Fiesta ST 1-Month Review

fiestasthopeful said:

Cool review, but its so strange ford allowed that arm rest to pass inspection.

Maybe they could have made it telescope? Maybe boomerang company will make a replacement

Sent from my SAMSUNG-Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk2

Click to expand...

Technically, there is nothing wrong with the armrest. Given the seat position, gear lever position, my body dimensions, and arm rest position, I have issues with it functioning as an armrest. I have had some really tall people sit in the car and the arm rest works perfectly for them. Since I am short, the seat is moved way forward, placing the armrest behind the seat. My palm to elbow distance is pretty much the same distance as the shifter (in 2nd, 4th, and 6th) to the tip of the arm rest.


Ford Fiesta ST at Chicago 026 by Bryan Redeker BRGT350, on Flickr

Once you realize that the arm rest is present, you just change the position of your elbow when shifting. It is very rare I actually make contact with it. I have driven all sorts of cars over the years, and I have yet to find a center mounted armrest that will actualy work for me. The S197 Mustang has the worst one for me.

Much like what happened 11 years ago with the SVT Focus, people will be swapping consoles since the non-arm rest people will want one and the arm rest haters will want the consoles without it. Everybody swaps them around and will be happy.

mcummings182 said:

You mentioned that the suspension was stiff, does it feel like it jerks a lot? Cause I just started learning stick so I could possibly get this car (got a 2011 Fiesta right now) I've been driving my friends Jetta, which is very smooth. I drove my friends Honda S2K (a performance car obviously) over the weekend and it was extremely stiff and jerky. Is this what the ST is like?

Click to expand...

It is really hard to answer questions concerning what is stiff or not. I find the spring rates and dampers to be perfectly matched, meaning there isn't any harshness over bumps. Typically from what I have found, a harsh ride comes from having a high spring rates without a matched set of shocks/struts. The spring compression isn't dampened properly, so the ride feels harsh. Having too high dampening makes for an uncomfortable ride. I once left my Koni's set to full stiff for the drive back from an autocross and the ride sucked. The spring rates on my Mustang are roughly 4 times that of stock, but with good dampers, the ride is actually pretty good. This is with either urethane, steel, or aluminum bushings and a Kevlar seat. You feel everything on the road with that setup.

There are a lot of factors that go into ride quality and ride perception. Low profile performance tires with high pressures will increase transmission of bumps into the chassis. A stiff chassis will also transmit more feeling to the driver since less forces are being used to twist or flex the chassis. The durometer of the seat foam changes how you feel the bumps. The level of insulation can change your perception of ride quality. Then you get into bushing durometers, unsprung weight, spring rates, and shock valving.

Personally, I find the ride quality to be fantastic. Stiff, controlled, provides great feedback, and produces terrific amounts of lateral, acceleration, and braking traction. Of all the cars I have owned, the SVT Focus and the Fiesta ST are probably the only 2 that would not need a complete new suspension. Both also are the only cars that I have owned (or will own) that don't need performance tires. It is great that the factory produces cars that don't need a list of modifications to make them perform.

BRGT350 said:

I have been running 93 octane, usually Shell. I tried 91 octane from Gulf and the car seemed to stumble and the economy went down a few MPG. I am thinking it was most likely bad gas and not octane related since I would doubt the difference between 91 and 93 would be noticable.

I have a 1984 Mustang that has been converted over to a track toy, but hasn't been out on the track in years. It is packed full of Maximum Motorsports suspension bits, Cobra brakes, warmed over 302, 6-point roll bar, RaceTech seat, and a lot of chassis bracing. It is a very fun car. I am very interested in the 2015 Mustang as well, but probably not to own one since anything larger than a SN95 seems way too big for me.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I don't know how this "Agent" thing works. Do they pay your gas as well? It would be interesting to see if or how much 4 or 5 tanks of 87 octane changes the performance and fuel economy etc. of the car in every day driving. If I get a Fiesta ST, it would be mostly used for long highway trips. So I'd personally be using 87 octane when highway driving, but would put in 93 octane when back home for the fun factor. A real world test of 87 octane would be nice, though I know I'm probably in the minority and most will be using 91 and up. Does Ford tell you to use the higher octane? Though I'm sure Ford has done thousands of miles of testing with 87 octane on their own, I would think they'd like to see what a real owner thinks of the car when switching to 87 octane only.

Nice sounding track Mustang by the way. My last Mustang was a 2003 Cobra. Wouldn't even touch the newer style except for maybe the Boss 302. And then it would only be for the high revving V8. Sooo wondering about the 2015 Mustang, but the 2.3 Turbo won't do it for me gas wise on long trips. Oh well, maybe a toy if I can afford it in the future.

Thanks for your input!