We've finally tested the 2011 Ford Fiesta, and we like it a lot. To the surprise of no one, this fuel-efficient hatch isn't exactly a speed demon in a straight line. But the US-spec Fiesta, like its European counterpart, is very entertaining on back roads because it steers, handles (and rides) very well.
What's going on inside those wheel wells? We decided to have a quick look.
No magic here. The front end of the Fiesta is your basic MaPherson strut suspension.
Like nearly all front-drive cars with transverse-mounted engines, the Fiesta's steering linkage (white) works from behind the axle centerline. This in turn dictates that the brake calipers must be located in front.
The Fiesta's stabilizer bar link (black) is a direct-acting type, so named because it connects the stab bar end directly to the strut housing for an efficient 1:1 motion ratio that allows a smaller-diameter bar to get the job done.
So far everything we've seen is shared with the Euro-Fiesta, but this coil spring is about 10% stiffer. There are two possible reasons for this. The US car weighs just over 100 lbs more, and upping the spring rate helps keep the natural "ride frequency" of the body (the frequency at which the body wants to bounce when you push the bumper down repeatedly) the same as the EU version. At the same time, the US spec Fiesta gets all-season tires instead of summer tires. A firmer spring can help recover some of the difference if those summer tires had stiffer sidewalls.
From the front we can see the stamped steel L-shaped lower control arm (yellow). Oftentimes we'll see such arms welded into a closed-box cross-section, but the Fiesta is light enough that the cornering and impact loads can be handled by a simpler (and lighter, and cheaper) open design.
And because the Fiesta is light, single-piston sliding brake calipers (black) and ventilated rotors are more than up to the task.
Another look from behind at the lower control arm (white) and the stabilizer bar (yellow).
Here's another look at the single-piston sliding calipers and the 10.2-inch diameter ventilated rotors they squeeze.
Moving to the rear, we see a very simple twist beam axle. Think of it as a motorcycle swingarm, only car-spannigly wide with a wheel on the outside of each leg. The yellow arrow indicates the actual beam that does the twisting.
Like a swingarm, it's all welded together into one big piece. There is no additional stabilizer bar because, well, the whole dang thing behaves like a stabilizer bar. The beam itself is an open channel because it doesn't want to be very rigid in the torsional sense. Its cross-section is carefully designed to provide just the right amount of roll stiffness.
It ever a sporty version of the Fiesta were developed that called for more roll stiffness, a straight stabilizer bar could theoretically be run along the length of the open C and welded in place at each outboard end. It's a common way of adjusting the torsional stiffness of twist beam axles to suit various applications.
Another difference from the EU version is the rear shock absorber. The North American vendor that makes it uses a twin-tube internal valve design instead of the monotube type used at the European plant.
On a heavier car this might be seen as a step backwards. But the Fiesta is a light car and this is the lightly loaded back end of it, so the damping forces don't have to be terribly high.
Besides, the rear shock absorbers attach to the legs of the twist beam behind the rear axle centerline, so the motion ratio is greater than 1:1 and the shocks are more effective.
These slim 7.9-inch drum brakes do the job on this 2,557-lb car. The pedal feels firm, stopping distances are decent and we didn't experience any fade or smell. And the Fiesta has standard ESC and ABS, too.
So far we haven't seen anything really remarkable from an equipment standpoint. So why does the Fiesta feel so fun to drive when other small econoboxes with similar bits merely get by?
There are two answers: 1) success requires the will to make steering and handling a priority when development targets are set and big up-front design decisions are made, and; 2) it takes sound fundamentals and careful fine-tuning of all of the suspension bits you have, such as springs, shock valving, stabilizer bars (bar, in this case), bushings, steering assist curves, tire construction, and more. To be effective at that task you also need a rigid unibody that will allow the suspension tuning department free reign without fear of overstressing something or triggering some unwanted resonance in the structure. (Which brings us full circle back to #1).
And it's amazing what you can do when your car weighs 2,500 pounds instead of 3,500 pounds, 4,500 pounds, or more. As we all know, light weight and agility go hand-in-hand.
ed124c says:
05:28 AM, 05/ 5/10
Dan the Man!
I really look forward to the suspension walk-arounds that you do.
A slightly technical question: I assume racing or rallying versions of this car have disc brakes in the rear. If so, how big a task is it to refit?
dougtheeng says:
05:57 AM, 05/ 5/10
I thought that a lot of the Fiesta's competitors have 4-wheel disc brakes? Well, maybe I'm thinking of the next size of vehicle up. I know my Soul has 4-wheel disc. I guess you can argue that the drums do the job, but its my understanding that disc is better if available?
blueguydotcom says:
06:43 AM, 05/ 5/10
Nice job, Dan.
seppoboy says:
07:14 AM, 05/ 5/10
Ford has apparently cut costs in a rational way, as with the rear shocks and drums. Those decisions are not too adverse because of the light loads involved.
Ford really developed great systems for chassis development under Richard Parry-Jones, and for years they also incorporated suggestions from Jackie Stewart, who drove many production Fords fairly early in the final development and refinement process. Even if the engines of many European Fords were kind of so-so, the cars steered, braked, and handled well while retaining a reasonable ride.
I'm hoping that Ford does not lose that capability and focus, no pun intended.
throwback says:
07:20 AM, 05/ 5/10
Euro Fords have been brilliant handlers for years. No surprise that this car handles so well with a fairly mundane suspension set-up. Ford's development engineers know there stuff.
powell_jr says:
07:53 AM, 05/ 5/10
I like this little car a whole lot. Simple=Longevity
inlinesix says:
08:01 AM, 05/ 5/10
Thanks Dan, as always, its an interesting look at the car's underside.
questionlp says:
08:27 AM, 05/ 5/10
@dougtheeng
Drum brakes have more surface area for the "pads" to grab on to and tend to be more effective, but dirt and gunk can get into the drum and cause some problems.
Disc brakes can be easier to maintain and is probably a bit easier to incorporate ABS, but the rotors can warp and would need to be machined. This can cost more than replacing the drum break "pads" or drum. Not to mention, most of the braking is done with the front, so drum brakes in the back would be more cost effective.
... of course, I could be completely wrong :P
cz_75 says:
09:37 AM, 05/ 5/10
Drum brakes don't cool well and are hard to modulate, being "self-energizing" (i.e., rotational force pulls the brake shoe tighter/harder against the spinning drum). ABS should mitigate most of the latter. Ford could try Al-fin drums, but they probably cost as much as single-piston sliding calipers and solid discs.
greenpony says:
09:57 AM, 05/ 5/10
I don't like the rear suspension.
mark19 says:
10:40 AM, 05/ 5/10
@dougtheeng
i agree with you doug. I think that even if they wanted to keep the drum brakes for a lower model, Ford should still have the disc brakes as an option. Saving money is great, but at least have it on a sporty model.
to the person who said that rotors warp? Drums do too! And dont even get me starts about so-called "self-adjusting" drum brakes. That's a joke. And without that adjuster at the correct adjusted spot, the brake pedal height will be affected.
about the rear suspension, sure it's one big anti-roll bar, but that also means it's semi NOT fully independent. It's also cheaper to make the rear suspension out of a torsion beam. Just look at what Honda is doing with cars like the Fit. same torsion beam. because it's cheaper.
I'm still a fan of multi-link rear suspensions. Even if it does cost a little more.
actualsize says:
12:58 PM, 05/ 5/10
Ford absolutely went with a twist beam because of low cost and packaging efficiency. Same goes with drum brakes. But that's what has to happen in order to bring a profitable sub-compact to market. As long as the car isn't too large, too heavy, or too racy, a twist beam and drum brakes can work. The Fiesta is proof.
aznraptor says:
04:21 PM, 05/ 5/10
always love the suspension walk arounds
wish there was one for my RSX lol
keep up the good work!
cheap cars have cheap parts lol
But even simple setups can be tuned to work really well.
wonder how the aftermarket is going to modify the fiesta for more stressful uses
f1mom says:
07:15 PM, 05/ 5/10
I just can't believe Dan posted a story about the Fiesta on May 5 and refrained from bad puns and jokes.
vierwege says:
09:35 PM, 05/ 5/10
It is interesting that the undercoating traditionally used in wheel wheels is now a snap in sheet rather than a spray on coating. Coming from the great salted north, I fear for the exposed seam in the fifth picture.
stovt001 says:
11:00 PM, 05/ 7/10
A cheap and simple setup tuned to near-perfection is probably ideal for this car. It will be easier and more cost effective to maintain while still being sporty in normal driving. As my father-in-law likes to say, the rear wheels on a car like this are there for keeping the fuel tank from dragging on the ground.