Find Moglet a new car! [Surprised by a Pooma]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moglet
  • 103 comments
  • 8,019 views
at least you can GET a small diesel over there. one of the bits I was eyeballing is a typical american pickup diesel; 6 liters and up.

:lol: Very rarely do you see engine sizes like that over here! Even the Seat I'm looking at is only a 1.9!
 
the last Diesels we had that size are all in Golf TDI's and the occasional old merc:P

The second model Ford Festiva was jointly developed between Kia and Ford, retaining most of the drivetrain of the previous model with a more rounded body style
toldya
 

Dude... we've been over this before. About 12 months ago - literally, you and I.

ford-festiva.jpg

This is a Mk1 Ford Festiva. It was designed by Mazda for Ford. Kia produced it as the Kia Pride and, later, Mazda sold it in Europe as the Mazda 121.


2-674.jpg

This is a Mk2 Ford Festiva. It was largely the same car in a different body, codesigned by Ford and Kia. It was sold in North America as the Ford Aspire and in South Korea as the Kia Avella.


Ford_Fiesta_Mk4.jpg

This is a Mk4 Ford Fiesta. It was entirely designed and built by Ford Europe - though it was also briefly sold as a completely different Mazda 121 in Europe - based almost wholly on its predecessor, the Mk3 Ford Fiesta. This Fiesta was the basis of the following Mk5 Fiesta, the Ford Ka Mk1 and the Ford Puma.

Ford Mk3 Fiesta > Ford Mk 4 Fiesta; Ford Mk4 Fiesta > Ford Puma, Ford Mk1 Ka, Ford Mk5 Fiesta


There is absolutely no connection whatsoever, especially mechanical, between the Puma, Ka or Fiesta with any generation of Festiva/Aspire. Neither Kia nor Mazda are involved in any way with the Puma.


(incidentally, if you want a bit more confusion, the following Festiva model, sold in South America, was also called the Mazda 121 and the Mazda Demio - but was a further unconnected car. And to add to the confusion further, the following Mazda Demio - also called the Mazda 2 - is the Mk7 Ford Fiesta underneath)
 
Last edited:
Seen a 1.5 Demio Estate for £900 :lol:

But yeah, I've narrowed down my faffing to the following in order of preference:

1. 1999 1.9 TDi Seat Toledo - Well specced, decent MPG and performance and a nice interior too. The only problem is that it's rare to find them for under £1,000, but I'm sure I could cobble a bit more money together for one. Would need to clear some garage space too.

2. 2000 Rover 25 2.0D iE - Quicker than the Toledo, but nowhere near as well built. I do like the way they look and the interior though, and I'm not a badge snob either. I've had a Rover before and loved it.

3. Anything else - Ford Ka 1.3, Nissan Micra 1.3 GLX (Remote central locking, woo!), Mitsubishi Colt 1.3 Maui, Renault Megane 2.6 16v (Low fuel consumption is a big turn off, but a nice car), Ford Focus 1.6 Zetec (Same as the Megane)
 
Yeah, like I said the Puma was an "OMG look at dat!!" sort of moment, it's not a sensible enough choice to be worthy at the minute. The Seat is more sensible but is a fair bit bigger so might be a problem to fit in my garage. :indiff:

I've also looked at Kas since everyone is recommending them to me and they've grown on me a fair bit, but according to Fuelly the MPG figures people are getting are terrible! :crazy: But it's the same with most small petrol engines of that age, so maybe diesel is the only way to go after all? I'm sure it would be better for what I do which is mainly motorway miles. I'm also after a comfortable cruiser as I get pain in my shoulder when driving long distances.

Kas aren't brilliant for fuel economy, no. That said, you might find the difference isn't as black and white as you might think - where presumably you're having to rev the nuts off the 500 to get it to move, the 8v Ka engines tend to be a bit torquier low down. You can still rev it half to death, but after a while you realise that it doesn't make it noticeably faster - just a bit louder with the same pace. Don't get me wrong, it'll probably do less, just not quite as little as you might think.

Also on the Ka front if you do go down that route, aim for a 2003- model as that's when Ford stuck a slightly more modern (and in turn more powerful and economical) 1.3 in there. Easy enough to tell - if it's got Endura stamped across the engine it's the old one, and if not it's the 'newer' Duratec one. Or if you're looking at autotrader and you can see the interior but not the engine, look for the digital mileometer that they started sticking in at the same time. It should look like this, and not like this.

Ok, I'm done ;)
 
Last edited:
Kas aren't brilliant for fuel economy, no. That said, you might find the difference isn't as black and white as you might think - where presumably you're having to rev the nuts off the 500 to get it to move, the 8v Ka engines tend to be a bit torquier low down. You can still rev it half to death, but after a while you realise that it doesn't make it noticeably faster - just a bit louder with the same pace. Don't get me wrong, it'll probably do less, just not quite as little as you might think.

