All of you looking to get 17s on the Fiesta... Think again. (ST review) - Page 3

mitch_lx · 10-08-2006, 10:36 PM

Safer maybe, but faster... duno

Teki04 · 10-08-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitch_lx

Safer maybe, but faster... duno

Safer - because they are understeer prone

ing_sm

Pieoter · 10-08-2006, 11:08 PM

Teki read this thread
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=22434

ST has a peak lateral G of 0.97G's
Clio has peak lateral G of 0.95G's

This PROVES that the 17's have the performance edge.

Teki04 · 10-08-2006, 11:20 PM

Hmmm - interesting point you have Pieoter.

Wheels Magazine have the Evo9 at 0.91Gs... the Autocar have it at 1.01Gs.
Wheels Magazine have the Clio Cup as 0.90Gs, yet the Trophy is 0.95Gs in Autocar.

So then, If we combine the Autocar and Wheels test, then that means the Clio Cup should be somewhere around 0.99Gs... making it higher then the Trophy and ST

Something doesn't add up here...

kiwijohn42 · 10-08-2006, 11:29 PM

Where's 0xyg3n when you need him. He's the only one on here with ST alloys.

Pieoter · 10-08-2006, 11:29 PM

Wheels magazine if im not mistaken has passengers in the car and a few other things that are not included in most car tests.

Still doesn't take away the fact that the ST with its 17's registered higher peak g-force than the Clio with 16's. Both have very similar suspension

Teki04 · 10-08-2006, 11:34 PM

Oh Pieoter - to use the Autocar's Fiesta ST test, lets see how many times they mention the Clio...

4 times.

Interesting points I'd like to highlight;
"The messages from the wheel aren’t as sharp as in lower-powered, lesser-tyred Fiestas"
"incidentally, while the 180bhp Renault Clio 182 Cup easily out-muscles the ST"
"Those who want a car that feels special will continue to buy a Mini, while the horsepower-obsessed will always go for the car with the headline figure, assuming they can insure it. And when that car — the Clio — costs just £205 more, it makes their decision all the more easy.
There’s no doubt that the ST is a good hot hatch, but from a firm capable of greatness it’s a little disappointing, and against such strong competition, we’re not sure that good is good enough."

Seems they aren't too fussed. I'm almost CERTAIN that the Gs a Trophy can pull, would be much higher then that of a Fiesta ST, considering the Sachs suspension.

Pieoter · 10-08-2006, 11:43 PM

We arn't look at the overall package or the clio vs the ST. Its pretty obvious that the clio would win. We are looking at peak G's and the ST pulled more G's.

It'll be a cold day in hell before the brand of suspension determines how well a car handles. Brand means nothing its the spring rate, damper settings etc that actually matter.

FACT: ST pulls more G's than the clio with its larger rims. This has been tested and your opinion means SFA against a solid test.

Teki04 · 10-08-2006, 11:45 PM

Read above - different magazines achieve different results :P

Besides - this was about 16 inch rims on the Fiesta.... not other cars. Guess we got a little side tracked.

Fact; EVERY review states that lesser model Fiestas are more fun then the ST.

out:

Pieoter · 10-08-2006, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teki04

Read above - different magazines achieve different results :P

Besides - this was about 16 inch rims on the Fiesta.... not other cars. Guess we got a little side tracked.

Fact; EVERY review states that lesser model Fiestas are more fun then the ST.

out:

Yes they acheice different peak G reading but the car that came 1st would still come 1st and the car that came last would still come last.

We wern't discussing which car was more fun to drive it was about which car was faster/handled better.

Teki04 · 10-08-2006, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pieoter

Yes they acheice different peak G reading but the car that came 1st would still come 1st and the car that came last would still come last.

We wern't discussing which car was more fun to drive it was about which car was faster/handled better.

Exactly - when you compare the Clio Cup to the EvoIX in Wheels, and then calculate the Lateral G it would have got in Autocar (remember, they had a Trophy... which is different) it would have gotten a .998G

Not to mention the fact it is impossible to prove with figures, as the Fiesta ST has Pirelli, and the Clio Trophy has Michelins.

