Home > Motors > Car >

Reviews for Ford Fiesta (pre-1995)


Mk II, 1.4. Didn't like the wet. -  Ford Fiesta (pre-1995) Car
Ford Fiesta (pre-1995) 

Newest Review: ... of the parts I needed for mine for free so it is always something worth checking! Car tax is ~£120 for a whole year which again is slightl... more

More Ford card     

Mk II, 1.4. Didn't like the wet. (Ford Fiesta (pre-1995))

davemar

Member Name: davemar

Product:

Ford Fiesta (pre-1995)

Date: 21/02/01 (126 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Cheap spares, easy for DIY

Disadvantages: Crap engine, hates the wet, poor handling, rust.

I owned a Mk II Fiesta 1.4L model for a couple of years in the mid 90s.
It was a bit of a dog to sum up. I had previously owned a MkI 950cc 4-speed
model, so I was expecting the 1.4 to be significantly quicker, but it didn't
feel like it. The 1.4 engine felt so underperforming compared to other 1.4
engines in other makes. What was really annoying about the engine was
its inabiltiy to start in wet weather. Quite often I'd end up running my
battery flat trying to start the thing, resorting to bump starting to get the
thing going. The gearbox wasn't great either, reverse would always crunch,
1st wasn't easy to get into, and 5th popped out of gear on long motorway
runs.
The handling wasn't too great either, the narrow wheels not helping, but
it did sway and felt unconvincing at high speed. It didn't feel very precise
with quite vague steering.
The bodywork wasn't too hot either, needing new sills for an MOT and
quite a bit of rust around the headlights and in the boot.
I suppose the good points was that it was quite easy to work on and cheap
to fix...it had to be! Also the automatic turn-off on the rear demister was
a nice touch.

Summary:

Last members to rate this review:
(1 Member)

lordpercy%2F

View all 1 member ratings

Overall rating: Somewhat useful

Nominate for a Crown:

See all newly Crowned Reviews

Last comments:
davemar

- 23/02/01

Sorry, I trying to write it while doing several other
things at the same time.
Fuel consumption wasn't too great, especially as it was
supposed to be a 'lean-burn' engine. I think the lack of
power meant it had to be thrashed more than it should, so
used up a fair amount of fuel.
Running costs weren't too bad providing you did DIY repairs.
Insurance was cheap, as were spares. But the amount of spent
on repairs and maintenance were more than average. MOTs
were always scary as welding work was often needed.
Load space was pretty average for a car of that size.
You could fit a fair amount in when you put the back seats
down. The spare tyre was kept in the boot, and this collected
water and caused quite bad rust. Always check this out, as
you can end up with a big hole in the bottom of the boot.
Hope this helps you.
lordpercy

- 22/02/01

Sorry to rate SU, but the layout of your opinion makes it very hard work to read and would benefit from a bit more detail on things like fuel consumption, running costs, load space etc...

If you update please let me know and I'll re read / rate!

Product of the week
Top