Depends on the model and how you drive.

The original Ka with the Kent-based 1.3 Endura-E engine can be quite economical. I know this after living with a Fiesta with the same engine for six years.

I drive economically. And no, that isn't slang for "slow". It's perfectly possible to drive at a pace that can easily match the traffic around you (and go for the occasional thrash) whilst using very little fuel. No special techniques required, just good anticipation, lots of conserving momentum, using the engine's torque rather than power and so on - in other words, all the stuff you should have been taught when learning to drive.

Here's my fuel chart for the last few months of Fiesta ownership. All the figures are in U.S. gallons, so in UK mpg that's a maximum of 50.4 and a minimum of 42.9. Ford's combined figure for the car was 40mpg and I was beating that pretty easily by almost 6mpg. You can assume the lowest figure there involved the most town driving, bad weather etc, and I'd say a minimum MPG above 40mpg is pretty good.

graph2580.gif


The Ka is lighter and more aerodynamic - go figure.

By comparison, I'm averaging around 42mpg from the Panda which is just below the official figures, and 34mpg from the MX5, which was about 5mpg better than the official average.

It's not what you drive, it's how you drive it ;) So don't rule out petrols unless you tend to be heavy footed.

Incidentally, you could look further afield for VAG diesels - those 1.9s can be found in virtually everything, including the Skoda Fabia and Octavia, VW Golf, Bora, Polo and Passat, the Audi A3 and A4 and the SEAT Ibiza, Leon and Cordoba, so although the Toledo is probably the nicest looking of all of those cars, you'll almost certainly find the same engine in something cheaper! Power varies between models but I've driven the least powerful (90bhp) TDI in a Cordoba and it wasn't too bad. And in that car it gets ridiculous MPG figures, something like 65mpg combined.
 
Last edited:
I had a Mk3 with the Kent (it's too much effort to type Endura-E every time) and I got about the same without too much trouble.

What you should do is get a hyperfrugal engine (through technology) stuck in a fat barge and transplant it into a car half the weight. That'd work... :D
 
I've had a look at other VAG cars with the same engine and the only decent alternative I've found is the Passat. Everything else seems to be completely useless with the 1.9 in, the Polo goes from 0-60 in 16.8 seconds :lol:

The Passat is better, and has a LOT more torque but the only ones within my budget have done near 200,000 miles and at that age it's a bit hit and miss if they've had the right things replaced, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of them have the plenum chamber blocked too, causing ECU damage. :(
 
I've had a look at other VAG cars with the same engine and the only decent alternative I've found is the Passat. Everything else seems to be completely useless with the 1.9 in, the Polo goes from 0-60 in 16.8 seconds :lol:

The Passat is better, and has a LOT more torque but the only ones within my budget have done near 200,000 miles and at that age it's a bit hit and miss if they've had the right things replaced, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of them have the plenum chamber blocked too, causing ECU damage. :(

Look harder ;)

I say this because I suspect a Polo with that sort of performance is the non-turbo one. The 90bhp one isn't quick as such but it certainly isn't that slow. In fact, a quick look on Parkers at the last-gen Cordoba (basically a Polo) with the 1.9tdi engine (with 100bhp) reckons 10.7 to 60, so I very, very much doubt the basically identical 90bhp version takes an extra 6 seconds...

(Here's my drive of the Cordoba from yonks back)

I'm fairly sure you can get the 90bhp engine in virtually everything that came with the 1.9tdi, and virtually everything had the 110bhp engine too.

There's also a 115bhp and a 130bhp, both of which are the Pump-Duse units, the latter of which can be had in the Bora, Toledo, Passat and Fabia vRS (and probably some others). Then there's the 150bhp TDI PD, which is probably sneaking into the realms of a little too expensive for you to insure.
 
Last edited:
Quick guide to VAG badges on the 1.9 TDi:

TDI = 150hp
TDI = 130hp
TDI = 115hp
TDI = 90hp
 
They'd have been screwed if they made variants with any other power output...
 
Oooh, I don't know. There's still TDI, TDI, TDI and TDI.


I'm never typing that many [color] tags in such a short space again.
 
Quick guide to VAG badges on the 1.9 TDi:

TDI = 150hp
TDI = 130hp
TDI = 115hp
TDI = 90hp
Can I have a sauce on that? No way that's legit...

[EDIT] Google convinced me...
 
*does the "Go Jerry" dance*

I will not answer any questions on how I know that, by the way.
 
Back