For about the last 6 years I have run (amongst other cars) two P plate (08/96 and 02/97) 16v Fiestas. The older one I had from new, and the other was owned by my father for the first 34k of its life. I had always maintained that the earlier one was livelier, more economical, more flexible, slightly more economical and just nicer to drive. The only difference in specification was the newer had Power steering and ran on 165/13s rather than 155/13s. There was a slight mechanical change around 1/97, which requires a different cambelt/tensioner kit. I had always put it down to possible power loss in the PS and possible software changes in the ECU.
I recently had the cambelt changed in the newer one (at 70k and 12 years) (no lectures please), and believe it or not this car now feels much better - almost the same as the other one!
The only conclusion I can come to is that the original factory fitted belt was fitted so that the timing was 'slightly' wrong. I know that the cam pulley on the crankshaft is an inteference fit, ie no keyway, so is this explanation likely or possible?
(PS the earlier car has now gone - I will post in discussion more about that!).
|
It's an interesting one. As you say, the position of the camshaft pulleys is actually irrelevant on these engines. The camshafts themselves are "timed" using a metal plate, with the pulleys left to freewheel as the belt is tensioned. It's hard to see how the engine builder would have got it wrong, but equally if it was a fraction out, with no timing marks on the pulleys, nothing would have looked amiss on the assembled engine. Maybe the plate used to time the cams was slightly worn and allowed a fraction of a degree of rotation.
Variance between identical engines isn't a new thing. I remember the 8v 2.0 Vauxhall engines used to vary considerably. My brother in law had a mk3 Cavalier SRI which was considerably quicker than any other I'd driven or been in, but was completely unmolested and factory standard. We never did work out why, but it was a real flier.
I still rate these little Zetec-SEs as one of the best small petrol engines ever made. We had the 1.4 version in our mkIV Fiesta and it was an absolute joy. Felt gutsier and more responsive than many 1.6's.
|
>>It's an interesting one.<<<
I am surprised that it has not resulted in more comments.
I think that my view is very similar to yours - undoubtably one of the best small engines made - much better than the modern replacements!
|
My comment is about the performance of the old 1.25 16v -Fantastic IMHO, much much better than the later so called duratec 1.25 (Modified to meet emission targets I think) when
I drive our old 1.25 Fiesta, passed on to my sister, I am certain feels far faster and responsive than her 2003 1.4 Fiesta. Progress? Other people including a Ford salesman! have said the same, when comparing early and later cars.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM5oA2X03z8
www.justanswer.com/car/uk?r=ppc|ga|5|Cars|Dianas+K...A
moodle.student.cnwl.ac.uk/moodledata_shared/cdx%20...l
|
direct2000
If you dont understand the question, please just dont answer with random links.
I realise that you are a new member - look listen and learn and recognise the culture.
Edited by pmh3 on 04/01/2010 at 17:03
|
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/5f786389d27e396c64ed086574bdf431/d734f68b5b6ef325ccb278ca3741c0ca.jpg)
