fiestaturbo.com

[ju575]

Just looking at a website that was posted on here earlier and found these figures,

To what extent are they true,

1.1 1.3
Power (hp/rpm) 55/5200 59/5000
Torque (lb ft/rpm) 63/2700 74/2500
Weight (lb) 1927 1940
Top speed (mph) 90 87
0-60 mph (sec) 15.3 15.5
Standing ¼ml (sec) 20 20.2

is a 1.1 really faster than a 1.3?

Doesn't really matter i guess as theres not much between them and well they're both slow anyway but i'm just curious.

Cheers, Ju

[Ghost]

i blooming well hope not, ive got a 1.3:(

Ghost

[Ghost]

well apperently, i jus looked up that 1.1 top speed is 94 an 0-60 is 15.4 whereas 1.3 top speed is 93 an 0-60 is 14.2

aint got anymore info but some1s info is rong

ghost

[ju575]

unfortunatly (as i drive a 1.1 ) i'm inclined to believe the info you got, sounds a bit more realistic anyway

[Robin]

i've had my 1.3 well over 100 so how can its top speed be 93mph?

[Stoned]

They are both rubbish engines, but the 1.3 has a bit more torque so it's the better one to have.

[Tilston]

i got a 1.3 i think that its slow! it makes a right noise wen i get over 60 aswel!

[FezzR]

They are both rubbish engines, but the 1.3 has a bit more torque so it's the better one to have.

stoned is whitness to those top speed figures being incorrect

[mike_wall15]

:lol: i've had my 1.3 well over 100 so how can its top speed be 93mph?

Speedo error, it over reads

[RobNo1]

my 1.1 hits just around 100 my old 1.3 hit 110 so thats your answer

[RS_Rawli]

me and andyrs1800 had 110 out of the 1.1

it was down hill - bloody big hill, and with the wind behind us tho

[Robin]

and my engine is slowly dieing as well so its quite impressive

[mike_wall15]

I had 125 out of my si......doesn't mean I was doing that tho

Speedo's are crap, gps or speed traps are better

[Project]

1300 HCS is just a long-throw 1.1 - higher torque, peak bhp at lower revs.

/Monk

[Max M4X WW]

I dont find my 1.3 that bad, Ill say it again but i do think the fact that its only done 19k helps.

I thought 95ish was a top speed for a 1.3 on a flat?

[Smo]

1300 HCS is just a long-throw 1.1 - higher torque, peak bhp at lower revs.

/Monk

HCS has same stroke, larger bore

Think the older OHV engines had same bore, longer stroke...

or am I wrong? lol

[RS_Rawli]

afaik ure wrong

[Smo]

[FezzR]

both of u are wrong

1.1
68.68mm bore
67.40mm stroke

1.3
73.96mm bore
75.48mm stroke

[MeltedBen]

I am driving about both at the moment cos I'm selling both:

1.1 Cfi (L reg LX 61,000miles)
1.3 err?! (J reg SX 106,000miles)

The 1.3 is easily faster and seems to have higher top end - haqve been over 90 countless times in it and speedo has read 105 twice and 100 a few times.

The 1.1 struggles to reach 90 and really stuggles to put anything over it unless on downhills. Has been at 100 and 105 once on very big hill once!

1.1 seems more sluggish when accelerating at low and high revs in gears 1/2/3.

End of the day they are both rubbish engines and I am getting rid of em both, buying somehting bigger like a mondeo or cavalier for a year and then probably getting a decent fiesta (MK3.5 body) with at lesat a 1.6 i it cos much as i hate the rubbish bodywork and engines on fiestas I can't help but like the MK3 body and modded well there aren't many small hatchbacks that look as good!

[Max M4X WW]

How different does engine being carb / CFi make?

[FezzR]

CFI is absolute poo chokes and starvs the engine, where as well set up carbs can be as good as injection[EFI] (performance wise)

[Max M4X WW]

Whys it starve the engine

[FezzR]

poor fuel distribution /atomisation,

[MeltedBen]

Too technical for my limited knowlage - but yes - my 1.1 is utter cr@p in terms of performance.

And I'm sure theres a reason that its one of the only cars I've ever come across that only has 5 digits on the odometer....

ie - enough space for 99,999miles before our at 00,000 again........the majority of the engines won't make it there because they are so poor by any chance Mr Ford??!

[tompeteRS]

The most I've had out of mine is an indicated 120mph and it'll comfortably pull to 110, but mine seemed to have gained a few BHP over a standard figures before I started playing with the engine

Don't forget those figures are measured with so much petrol and extra weight in the car to simulate normal loading/driving conditions. On the HCS Fiesta's you'll notice the difference in performance relating to the amount of petrol you have in the tank - I find you use more petrol when the tanks more than half full as the car struggles with the added weight, I don't often have mine more than half full for this reason (MPGs significantly better)and petrols expensive enough as it is!
(However on the A34 over half tank petrol, standard wheels 1 passenger and enough stuff in the boot so it were loaded to the roof and could'nt see out indicated 95mph - not bad! If you think HCS Fezs are slow try doing that with a Paxo, Clio or Nova or similar)

Driving style and the way your car handles makes a difference too, if you've been driving a 1.1 as long as I have you'll learn how to drive it quickly Slipstreaming things helps . Mine seems pretty nippy (and I've driven and owned XR's, RS's Si's so I'm not just saying that and I have had something to compare it to) but it weighs bugger all and isn't slowed down by huge wheels and ICE.

