|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 13, 2017 23:54:40 GMT
It's a sad day when you get offered a Lancia as a rental and insist on having absolutely anything else instead, but when the Lancia in question is an Ypsilon and you have a long drive ahead, needs (and standards) must. Especially when the "else" turns out to be a Ford Fiesta. I have actually never before driven any sort of Fiesta so I was pleased to see it, notwithstanding the diesel flavouring. More write-up to follow but for the time being, here is the mighty mite:
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 14, 2017 16:54:00 GMT
So I managed to pack around 800 kms under the belt of the Fester in 5 days so came away with a reasonably good feel for it.
It was a 1.5 TDCi according to the fob in some sort of reasonably basic spec that extended to electric front windows and mirrors, manual air-con, Bluetooth and not much else.
Looks-wise, a combination of anonymous metallic grey paint and tiddly steel wheels did it no favours, meaning it managed to appear both dumpy and tippy-toed from most angles. At the front, the switch from Aston-style chrome bars across the grille to plastic mesh accentuates the unfortunate resemblance to a barbel. It basically looked like the low-cost rent-a-car it was. But heaps better than an Ypsilon…
Inside, it's sadly a mixed bag with some smart design touches such as the seat fabric and the steering wheel and others that are less successful, such as the button-fest around the stereo system that looks like it was modelled on a mix of a late 1990s JVC stack-system and an old Nokia. It looks like an interior designed by a geeky bloke with no fashion sense and bits of it still whiff somehow of old Escorts. Even the dials, with odd light blue needles and stylised graphics made me think more low-rent video game than car. The quality is mixed too. Generally it's fine but there are too many different shades and grains of black plastic, several of which had got sort of sweaty-looking in 40 degree heat, and the rhino-hide plastic dash reflects more badly in the windscreen than in any other car I can remember driving. The "alloy" interior door handles look smart but have a cheap and uncomfortable casting-line inside them. But all that said, it was a comfortable driving position, even if I could have done with a rake-adjustable steering wheel.
Pulling away in the narrow car rental parking area at Bologna airport, the first thing that struck me was that it felt unexpectedly large. You sit relatively high-up and there's an enormous MPV-esque expanse of dashboard between you and the windscreen that makes the car initially hard to place as you think it larger than it is. But it's just an initial impression that soon wears off. Particularly since it's not actually especially big inside. The front is airy but the back is quite pokey. Visibility is reasonable but some of the switchgear ergonomics could be better – I could never flick the indicators without swapping modes on the trip computer for example. And working out the infotainment system to pair my phone took a bit of time, not least because to start with it was set in German…
Despite being unmistakeably dieselly, the engine was actually quite perky and does its best work low-down, with decent urge when pulling away. It's surprisingly revvy for a diesel, which is a good thing as you do need to row it through the gears to make progress at higher speeds and the slick 5-speed gearbox felt like it had pretty widely-spaced ratios. Slowing for a roundabout but not quite stopping requires you to select first rather than second. But as alluded to, it's a very decent 'box and so this is no particular hardship.
It also punts along nicely enough for a diesel tiddler. This particular example had about 10k kms on the clock (well and truly run in by rental standards) and happily bowled down the autostrada at what must have been pretty much its v-max, scrapping with various faster machines in the fast lane (a.k.a the "Swiss lane" as it was seemingly mostly occupied by Swiss-registered cars going at Warp Factor 9 with complete disregard for Italian law enforcement). The A14 motorway gets quite sinuous as it passes Rimini and you also lose the "Tutor" average speed camera system, so it tends to be where everyone puts their foot down. There's one series of fast S-sweepers (downhill if you're going south) that are quite a test of a car's road-holding if you attack them with, ahem, "brio". On the way down (and on my own in the car), I was behind a modded S2000 which wasn't holding back and had a new 124 Spider in my rear-view mirror and the little Ford definitely held its own through them, again pretty much at v-max. I'll confess here and now that I wouldn't have wanted to take them any faster – the 15" tyres were definitely doing a heroic job and there's a little more bounce to the suspension than is ideal for that sort of situation, but I was pretty impressed. When the 124 eventually passed me, the chap in the passenger seat gave me a broad grin and a thumbs up, presumably because he thought me a certifiable nutter.
On the topic of handling, it does of course handle well, as Fiestas are reputed to do. As mentioned, the suspension can be a little bouncy but then this is not a car intended to be driven on its door-handles and frankly it responds better to a bit of Italianate Queefery than any diesel city car has any right to. The steering is pleasingly accurate, the controls are nicely-weighted (especially the gearbox) and it's generally easy and pleasant to drive. It's also quite well insulated and made a very acceptable motorway companion. And it was also reasonably economical, despite the general thrashing it received. Over 800 kms, it drank around 50 litres of fuel, which is about 46mpg.
