Ford Kicks Off Fiesta Details

[rmc523]

FIesta treuck is cvoming - what exactly that means is up to anyone - my source knew only that - Fiesta Truck ...

 

Igor

 

I wonder what that would look like?

 

I do not understand why people drive mustangs with a V6. A mustang is a sports coupe and should be driven with a V8 under the hood. But with gas prices at $4.00 a gallon and over, i guess it really does not matter. I always thought the 4.0 in the mustang was a little slow on pick up, thats why i say get one with a V8.

 

You do realize he drives a V6 Mustang right?

[igor]

Those aren't reasons-- they're excuses.

 

Someone cross-shopping with Honda or Toyota will take one look at that valvetrain and cross the Fiesta off their list.

 

Seriously, Honda has been using variable valve timing since the mid-90's, and are among the most bullet-proof engines on the road, with HUGE aftermarket modding potential to flaunt.

 

In an age when Ford needs to change public perception by taking technological and quality leadership, instead they reach into the archives, dust off a lump of iron, and stick it in what would otherwise be a good car. Like the Five Hundred and the V6 Mustang.

 

Using an engine in the United States designed for the Third World is a fundamentally bad idea. Even Kia has a DOHC 1.6 with VVT, for crying out loud!!!!!

You misunderstood my definition of "bulletproof - Honda engines are reliable - the RoCam is a tank engine - chain drive, iron block - it will run with a hole in it - (not really) - it was designed to run without maintenance in Brazil - and will will run like a Ranger engine in the US.

 

Moreover, while it makes a little less power, the Fiesta is lighter and really the ONLY complaint of the RoCam is its rougher run - but the enigine truly is a tank - like the 4.0l V6, or the GM I6 engines. Honda's engines are reliable - but they do not compare.

 

Igor

Edited July 14, 2008 by igor

[Fords#1Fan]

I wonder what that would look like?

 

 

Like the Bronco Concept

Edited July 14, 2008 by Fords#1Fan

[rmc523]

Like the Bronco Concept

 

OH, LOL, I thought he meant a literal truck (like with a bed, etc.). Stupid me....

[noub]

Igor, theOldWizard,

 

why don't they use the same engine everywhere ?

I think this would lower the cost. Maybe also it is a question that the fiesta has not been studied for the US since the beginning.

 

In europe, we will soon get a turbo version of the new 1.6liter. theOldWizard, you have said that for MY2012, there will be an ecoboost fiesta in the US, will this be the same engine or will Ford will produce a turbo version of the ROCAM.

 

Another question is "is the focus will get the same engine ?" because for sure, the new EU 1.6liter will be under the hood of the next gen focus, at least in Europe.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Igor, theOldWizard,

 

why don't they use the same engine everywhere ?

I think this would lower the cost. Maybe also it is a question that the fiesta has not been studied for the US since the beginning.

 

In europe, we will soon get a turbo version of the new 1.6liter. theOldWizard, you have said that for MY2012, there will be an ecoboost fiesta in the US, will this be the same engine or will Ford will produce a turbo version of the ROCAM.

 

Another question is "is the focus will get the same engine ?" because for sure, the new EU 1.6liter will be under the hood of the next gen focus, at least in Europe.

 

Yes thats a great idea most aircraft only have one or two engines suppliers it would help to keep things simple & costs down, you rarely get things that buck market trends the Mini & Fiat 500 cars are doing it.

 

Ford has a powerplant that is doing it in Europe at the moment the Econetic diesel that when fitted to the new Fiesta will make a potent sales winning combination that will buck market trends. I hope we see more great icons like the Econetic diesel engine from Ford in the future to match those great engineering masterpieces Ford made in the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzsHBFQnVcU

[calypsocoral]

You misunderstood my definition of "bulletproof - Honda engines are reliable - the RoCam is a tank engine - chain drive, iron block - it will run with a hole in it - (not really) - it was designed to run without maintenance in Brazil - and will will run like a Ranger engine in the US.