:

Pieoter · 11-08-2006, 12:00 AM

You can't directly compare the results from one magazine to the other. The surface may have been different, the driver was different, may have been wet etc.

What do you mean improssible to prove these figures? They are published in a car magazine, they wouldn't have fabricated them. Autocar even claim the Pirellis on the Fiesta to be worse "lower-powered, lesser-tyred Fiestas".

You are wrong.

Teki04 · 11-08-2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pieoter

You can't directly compare the results from one magazine to the other. The surface may have been different, the driver was different, may have been wet etc.

What do you mean improssible to prove these figures? They are published in a car magazine, they wouldn't have fabricated them. Autocar even claim the Pirellis on the Fiesta to be worse "lower-powered, lesser-tyred Fiestas".

You are wrong.

Hahaha - I love this thread

: :jab:

But then, your comparing the Trophy to a Fiesta ST, which are two different cars. Get the lap times out, and the Clio CUP is quicker then the Trophy and Fiesta ST (Though the Trophy should be quicker - different drivers as outlined by Evo)

The latest Evo also has an article - the BEST EVER FRONT-DRIVE CAR. Second was the Clio Trophy, First was the Integra Type R. Both cars wear 16s and 15s respectively.

OH look Pie, the Golf GTI got less Gs then the Fiesta and Trophy, yet it has 17s too.

Pieoter · 11-08-2006, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teki04

Hahaha - I love this thread

: :jab:

But then, your comparing the Trophy to a Fiesta ST, which are two different cars. Get the lap times out, and the Clio CUP is quicker then the Trophy and Fiesta ST (Though the Trophy should be quicker - different drivers as outlined by Evo)

The latest Evo also has an article - the BEST EVER FRONT-DRIVE CAR. Second was the Clio Trophy, First was the Integra Type R. Both cars wear 16s and 15s respectively.

OH look Pie, the Golf GTI got less Gs then the Fiesta and Trophy, yet it has 17s too.

The Clio and Fiesta were reviewd by the same magazine hence it being a fair test (what you wrote was a joke). Lap time for clio is quick because of the extra power (21kw).

Yeh so? It looked at overall package not only handling so that argument is null and void.

Golf GTI is heavier and has a very different suspension setup to both the clio and fiesta. Clio and Fiesta have near identical suspension layout and setup and if anything the clio has the edge.

Teki04 · 11-08-2006, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pieoter

Yeh so? It looked at overall package not only handling so that argument is null and void.

Assuming you have read it?

Pieoter · 11-08-2006, 12:25 AM

Keep it on topic

Scareybear · 11-08-2006, 08:27 AM

Damn missed it all, who hit who with thier handbag first?

Personally I couldn't give a toss what someone in the Uk says about the difference between 16's and 17's, I know that they're 'respected' motoring journalists, but c'mon it really is something you should decide for yourself, there are benifits for 17's and against, but judging by Tekis attitude (again) he's climbed up on his soapbox and started preaching to us again. Some people love the way the fiesta handles on 15's and don't want to change, others love the way 18's look and feel.
Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will anyway) but because we all have the privelidge (?) of having driving licenses, we are all over 16, technically classed as adults, so as such maybe we could see and respect other peoples opinions as valid arguments.

Teki, it seems you think you are so much more educated than everyone else, WHY???
You constantly refer to articles in magazines, and argue thier points relentlessly, when you can't seem to respect anyone elses opinions, my suggestion: instead of reading about it, go out and do it, base your opinions on the real world, not just on 'journalists' opinions.

oh yeah, and grow the **** up.

photn · 11-08-2006, 08:30 AM

HEAR HEAR SCAREYBEAR..you hit the spot.couldnt of said it better myself and i totally agree.

JD2004 · 11-08-2006, 08:38 AM

... im not saying a thing... those two were going off last night... better than anyother form of entertainment

photn · 11-08-2006, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD2004

... im not saying a thing... those two were going off last night... better than anyother form of entertainment

ohh yer i even skipped watching family guy and playing DOD to watch this, best entertainment ever JD. SIMPLY THE BEST lol.