So, all-in-all, this car pretty much met my expectations in that it didn't have much aesthetic appeal, inside or out, but made up for it by being really rather nice to drive, even in low-powered diesel form.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Aug 14, 2017 18:23:48 GMT
A great hire car then. But that never explains why people buy them with their own money. In great numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Aug 14, 2017 18:53:57 GMT
A great hire car then. But that never explains why people buy them with their own money. In great numbers. It's because they have spare wheels. Apparently.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 14, 2017 19:28:56 GMT
.....Over 800 kms, it drank around 50 litres of fuel, which is about 46mpg. TBH I think that is dire! I am getting around 50mpg out of the ecoboost 100 petrol (which is disappointing to me bearing in mind the official figures) and the diesel is supposed to be much better off or fuel economy. You did enjoy the handling, then spare wheel or no spare wheel .... versions with climate control and the Sony stereo are better as you lose many of the odd buttons scattered across the fascia, and dreadful normal heating/ventilation controls
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 14, 2017 19:48:56 GMT
.....Over 800 kms, it drank around 50 litres of fuel, which is about 46mpg. TBH I think that is dire! I am getting around 50mpg out of the ecoboost 100 petrol (which is disappointing to me bearing in mind the official figures) and the diesel is supposed to be much better off or fuel economy. Do you regularly drive your Ecoboost 100 long-distance and absolutely pedal-to-the-metal flat-out down motorways in 40 degree heat with the air-con on full blast? I'm willing to bet it wouldn't return 50mpg in those circumstances...
Much of the joy of driving a decent small and not very powerful car when you are used to something bigger and more potent is the fact that you get to drive the absolute pants off the thing without risking life, limb and/or jail time. Particularly when you don't have your wife in the car...
|
|
|
Post by PG on Aug 15, 2017 6:53:42 GMT
Much of the joy of driving a decent small and not very powerful car when you are used to something bigger and more potent is the fact that you get to drive the absolute pants off the thing without risking life, limb and/or jail time. Particularly when you don't have your wife in the car... +1 As the saying goes, the fastest car on the road is not some uber-expensive hyper car. No, it's a small hire car.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 15, 2017 7:02:06 GMT
Do you regularly drive your Ecoboost 100 long-distance and absolutely pedal-to-the-metal flat-out down motorways in 40 degree heat with the air-con on full blast? I'm willing to bet it wouldn't return 50mpg in those circumstances... No, but mine's petrol and I wouldn't expect to get 50mpg under those circumstances !
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 15, 2017 8:44:10 GMT
.....Over 800 kms, it drank around 50 litres of fuel, which is about 46mpg. TBH I think that is dire! I am getting around 50mpg out of the ecoboost 100 petrol (which is disappointing to me bearing in mind the official figures) and the diesel is supposed to be much better off or fuel economy. You did enjoy the handling, then spare wheel or no spare wheel .... versions with climate control and the Sony stereo are better as you lose many of the odd buttons scattered across the fascia, and dreadful normal heating/ventilation controls I think I might have been stuck behind you last weekend.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 15, 2017 9:10:43 GMT
Do you regularly drive your Ecoboost 100 long-distance and absolutely pedal-to-the-metal flat-out down motorways in 40 degree heat with the air-con on full blast? I'm willing to bet it wouldn't return 50mpg in those circumstances... No, but mine's petrol and I wouldn't expect to get 50mpg under those circumstances ! So what's your point!? Mine was that the diesel still gave me the thick end of 50mpg under those conditions, which all things considered, seemed pretty good to me.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Aug 15, 2017 10:45:37 GMT
Nice write up.
I think a few of us have different expectations on "good" economy. My average is frightful at 18.1 (last tank was 16.3) but I don't give a shit and even my bike is only at 36.2 mpg (but its performance makes up for the relative thirst). Whenever I have a hire car and it breaks 30mpg I'm impressed because that's where my bar sits. Racing's 46mpg is stellar as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 15, 2017 16:19:28 GMT
Nice write up. Not a great looking spec but better looking car than most of the things in that sector.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 16, 2017 15:21:39 GMT
Nice write up. I think a few of us have different expectations on "good" economy. My average is frightful at 18.1 (last tank was 16.3) but I don't give a shit and even my bike is only at 36.2 mpg (but its performance makes up for the relative thirst). Whenever I have a hire car and it breaks 30mpg I'm impressed because that's where my bar sits. Racing's 46mpg is stellar as far as I am concerned. It's also horses for courses.
It would be interesting to discover, for example, whether my BMW is actually more economical at a typical motorway cruising speed than my wife's Fiat. I would not be surprised if it is.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 17, 2017 10:01:54 GMT
Nice write up. I think a few of us have different expectations on "good" economy. My average is frightful at 18.1 (last tank was 16.3) but I don't give a shit and even my bike is only at 36.2 mpg (but its performance makes up for the relative thirst). Whenever I have a hire car and it breaks 30mpg I'm impressed because that's where my bar sits. Racing's 46mpg is stellar as far as I am concerned. It's also horses for courses.
It would be interesting to discover, for example, whether my BMW is actually more economical at a typical motorway cruising speed than my wife's Fiat. I would not be surprised if it is.
The 1.2 litre Fiat 500 courtesy cars I have occasionally driven managed around 42/43 at a steady 70.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 17, 2017 11:10:31 GMT
The Twinair is not as economical as a 1.2, in part because it is so thrashable.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 17, 2017 11:52:30 GMT
I'll admit that 70 wasn't the comfortable speed of the 1.2 but I kept it down to that for investigatory purposes.
The economy deteriorated once the, er, experiment was over!
|
|