 

Moreover, while it makes a little less power, the Fiesta is lighter and really the ONLY complaint of the RoCam is its rougher run - but the enigine truly is a tank - like the 4.0l V6, or the GM I6 engines. Honda's engines are reliable - but they do not compare.

 

Igor

 

Hi Igor,

 

I understand that it is a reliable engine, and I'm not trying to down-play that quality.

 

The problem with this plan is two-fold:

 

1) Chain drive will add to the NVH. I can already hear the auto rags wailing on it for possessing the NVH characteristics of a Geo Prism or the old Ford Festiva... only slower, since the Fiesta will be heavier, which brings me to...

 

2) The iron block will help make this car unnecessarily heavy and nose-heavy. Adding weight is definitely a bad idea, as a higher curb weight detracts from a car's fuel economy, which is supposed to be a selling point of a B-car in general in this day and age.

 

If it gets less mpg's, is slower, and is less refined than the competition, no amount of exterior or interior design will save it.

 

You can quote me on that.

[theoldwizard]

...Someone cross-shopping with Honda or Toyota will take one look at that valvetrain and cross the Fiesta off their list.//

 

Really ? That would be a first. A dealer with the hood open and the valve cover removed !

[theoldwizard]

Igor, theOldWizard,

 

why don't they use the same engine everywhere ?

I think this would lower the cost. Maybe also it is a question that the fiesta has not been studied for the US since the beginning.

16 valves and 2 camshafts cost more than 8 valves and one camshaft, period. Cam phaser cost money, period.

 

This forum is constantly focusing exclusively on power, when the main driver in the industry has always, always been cost ! Ford needs to prove to themselves and their stock holders that they can make money by selling a small cars in the US.

 

TheOldWizard, you have said that for MY2012, there will be an ecoboost fiesta in the US,

I actually said , it would be 2012MY before any EcoBoost engines show up after the MKS. I don't know if the Fiesta is on the list for 2012MY, but I would guess that Focus and Fusion would get it first.

 

 

Another question is "is the focus will get the same engine ?" because for sure, the new EU 1.6liter will be under the hood of the next gen Focus, at least in Europe.

I don't know for certain, but this is "highly probable" that the US and EU Focus will share engines and have similar controls.

 

If your asking will that engine ever make it in a US Fiesta, I said before, maybe.

 

Ford is going through terrible turmoil with powertrain controls. Changing management, putting European management in charge of US programs ("Who is CARB and what are Green States and how can they change OBD-II requirements every year ?") and changing suppliers all at the same time. Ideally they would like to have the same suppliers worldwide, but it is not likely they will ever have identical emission control (which includes the turbo(s)) ever because of local requirements. (It was a big shock when some planners found out the the ECM for the US Fiesta would be significantly more expensive in order to meet US emission and OBD-II)

 

 

Europe is not the US. In the past, Europeans were willing to do extra maintenance and accept higher failure rates on "high performance" engines. For example, for many years adjusting the valve was common on many European engines, while the US was in love with hydraulic lifter. Broken valve spring while unheard of in the US, occurred on some engines in Europe. Manual transmission versus automatic (although the DCT PowerShift might change all that). Most Europeans log less miles/year on their vehicle also. And I swear, Europeans are shorter than Americans (you had to be shorter than 5'6" to be comfortable in the rear of a Contour/Mondeo).

 

Ford's last attempt at global powertrain engineering was a flop (Of course no one is left from that era to know what went right and what went wrong). I'm still holding my breath.

Edited July 14, 2008 by theoldwizard

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Some Ford powerplants have a surge problem, Econetic surging sales for the first 6 months of the year up 38% for the cars it's installed in, there can't be to many powerplants that have surge problems of this sort in Ford at the moment.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/07/fo...uding-the-fies/

 

Econetics good sales data much we music to the ears of Ford execs these days.

[igor]

Hi Igor,

 

I understand that it is a reliable engine, and I'm not trying to down-play that quality.

 

The problem with this plan is two-fold:

 

1) Chain drive will add to the NVH. I can already hear the auto rags wailing on it for possessing the NVH characteristics of a Geo Prism or the old Ford Festiva... only slower, since the Fiesta will be heavier, which brings me to...