Danny · 11-08-2006, 10:04 AM

I just Flew in from New Zealand after a week of Snowboarding last night, and this is what I have come home to. Damn, I wish I hadn't Missed it!

When I got my 17's I had a long thought beforehand about whether or not to get them. I had read Autocar and Evo thoroughly and heard about these Zetec S vs. ST 16"s vs. 17"s reviews.

In the end I decided that aesthetics won over handling, and I got the 17"s. I prepared myself for the reported change in the handling department sans 16"s, and got in.

Well, Take it from me. I don't know whether the 16's were shod with shocking tyres and now the 17's are shod with fantastic ones, but my fiesta is handling better than ever.

Where the 16's would lean on the 45mm prof. sidewalls, squeal, moan, and push wide on corners, the 17's grip the road like the car is on rails. A trip down Victorias great ocean road confirmed this for me. While the ride is bumpier, and yes it can settle into ruts easier, the handling is FANTASTIC. The 16's with the Falkens were RUBBISH! Absolute shït!

I'm not lying and I'm not biased. I'd tell the truth about my accounts. Just check out my first Posts after I got the 17"s. I'm really happy.

Whether the Contisport Contatcs are better and perform well on the 16's remains to be seen. I'm yet to drive a WQ Zetec with them on. Im sure the Contacts really complement the 16's and the Pzero's unfortnately dont marry up with the 17's well. But I've got nothing but praise for my Toyo Proxes 4 Tyres and nothing but bad memories as far as the 16's on Falkens go.

Just becasue the tyres on the ST are Pirelli don't mean that they are the be all and end all. Sometimes the manufacturers go too far and overkill. Subaru made a limited edition MY05 WRX called the WRP-10. All 200 of these special edition cars were built at Subaru Docklands in Melbourne to commemorate 10 years of WRX in australian World Rally Championships.

They started life as silver Rexes from Japan, and on Melbourne arrival, they were given stiffer damping and new springs, their exhaust was modified to be more freeflowing, and to add more kW. They were given special badging and interior highlights, and they were stripped of their rims, and new charcoal 17"S were put on with Pirelli P Zero Rubber.

Australian Car mags could do nothing but bag the Pirelli's addition onto the car saying that for the extra price, they do not handle like the standard tyres that come on the normal rex, and that they really were a waste of time. As their price doesn't equal better handling. So sometimes tyres just don't marry up the way that the manufacturer wishes they did!

Oh and Steve, Blow the horn of the RSC as much as you want, But a 2 litre Blue Jellybean on 17's does nothing for me! I won't buy one

:

Teki04 · 11-08-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

But a 2 litre Blue Jellybean on 17's does nothing for me! I won't buy one

:

Hehe - that would be a Fiesta ST :P RSC doesn't have 17's....

I knew you would come into this argument eventually.

I agree with everything you've said - obviously those are real accounts. But comparing Falkens on 16s to Toyos on 17s isn't really a real comparison. I went through 2 sets of Falkens within 15,000kms and they were pathetic. Squealed all the time... and went through rubber pretty quick.

Anyway, I just reported what I had read and seen with various cars and reviews.

Pieoter · 11-08-2006, 11:26 AM

But you made the wrong interpritation from what you read. None of the articles talk about cornering speed or G's pulled. They simply say the 16's have better ride.

robjh80 · 11-08-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

Well, Take it from me. I don't know whether the 16's were shod with shocking tyres and now the 17's are shod with fantastic ones, but my fiesta is handling better than ever.

Where the 16's would lean on the 45mm prof. sidewalls, squeal, moan, and push wide on corners, the 17's grip the road like the car is on rails. A trip down Victorias great ocean road confirmed this for me. While the ride is bumpier, and yes it can settle into ruts easier, the handling is FANTASTIC. The 16's with the Falkens were RUBBISH! Absolute shït!

Whether the Contisport Contatcs are better and perform well on the 16's remains to be seen. I'm yet to drive a WQ Zetec with them on.

