Which focus - 1.6 , 1.8 diesel or petrol

weeslip

Looking at a 04/05 focus. Would like to spend around 14/15k. Am reading up on the different configs and am looking at the 1.8 tdci http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=816447

Or the 1.6 tdci http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=800387.

Would like to get decent spec , both of the above seem to be well kitted out. Any other suggestions for configs to look at would be welcome. I'm looking for a nice , nippy drive and good reliable mpg.

meathstevie

A bit biased ( diesel fundamentalist ) but if I were you the diesel would get preference. With that sort of car you should consistently be doing 40mpg or more

maidhc

For that money I would be a little bit tempted to buy something like a new Kia Ceed in July!

Saying that I have a 1.8 TDCI focus and the worst I have got has been 48mpg, and that has involved an awful lot of tiresome non-driving in the city centre. It will easily do 60mpg once it can stretch its legs.

meathstevie

There you go, proven again that you don't need a fisher price package with a wee engine and a heap of duracells. Having said that if fisher price made cars they'd probably last forever

weeslip

yip it looks a diesel for me . Will be driving the two of them tomorrow so will see which i prefer on the road.

A kia ceed is not for me i am afraid.

Thanks for the advice

Darando

Just check that they arent imported and if so get a HPI (UK one after cartell) done to verify milage- I didnt think early LX (Irish modesl) had air con as standard.

If you go to see either of the cars you will know if they are imported (speedo will have both miles and kilometres) (Irish ones only have kilometres on it) - and before I get slated - nothing wrong with buying an import etc..... just verify the mileage.

E92

LX spec has had air con for yonks in the UK now. It still doesn't have it here(of course they call it Style now), and the Mk3 Focus which is due next February won't have it either, if the Irish Times is to be believed:(. All Mk3 Focus will be fitted with Electronic Stability Programme(ESP) as standard though, even for Ireland:).

weeslip

might be a bit of a dumb question but from a performance viewpoint, which is better, the petrol or diesel engines ( ie is a 1.6 petrol faster than a 1.6 diesel)

r3nu4l

maidhc wrote: »

For that money I would be a little bit tempted to buy something like a new Kia Ceed in July!

Saying that I have a 1.8 TDCI focus and the worst I have got has been 48mpg, and that has involved an awful lot of tiresome non-driving in the city centre. It will easily do 60mpg once it can stretch its legs.

Very glad to hear you saying that I'm looking at getting a used one around March next year (hopefully) and I'd decided on the 1.8 TDCi already. Should be perfect for my commute (35 miles of Dual carriageway, 3 miles of regular road)

maidhc

weeslip wrote: »

might be a bit of a dumb question but from a performance viewpoint, which is better, the petrol or diesel engines ( ie is a 1.6 petrol faster than a 1.6 diesel)

There are two 1.6 diesels; 110 and 90bhp. The 90 would probably be a little slower than the 1.6 while the 110 would be a fair bit quicker. The 1.8 has 115bhp as standard and compares well with the 1.8 petrol.

charlieIRL

i have an ST170 and it rocks!!! Get one, you won't regret it!!

pete4130

As mentioned by another member on here, Ford stopped putting the 100 and 110 engines into the 1.6 TDCI Focus in 2006 probably because the 1.6 is a peuguot/citroen engine and they wanted more people to opt for the Ford 1.8 TDCI (meaning more profit for them), so if going for a 04/05 the more desireable is the higher power engine. The difference between the 1.6 TDCI 110hp and the 115hp 1.8 TDCI is not really that noticeable seemingly with the 1.6 giving better mpg to boot.

I could be wrong though, I'm just passing on knowledge I've gathered from others.

Henry Ford III

pete4130 wrote: »

As mentioned by another member on here, Ford stopped putting the 100 and 110 engines into the 1.6 TDCI Focus in 2006 probably because the 1.6 is a peuguot/citroen engine and they wanted more people to opt for the Ford 1.8 TDCI (meaning more profit for them), so if going for a 04/05 the more desireable is the higher power engine. The difference between the 1.6 TDCI 110hp and the 115hp 1.8 TDCI is not really that noticeable seemingly with the 1.6 giving better mpg to boot.

I could be wrong though, I'm just passing on knowledge I've gathered from others.

Yes and no.

Ford still build 110bhp 1.6 TDCI Foci, but they are not imported here currently.

There never was a 100bhp 1.6 TDCI unit.

This will all change when the new range is unvieled.

pete4130

Is there not a 100PS version which is rated at 98hp?

Henry Ford III

1.6 petrol is 100bhp.

E92

The lower powered 1.6 TDCi has 89 bhp.

Henry Ford III

I know

E92

And the Mk3 Focus has the same engines as the Mk2, with the addition of the ECOnetic model which IIRC has the 108 bhp 1.6 engine. Are Ford going to bother updating their petrol engines at all, the 2 big sellers here, the 1.4 and 1.6 are exactly the same engines as the ones found the the Mk1 Focus 9 years ago.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

And the Mk3 Focus has the same engines as the Mk2, with the addition of the ECOnetic model which IIRC has the 108 bhp 1.6 engine. Are Ford going to bother updating their petrol engines at all, the 2 big sellers here, the 1.4 and 1.6 are exactly the same engines as the ones found the the Mk1 Focus 9 years ago.