Yes 0-60s pretty poor, and so is the acceleration, top ends not brilliant but enough to lose your license at the end of the day. Besides where I live the roads are so twisty that handling is the key to a quick car rather than BHP - I would'nt realistic be able to go any faster in an RST than in my 1.1, it might be faster in a straight line but there would'nt be much difference round a corner and I'd hardly ever have to touch the brakes.

HCS Fiesta's aren't all bad there cheap to run, tax and insure, have better mpg, are easier and cheaper to fix and more reliable than other variants, but they still rust like every other Fiesta. I've got an 1800 Zetec engine spare but I'm not putting it in mine as I more than happy with the exisiting engine, and theres still more tuning potential in it yet!

[Stoned]

Too technical for my limited knowlage - but yes - my 1.1 is utter cr@p in terms of performance.

And I'm sure theres a reason that its one of the only cars I've ever come across that only has 5 digits on the odometer....

ie - enough space for 99,999miles before our at 00,000 again........the majority of the engines won't make it there because they are so poor by any chance Mr Ford??!

You say that but i'm convinced my Mum's old 1.0 Popular Plus had been round the clock a couple of times and yet it still ran, allbeit using almost as much cheap oil as petrol

[Max M4X WW]

FordMotorsportFiestaOwner, I love you! Thanks for sticking up for our wonderfull little engines

[Badgerboy]

Meh, the HCS is invincible providing you pour a constant supply of oil into it! Didn't someone a while back run one on no oil to see how long it would last and got 7 mins out of it?

(Mines going to hit the big 100,000 in a few month)

[DaveZetec]

ive driven a few 1.1s (cfi and carb) and although the carb ones are faster than the cfi, its like saying stalin wasnt as nasty as hitler.

motorsportfieastlongnameman - you are doing really really well to keep up with Si's and XRs, even if you can drive like a god! 2 months in a 1.1 was all i could take - even on standard 13s it was slow to the point of being dangerous. pulling out at junctions was a chore - 40mph was a task to achieve and required much skill to get to in under an hour.
Then I added 17s to the equation. roll on 80mph top speed and no more than 60 up any sort of hill.
granted, the carbed one ws less slow, but that took some starting when it was cold and used a touch more petrol (which unfortuneatly was more than i expected for a 1.1, mainly due to me being basically foot to the floor 85% of the time)


back on topic - ive been in a 1.3 and it felt a little faster, which would be due to the torque increase. to be honest 15 seconds seems faster than any of the 1.1s ive experienced to 60!

[ju575]

In all honesty i've never really had any problems with my engine performance wise, sure its not the fastest car on the road, but that just means you gotta be in the right gear at the right time, its fairly good up to 40 though, then it starts to seem slow, and when theres more than 1 person in the car its a tad sluggish but theres plenty of time for faster cars yet

[RS_Rawli]

i thought my 1.1 was s**t from day one. i was used to fast cars cos of what parents and that had, and thro karting and s**t. i didnt think it was fast but still used to thrash it everywhere . They ARE rubbish engines, and a rubbish design, hence why they develop piston slap at around 60k and have to be rebored and s**t by fords if still under warranty (so i was told by 2 local machining firms).

but i do agree after driving it for so long u do feel that it is nippy.... until u get back into something that is actually quick, and you realise how dangerously slow they are. I dont think i could ever put up with a 1.1 after ownin the turbo. its not the fact that they can only do 100 flat out cos ive not been there in the turbo, its how long it takes to get to 30 never mind 60. 30 can be accomplished with a quick poke of the throttle in 1st and same again in 2nd will see 50. IIRR it was foot flat to floor 1st n 2nd possibly 3rd to get to 30, then 4th to 50.

If u can drive round on part throttle, without a care in the world, and your engine is quiet theyre brilliant. they do s**t loads MPG and are ideal for just cruising round in, but we all no how little that happens

[Max M4X WW]

I do agree, They are s**t engines. But im not bothered, Its a first car and IMO its bareable.

[givethedogabone]

i hate my 1.1,
whats all these 0 -60 times ? 1.1's do 60??????
gota thrape it to do anythin.
pile of monkey s**t

[thehuzman]

1300 HCS is just a long-throw 1.1 - higher torque, peak bhp at lower revs.

/Monk

Is the block the same, I thought the 1100 was the old Anglia size block and the 1300 was your more general X-flow size.
Perhaps I talk arse..