I personally think that the tyres play a very vital role in all of this, wheel size I dont believe is the number one ingredient in the handling mix, where Danny is saying his car is now much better on 17's than it was on 16's (bearing in mind that both sets of wheels were identical - ROH Strada's), the only thing that has changed are effectively the tyres,....... I on the other hand am saying quite the opposite, the handling of my car since going to 17's has diminished quite considerably, it's just not like it's the same car, the standard WQ 16's on the Conti's were great, handled beautifully, perfect balance, since going to the 17's with BFG G-Force Sports the car handles like a dog!!, and yes the wheel alignment is supposedly spot on, had it checked twice, I will obviously get out of the BFG's what mileage I can but wont be sad to see the back of them when they wear out, then I can replace them with something else and hopefully get back some of the handling that I am now missing, looks like the Toyo Proxy 4's that Danny's got might be on the menu next time around......"Danny glad you're happy with your tyres too by the way",...... nothing worse than buying something and not being happy with your purchase, luckily in the case of tyres they wear out pretty quickly.

murcod · 11-08-2006, 01:24 PM

Great to see you post your experience on here too Rob. Falken tyres seem to have gone downhill in the ten years since I last bought them and the Toyo's sound like a lot better quality tyre? Plus, what rim widths are we talking here from 16 -> 17"? The wider the rim then the less the tyre will move around on rim under cornering forces, which will improve turn in and steering response. But nobdy here seems to even realise that?!

I think the point that we drive on roads and not race tracks has been sadly overlooked. Smaller sidewalls on rough roads isn't a good mix to an improvement in vehicle directional stability and the like.

Teki, my example of the Mazda 6 wasn't to suggest that a Fiesta on 17" would be an improvement- quite the opposite actually. The Mazda being on 17" is roughly the same as the Fiesta being on 16" rims-> 215/45 vs 195/45 tyre sizes. 18" on the 6 would be roughly equivalent to the Fiesta on 17" in side wall height- I'm glad I didn't do that! I have instead got wider rims - 7.5" which have the benefits I stated earlier.

At the end of the day, each to their own. :1syellow1

But for me, I'd rather get slightly smaller diameter, wider rims (compared to humungous "look at me" rims) and spend the money saved on better tyres. The overall result should always be better handling than the look at me option for the same or less $$$$.

Teki04 · 11-08-2006, 01:44 PM

See rob,

That is quite interesting to hear you say that. Myself and Mitch_LX both have/had BFG Gforce Sports on our car, and we think they are superb. In 16 inch of course... But maybe the Continentials were better then the BFGs... or maybe the 17s aren't better for the handling and ride. I'm assuming they MIGHT be heavier. Do you remember the weight of each rim in the 16s (with tyres) and the current weight of the 17s (with tyres?)

And I agree with you there Murcod (David). I did just that with the Fiesta... I put the maximum width tyres I could on the 16inch alloys, which ended up being 205/45s instead of the 195/45s. Obviously the tyre pressure had to be increased for hard cornering - but boy what a difference!

And Pieoter, I'm assuming when people say the car is more fun and agile, they refer to cornering.... I don't call a smooth riding car on the road 'fun'. So, I don't think they were refering to the fact it rides better over bumps

Ives · 11-08-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teki04

Hehe - that would be a Fiesta ST :P RSC doesn't have 17's....

I thought they'd have 17's on them.

used:

Teki04 · 11-08-2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HyperKid

I thought they'd have 17's on them.

used:

Nope - Michelin Pilot Exaltos with 205/45R16s

Pieoter · 11-08-2006, 03:20 PM

Fun doesn't automatically mean faster.

I the end the tyre has a massive result on the handling of the car. Poor tyre = poor handling.

Murcod it has been said that the rims are identical only 1 inch larger in size. We can sit here for weeks adding variables to the equation and not get any where.

Teki: Murcod was talking about wider RIMS not TYRES. I bet you think you increased your contact area pulling that move too :rolleyes:

simonr · 11-08-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HyperKid

I thought they'd have 17's on them.

used:

hahah obviously you havent been reading the thread

but i think it should have 17's.. it would give the clio better handling and make it faster and pull like 20% more gforces!!

:hihi: