3 ms·

Fair. However, the Fiesta does 0-60 (a little) faster, and has a (slightly) higher top speed, so at the end of the day, it's not doing the Falcon much good? ht

Fair. However, the Fiesta does 0-60 (a little) faster, and has a (slightly) higher top speed, so at the end of the day, it's not doing the Falcon much good? http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1975/993575/ford_falcon_500_sedan_200_six.html http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1975/993575/fo... http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford/fiesta/hatchback-2008/ http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford...

ptaipale 10y ago
I bet this is because due to better technology, the current Fiesta engine produces a much flatter curve of torque, meaning that it is both easier to drive and it accelerates faster. And don't even start with the fuel economy or emissions.... (but of course, this also means that current cars would choke on the fuel of 1962, and not just because of lead.)
- epimetheus 10y ago
  I'd say it's to do a lot with advances in turbos. Most small engine cars have turbos now that rival anything even a decade a go. This means you can get by with much smaller engines and get similar performance.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    True, turbos (even dual compressors as in the case of VAG's TSI) have much impact, but even non-compressed engines (in lower end models) are vastly better-behaved than old car engines. I once had a Sunbeam Avenger which was horrible in very many ways (not least because of the build quality in English unionized car plants) and an uneven torque curve (with a peak and a not that high peak as such) was one of its problems.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 10y ago
  I think it's mostly weight, the newer one seems to be 300kg lighter which is a big deal. But that fact sheet was for the sedan so I don't know if it's apples to apples comparison. The worst modern model is 1.25 Studio (11/12-) 3d @ 16.4 seconds vs. 13 seconds from the 1975 model.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Newest cars are only lighter when compared to recent history. Cars of 1960's were much much lighter than today. (big-family-sized Cortina DeLuxe of 1962 was 787 kg, present-day supermini Fiesta starts at 1041 kg).
  - hx87 10y ago
    The 1.25 Studio is so slow that it isn't available for sale in the USA--the cheapest $14k model here does 0-60mph in 9 seconds or so.
- hx87 10y ago
  If you dial back on the compression and timing, modern cars would run just fine on 1962 gasoline--probably better than 1962 cars, since electronic direct fuel injection assures even fuel distribution among the cylinders and cools the air in the cylinder, making it less vulnerable to predetonation.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    This may depend on geographical area and standards and so on, but at least here in northern Europe, much of the gasoline was made of Russian crude oil and before modern emission standards, it contained lots of sulphur and other impurities. I believe modern cars would start flagging errors with even 1980's gasoline (again, even assuming that the lead would be taken away and replaced by modern additives).

ptaipale 10y ago

I bet this is because due to better technology, the current Fiesta engine produces a much flatter curve of torque, meaning that it is both easier to drive and it accelerates faster. And don't even start with the fuel economy or emissions.... (but of course, this also means that current cars would choke on the fuel of 1962, and not just because of lead.)

epimetheus 10y ago
I'd say it's to do a lot with advances in turbos. Most small engine cars have turbos now that rival anything even a decade a go. This means you can get by with much smaller engines and get similar performance.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  True, turbos (even dual compressors as in the case of VAG's TSI) have much impact, but even non-compressed engines (in lower end models) are vastly better-behaved than old car engines. I once had a Sunbeam Avenger which was horrible in very many ways (not least because of the build quality in English unionized car plants) and an uneven torque curve (with a peak and a not that high peak as such) was one of its problems.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Retric 10y ago
I think it's mostly weight, the newer one seems to be 300kg lighter which is a big deal. But that fact sheet was for the sedan so I don't know if it's apples to apples comparison. The worst modern model is 1.25 Studio (11/12-) 3d @ 16.4 seconds vs. 13 seconds from the 1975 model.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Newest cars are only lighter when compared to recent history. Cars of 1960's were much much lighter than today. (big-family-sized Cortina DeLuxe of 1962 was 787 kg, present-day supermini Fiesta starts at 1041 kg).
- hx87 10y ago
  The 1.25 Studio is so slow that it isn't available for sale in the USA--the cheapest $14k model here does 0-60mph in 9 seconds or so.
hx87 10y ago
If you dial back on the compression and timing, modern cars would run just fine on 1962 gasoline--probably better than 1962 cars, since electronic direct fuel injection assures even fuel distribution among the cylinders and cools the air in the cylinder, making it less vulnerable to predetonation.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  This may depend on geographical area and standards and so on, but at least here in northern Europe, much of the gasoline was made of Russian crude oil and before modern emission standards, it contained lots of sulphur and other impurities. I believe modern cars would start flagging errors with even 1980's gasoline (again, even assuming that the lead would be taken away and replaced by modern additives).