 

2) The iron block will help make this car unnecessarily heavy and nose-heavy. Adding weight is definitely a bad idea, as a higher curb weight detracts from a car's fuel economy, which is supposed to be a selling point of a B-car in general in this day and age.

 

If it gets less mpg's, is slower, and is less refined than the competition, no amount of exterior or interior design will save it.

 

You can quote me on that.

1) the Fiesta is to meet or beat the Fit on MPG

2) should I remind you the Fit uses an SOHC engine - sure it is Vtec, but it is SOHC, and 8V IIRC

3) the RoCam has lower power than the Fit or Taris, but we are talking 105 v 110hp or similarly meaningless difference

4) The Fiesta is to be lighter than the Fit, and on par with the Yaris (or close ot it).

 

We are not talking of an 80hp engine that sounds like Geo Metro and gets 34mpg HWY - we are talking about minor differences - and yes - chain drive will increase NVH, but not to a Geo Metro level - and there are MANY ways of insulating it out of the cabin.

 

Igor

Edited July 14, 2008 by igor

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Ford's last attempt at global powertrain engineering was a flop (Of course no one is left from that era to know what went right and what went wrong). I'm still holding my breath.

 

Yes you seem to be lagging about 15 years behind us in Europe, EU does not like C02, You don't like NOX in cars but you just love NOX in pick-ups.

 

Fords 1.6 Duratec engine will be to big for the European market come 2012 when Ford will start having to pay fine C02 fines for every Focus that is powered by this engine as the the C02 is 184 g/km, come 2015 when big EU fines kick the 1.6 with its very high polluting engine will be fined of the road of Europe, 998cc gasoline engines will be as big as it gets in Europe if Ford can make all the gasoline cars hybrid then the massive 1.6L might just make it below the 130 g/km limit.

 

Can't see 988cc gasoline & 1600cc diesel engines being the global norm in the US after 2012.

 

Ford will be fined 5130 Euros which is about $8130 by the EU for every Focus fitted with a 1.6 Dura tec engine it sells in Europe after 2015. Ford's super clean envionmently friendly Econetic 1.6L Fiesta will come way below the limit at Prius beating 99g/km will be exempt from a lot of other taxes in Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7151862.stm

 

You right powertrains don't match to well in the US and EU.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[inteller]

"offering a raft of photos and word that a Zetec S model "for driving enthusiasts" will be available in Europe starting with the car's October launch"

 

whew! it is a good thing they aren't wasting that on the US market, since we don't have driving enthusiasts here.

[LSFan00]

16 valves and 2 camshafts cost more than 8 valves and one camshaft, period. Cam phaser cost money, period.

 

This forum is constantly focusing exclusively on power, when the main driver in the industry has always, always been cost ! Ford needs to prove to themselves and their stock holders that they can make money by selling a small cars in the US.

 

Ford's last attempt at global powertrain engineering was a flop (Of course no one is left from that era to know what went right and what went wrong). I'm still holding my breath.

 

F NA has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been focused on cost with small cars, and they haven't been profitable because they've been disgusting little econoboxes that did zero good at building brand/customer loyalty among younger car buyers, who remembered only the cheapo Festiva/Pinto/Escort that was a p.o.s. I don't give a damn about a 5 hp difference, but to use a chain driven steel engine today in a 2010 or later new car is, well, underwhelming. Hell, they can set it up like the Fusion if they want to; define success as some infinitessimally small portion of the market, produce only that many, and sell them at a higher price point. But make them nice cars! ROCAM=we still don't give a damn about this market, but we'll reluctantly admit we need to sell some damn thing, even if the rest of it wasn't designed here.

 

You complain about the Contour as though it's failure was because it was 'global,' but in reality the cheapened down interior killed it in Europe, attributable to the pathetic F NA "tastes."

[theoldwizard]

... ROCAM=we still don't give a damn about this market, but we'll reluctantly admit we need to sell some damn thing, even if the rest of it wasn't designed here.

Almost NONE of the Fiesta was designed in the US.

 

I complain about the Contour because I foolishly bought one without sitting in the rear seat. Even tough it had 4 doors, it had less rear seat head and leg room then the Escort GT (with Mazda 1.8L DOHC) hatchback I traded in ! The Contour with a V6 (both were MT) wasn't any faster than the Escort.

[Blueblood]

So they want to put an ecoboost 4 in a F-150, but a rough iron lump in their B-car???

 

Someone explain to me why I should have any hope left in this company seemingly run by people that didn't even qualify for the short bus?

[battyr]

The Rocam engine sounds like a wise desision. It is not out of date, just mature. Most important is that is does everyting that it needs to do and does it the most reliably.

 

Ford is likely working on a new global small engine family. It does not make sence retooling to the Mexico and Brazil to make the European, or Mazda engines if a new family of engines are coming. A new family of engine could be 5 years away. Ford may not know if it will be European, or Japanese at this point. They likely don't consider the current engines good anough and want to see how all engine project advance before commiting to one engine design.

[FordFanForEver]

I wonder what that would look like?

 

 

 

You do realize he drives a V6 Mustang right?

 

You do realize thats why i said it.

[igor]

People need to lighten up on the RoCam - it is not a bad engine - I have driven one ... it is actially pretty good - it is not buttery smooth, but neither is competiiton - and when in 2022 the Fits and Yarises are dead on the side of the road, the "shitty" RoCams will still huff around as if they we just being broken in.

 

The engine is low tech, but with a prupose - to make is reliable, and durable. It is also E85 compatible which will be a great point of interest to many at the time it is released in US ... Not everyone wants a TIVCT DOHC 16V engine driven by a 2001 Space Oddyssey computer - all of which will require maintenance and will become fail prone later in life - many people long for the days when they drove engines for 200 - 300k miles with nothing but oil changes, when they had engines that did not minbd too much if someone forgot an oil change, and other worry free solutions.

 

The RoCam delivers this fail proof bulletproof solution with a SINGLE downside - chain drive and the resulting slightly higher NVH - the FE, power, power deliver, etc are on par- and actuyally TORQUE is above par to competition. Thanks to the patented RoCam camshaft the engine feels very unusually torquey for its size and its competition - and delivers pretty surprising acceleration.

 

There reeally is very little wrong with the RoCam - and the biggest one will be a illusion brought about by paper comparisons and magazine arm chair quarterbacking comparing paper specs. The Engine is quite impressive for such a cheap to build, cheap to sell, and extremely cheap to run engine.

 

Igor

[battyr]

So they want to put an ecoboost 4 in a F-150, but a rough iron lump in their B-car???

 

Someone explain to me why I should have any hope left in this company seemingly run by people that didn't even qualify for the short bus?

 

Your think in terms of mpg, try thinking in terms of L/100 km. Or gpm. The F-150 burns a lot more fuel. A 20% savings in fuel from an F-150 is a lot of gas. It would justify the cost of EB. Now how much fuel will you save in a Fiesta at 20% improvement. How much would you pay extra for EB to save that much fuel.

 

For the price of an F-150, you want a smooth engine. The Fiest is cheaper, I think for the price, people will like the Rocam.

[battyr]

People need to lighten up on the RoCam - it is not a bad engine - I have driven one ... it is actially pretty good - it is not buttery smooth, but neither is competiiton - and when in 2022 the Fits and Yarises are dead on the side of the road, the "shitty" RoCams will still huff around as if they we just being broken in.

 

The engine is low tech, but with a prupose - to make is reliable, and durable. It is also E85 compatible which will be a great point of interest to many at the time it is released in US ... Not everyone wants a TIVCT DOHC 16V engine driven by a 2001 Space Oddyssey computer - all of which will require maintenance and will become fail prone later in life - many people long for the days when they drove engines for 200 - 300k miles with nothing but oil changes, when they had engines that did not minbd too much if someone forgot an oil change, and other worry free solutions.

 

The RoCam delivers this fail proof bulletproof solution with a SINGLE downside - chain drive and the resulting slightly higher NVH - the FE, power, power deliver, etc are on par- and actuyally TORQUE is above par to competition. Thanks to the patented RoCam camshaft the engine feels very unusually torquey for its size and its competition - and delivers pretty surprising acceleration.

 

There reeally is very little wrong with the RoCam - and the biggest one will be a illusion brought about by paper comparisons and magazine arm chair quarterbacking comparing paper specs. The Engine is quite impressive for such a cheap to build, cheap to sell, and extremely cheap to run engine.

 

Igor

 

For the people critical of the RoCam, how many have actually driven one? It sound better than the what Honda has in the Fit. I have alway found you better results from refining and modernizing a good old design than coming up with a brand new design.

[battyr]

The RoCam?

 

The only way to make any engine better (Smoother) is by getting rid of the chain driven cam and to make many parts lighter.

 

My Saturn has a chain driven cam. It is very reliable and fairly smooth. I would never want a belt driven cam. I don't like the idea of a belt breaking and destroying the engine. I don't like the idea of paying good money to replace the belt every so many miles.

 

As you make any moving part lighter, you will get fewer vibration from that part. You also increase the risk of that part failing. For the fixed parts that don't move, you only make them weaker by making them lighter, and get no other advantage.

 

Your talking about a small 4-cylinder here. The RoCam sounds just fine.

[calypsocoral]

1) the Fiesta is to meet or beat the Fit on MPG

 

I hope so. It needs at least 28 city, 34 highway, by 2008 standards. Seeing as how the Fit is a tall car, the Fiesta's aerodynamics may help a bit here.

 

2) should I remind you the Fit uses an SOHC engine - sure it is Vtec, but it is SOHC, and 8V IIRC

 

Actually, the Fit is a 16v SOHC with vtec. You can read the specs HERE

 

3) the RoCam has lower power than the Fit or Taris, but we are talking 105 v 110hp or similarly meaningless difference

 

I'm just a touch skeptical about this point, because I remember the 2.0L 8v SOHC that was in the Ford Escort. 110 hp, 130 lb-ft. The newer 2.0L 16v DOHC's with VVT are now pushing 150 hp, 140 lb-ft.

 

A 38% increase in horsepower seems pretty significant, although I will admit that the increase in torque was nowhere near as substantial...

[igor]

I'm just a touch skeptical about this point, because I remember the 2.0L 8v SOHC that was in the Ford Escort. 110 hp, 130 lb-ft. The newer 2.0L 16v DOHC's with VVT are now pushing 150 hp, 140 lb-ft.

 

A 38% increase in horsepower seems pretty significant, although I will admit that the increase in torque was nowhere near as substantial...

the torue is one thing and there was a big difference (and progress) in the bottom end design from the PFI (SOHC 8v) Focus engine and the DOHC Zetec, or DOHC Duratec, (incl the 150hp VVT version)

 

The current RoCam in Brazil is rated at 105 hp. That is less than the 110-115hp other 1.6l are rated at, but it is not substantial. The Torque is 118 (IIRC) so that is a little more than the 105-110 from the DOHC engines. However the RoCam has its peak torque some 700-1,000 rpms lower than the DOHC engines (I collected data on the major B-car 1.5 to 1.6l engines about a year ago, but I cannot find it now .. so I am just pulling it from my memory here)

 

(of course the RoCam ratings are not SAE/US certified - so they may not be the same when the come here)

Igor

Edited July 14, 2008 by igor

[StevenCaylor]

Oh c'mon.....the same pickup and go as a Cobra...prove it pal.

 

Sigh. Just check your archives. The 1971 Mustang Mach 1 with the 429 Cobra Jet (only year it was available) was tested with a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds, the exact same as the 05+ V6 Mustang. They tested three Mustangs in that article, the Mach 1, a Boss 351 (0-60 of 5.8) and a 302 Grande (0-60 of 9.9).

 

I believe it was Car & Driver that tested the quickest cars (0-60) for under $20K. The V6 Mustang was #1 at 6.5 seconds.

 

Back in those days, anything with a 0-60 time of less than 10 seconds was considered quick.