dpro]

I feel that you owe the forum an apology for the eyesore this is the above grammatical abomination. Not only is it inaccurate, it’s just terribly written. If English isn’t your first language I understand, but then don’t talk shit in a language you don’t understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t think he is ESL. It says Glagscow Scotland as where he lives. He is proper UK and probably has a thick Scottish accent which also explains the way he is talking.lol
I would hazard he even has a better command of the English language and sentence structure than we do if he feels like it.
Its not like we don’t murder the language ourselves here in the U.S.

Quite honestly while it was over punctuated it actually read out fine. Fack I get people whining here if I make a typo or grammatical error all the time.
Its like I am typing on a mobile device which loves to auto correct wrong or does not let me now when typing fast i left something out. Give the guy a fricken break.

 

[Clint Beastwood]

Don’t think he is ESL. It says Glagscow Scotland as where he lives. He is proper UK and probably has a thick Scottish accent which also explains the way he is talking.lol
I would hazard he even has a better command of the English language and sentence structure than we do if he feels like it.
Its not like we don’t murder the language ourselves here in the U.S.

Quite honestly while it was over punctuated it actually read out fine. Fack I get people whining here if I make a typo or grammatical error all the time.
Its like I am typing on a mobile device which loves to auto correct wrong or does not let me now when typing fast i left something out. Give the guy a fricken break.

I hate autocorrect, telling people to go “duck” themselves just doesn’t have the same oomph

 

[apex1]

That critical post attacking another member by a dude who has been here about 3 weeks is total BS. Hopefully it is not a sign of what is to come from our new friend.

 

[MagnetiseST]

I think the 1.6 has more potential. You cannot replace displacement, its a great car out of the box, but we will see in the long run which one is better.

 

[Sanity]

Thats a seriously impressive improvement. I wasn't sure about the 3banger at first but at least out of the box it looks pretty nice. I wonder if it'll have as much left in it for easy aftermarket like the 1.6. Either way the death of all the ford cars here in the US means I'll never see these

 

[GotVic]

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I want to say the new car uses a slightly better turbo that the older model, which gives quicker spool and slightly more power.

In any case, car is based off the same chassis. A tune with traction control, a quality set of dampeners, and a limited slip puts the Mk7 on the same playing field with the Mk8. No?

The new rear suspension has a bit of trickery too, but I'm not sure if that helps a lot or if it's marking hype. My bet is that a higher quality spring/strut/shock is most of the difference.

 

[DoomsdayMelody]

You cannot replace displacement

You’ve heard of turbochargers, yes? Or perhaps forced induction in general? That is how you replace displacement. Granted, you’re generating more heat with a smaller engine which has less ability to act as a heat sink as compared to a larger engine block, but 100 cc’s aren’t going to be enough of a difference to make the 1.6 EB superior to the new 1.5 3 cylinder.

It’s going to come down to how well the in-line 3 is built, the ecu strategy and the fueling equipment. Since peak HP is up that likely means that the 1.5 likes to rev more which means that there’s s good chance the turbo is slightly larger. And since both engines make a similar amount of power, its equally likely that they will be just as robust as each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sanity]

I haven't gotten a chance to go digging around, but I'm really curious about the turbo setup on the 1.5 and where they sit the power band and spool of the turbo. It seems like its even further down than the Mk7, but it held out well into the quarter. Gotta be some sweet gearing changes in the Mk 8 too

 

[Intuit]

You’ve heard of turbochargers, yes? Or perhaps forced induction in general? That is how you replace displacement. Granted, you’re generating more heat with a smaller engine which has less ability to act as a heat sink as compared to a larger engine block, but 100 cc’s aren’t going to be enough of a difference to make the 1.6 EB superior to the new 1.5 3 cylinder.

It’s going to come down to how well the in-line 3 is built, the ecu strategy and the fueling equipment. Since peak HP is up that likely means that the 1.5 likes to rev more which means that there’s s good chance the turbo is slightly larger. And since both engines make a similar amount of power, its equally likely that they will be just as robust as each other.

Difference between "literage" is 6.25% decrease.
Because they're spreading that 6.25% decrease in overall capacity across 25% less cylinders, this means that those individual pistons will be larger in the 3 cylinder engine, versus the 4... 20% larger if my math is accurate. Based on 48 second mark on the video, the red-line is 6,250RPM... gauge goes up to 8,000RPM. What's interesting, is this larger piston size, hasn't hurt its ability to rev? So that leads to questions about the stroke...

The engineering decisions are quite interesting and leaves one to wonder how much overhead is left in our fours... or/and what the three's long term durability factors are.

 

[DoomsdayMelody]

Difference between "literage" is 6.25% decrease.
Because they're spreading that 6.25% decrease in overall capacity across 25% less cylinders, this means that those individual pistons will be larger in the 3 cylinder engine, versus the 4... 20% larger if my math is accurate. Based on 48 second mark on the video, the red-line is 6,250RPM... gauge goes up to 8,000RPM. What's interesting, is this larger piston size, hasn't hurt its ability to rev? So that leads to questions about the stroke...

The engineering decisions are quite interesting and leaves one to wonder how much overhead is left in our fours... or/and what the three's long term durability factors are.

Fair counterpoint, but the piston sizes should be similar to that of the 2.0 ecoboost in the Focus ST going off of displacement/number of cylinders. let’s not forget the 1.6 was first showcased in 2009. The basic design and materials decisions are about a decade senior to the 1.5 3 cylinder. I’d be surprised if the new 1.5 didn’t incorporate superior material choices compared to the 1.6. It’s going to have larger pistons, and potentially connecting rods, but there’s a trade off in rotating mass in the head. Less valves and a shorter cam shaft will likely make up for the difference, although vibrations could make the 3 cylinder a less dependable engine just from the nature of the engine. Only time will tell, but Ford’s 1.0 3 cylinder appears to be decently reliable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Intuit]

Since you mentioned it,
* The 2L pistons are 20% larger than the 1.6L.
* The 1.6L pistons are 17% larger than the 1.0L.
* (The 1.5L pistons are 20% larger than the 1.6L.)
the 2L and 1.5L do share the same pistons size. I wonder where their red-lines are respectively. Heavy valve trains do indeed play an important roles in rev potential.

It's just that there are less explosions in a crank rotation. Speaking of which, how does the 3 cylinder handle that anyway? The four, there were obviously two explosions occurring with every crank cycle. Seems like the three cylinder either has to be two or one explosion. (one piston cycle is consumed by exhaust) I guess the answer is both, two on one cycle and one explosion on the other? That could be offset with higher RPMs.

Similar questions about long term durability cropped up when discussing the transition from 8 to 6... and again from 6 to 4... and now from 4 to 3. So far engineers have been batting 1.000. (there are always individual case exceptions - especially with early factory turbo engines - but they eventually get it right)

But my motorcycle has a small CC 16 vavle bucket design that produces amazing RPMs... but I'm having to adjust the vavles at around 50k. (manual recommends 25k) More revolutions equate to more wear. Perhaps their strategy is to balance rotational wear with significantly stronger explosions. The fact that they've drastically cut internal friction, would allow them to do this and not so severely impact wear. Hmmm......

 

[DoomsdayMelody]

Since you mentioned it,
* The 2L pistons are 20% larger than the 1.6L.
* The 1.6L pistons are 17% larger than the 1.0L.
* (The 1.5L pistons are 20% larger than the 1.6L.)
the 2L and 1.5L do share the same pistons size. I wonder where their red-lines are respectively. Heavy valve trains do indeed play an important roles in rev potential.

It's just that there are less explosions in a crank rotation. Speaking of which, how does the 3 cylinder handle that anyway? The four, there were obviously two explosions occurring with every crank cycle. Seems like the three cylinder either has to be two or one explosion. (one piston cycle is consumed by exhaust) I guess the answer is both, two on one cycle and one explosion on the other? That could be offset with higher RPMs.

Similar questions about long term durability cropped up when discussing the transition from 8 to 6... and again from 6 to 4... and now from 4 to 3. So far engineers have been batting 1.000. (there are always individual case exceptions - especially with early factory turbo engines - but they eventually get it right)

But my motorcycle has a small CC 16 vavle bucket design that produces amazing RPMs... but I'm having to adjust the vavles at around 50k. (manual recommends 25k) More revolutions equate to more wear. Perhaps their strategy is to balance rotational wear with significantly stronger explosions. The fact that they've drastically cut internal friction, would allow them to do this and not so severely impact wear. Hmmm......

So on a 3 cylinder, a piston will reach TDC (top dead center) of a cylinder every 120 degrees of crankshaft rotation. As you pointed out, this means that there is never the same amount of combustion events occurring on every crankshaft rotation, which gives 3 cylinders their distinct off camber angry warble. A 4 cylinder has a piston at TDC every 90 degrees of crank roatation... which makes them smoother but also makes the exhaust note a lot less exotic sounding even when you uncork it. Ford has had success with the 1.0 by putting weights on the flywheel in an attempt to help balance out secondary vibrations, I’m sure that they’ve implemented a similar fix to the 1.5.

Honestly, the only realistic advantage the 1.6 should have over the 1.5 is the added displacement, which isn’t a significant edge. Only other benefit I could see would be fueling, using 4 injectors as opposed to 3 with a similar displacement means that each injector in the 1.6 has to deliver less fuel (potentially meaning that there is more headroom in tuning the 1.6) but even that’s just conjecture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GotVic]

So on a 3 cylinder, a piston will reach TDC (top dead center) of a cylinder every 120 degrees of crankshaft rotation. As you pointed out, this means that there is never the same amount of combustion events occurring on every crankshaft rotation, which gives 3 cylinders their distinct off camber angry warble. A 4 cylinder has a piston at TDC every 90 degrees of crank roatation... which makes them smoother but also makes the exhaust note a lot less exotic sounding even when you uncork it. Ford has had success with the 1.0 by putting weights on the flywheel in an attempt to help balance out secondary vibrations, I’m sure that they’ve implemented a similar fix to the 1.5.

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense. They do sound pretty good.