Probably not. In fairness there have been no great developments by any manufacturer in petrol engines in the past 30 years. Lots of incremental improvements of course, but nothing in comparison to diesels.

One suspects the end is nigh for the sales of the 1.4 and 1.6 petrol now anyway.

E92

maidhc wrote: »

Probably not. In fairness there have been no great developments by any manufacturer in petrol engines in the past 30 years. Lots of incremental improvements of course, but nothing in comparison to diesels.

One suspects the end is nigh for the sales of the 1.4 and 1.6 petrol now anyway.

Well the 1.4 will be getting dearer and the 1.6 cheaper, so it will be interesting to see what happens there. Same with the diesels too. It depends on what the VRT reduction will be.

As for Ford not updating engines, I suppose considering that the Anglias' engine was still going strong up to the time the Ka got a facelift only a few years ago(2004 IIRC) I suppose the "Duratec" engines are only spring chickens at this stage, in contrast to VAG who went from 8 valvers to FSI and now TSI in only a few years or BMW whose 4 cylinder engines were updated in 2001(Valvetronic), again in 2004(new engine) and then again in 2007(High Precision Injection + power boost);).

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

In fairness there have been no great developments by any manufacturer in petrol engines in the past 30 years.

Stuff like over head cams, electronic fuel injection, distributorless ignition, direct injection, 4 valves or more per cylinder, variable valve timing, metallurgical advances which have seen engine internals change fundametally have all happened in the last 30 years.

But... internal combustion engines are over 100 years old and very primitive technology.

Henry Ford III

Current engines are up to date twin cam 16valve units. Reasonably refined, class average performance, and low overall running costs.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

Stuff like over head cams, electronic fuel injection, distributorless ignition, direct injection, 4 valves or more per cylinder, variable valve timing, metallurgical advances which have seen engine internals change fundametally have all happened in the last 30 years.

But... internal combustion engines are over 100 years old and very primitive technology.

Jesus it's only when I see this I realise how much things have moved on in terms of engine design. There is also common rail diesel style fuel injection aka FSI or High Precision Injection, variable lift, VVT on both inlet and outlet valves, alloy heads, blocks, piezo injectors, Valvetronic, and full electronic management of all engine functions too and now new engines don't even have a choke!

Though fuel injection is actually 53 years old, the Merc 300SL Gullwing was the first ever production car to be fitted with it!

E92

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Current engines are up to date twin cam 16valve units.

No variable valve timing, no variable lift, no direct injection let alone 2nd generation direct injection complete with a common rail diesel style piezo injectors and much higher injection pressure compared to 1st gen direct injection, Valvetronic type VVT system, no auto stop start function, and no regenerative braking(which would allow the alternator to only come on when necessary rather than all the time)!

A modern engine would have most of these features(certainly VVT of some sort and direct injection preferably the 2nd gen)! Twin cams and multi valve does not make an engine up to date, there were twin cam Escorts back when the Mk5 came out(XR3i 1.8 DOHC 16v springs to mind). Toyotas have had VVTi for almost as long as the current 1.4 and 1.6 have been in a Focus(now being replaced with dual VVTi)!

maidhc

JHMEG wrote: »

Stuff like over head cams, electronic fuel injection, distributorless ignition, direct injection, 4 valves or more per cylinder, variable valve timing, metallurgical advances which have seen engine internals change fundametally have all happened in the last 30 years.

But... internal combustion engines are over 100 years old and very primitive technology.

True, but a 2.0 Petrol still struggles to do 35mpg, and beat 9 seconds from 0-60. My 34 year old Ford can do 27mpg and manages the 0-60 in under 10.

Compare to the difference between a 34year old mercedes 240d and a modern cdi.

Henry Ford III

VVT is available E92. On the 1.6 petrol. Ghia and Titanium models only. Diesels are 2nd generation common rail units, with dpfs.

Henry Ford III

maidhc wrote: »

True, but a 2.0 Petrol still struggles to do 35mpg, and beat 9 seconds from 0-60. My 34 year old Ford can do 27mpg and manages the 0-60 in under 10.

Compare to the difference between a 34year old mercedes 240d and a modern cdi.

Cars are a lot heavier these days.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

True, but a 2.0 Petrol still struggles to do 35mpg, and beat 9 seconds from 0-60. My 34 year old Ford can do 27mpg and manages the 0-60 in under 10.

Compare to the difference between a 34year old mercedes 240d and a modern cdi.

Compare the difference between a 34 year old petrol which runs on a version of the fuel that you can't buy any more (leaded), and a decent modern petrol. I think the difference is even more profound.

Using some of the advances I mentioned above, a decent modern 2.0 litre petrol will hit 60 in less than 7 seconds. A few will do it under 6. True, none of them will do 50mpg but you can't have everything.

E92

Henry Ford III wrote: »

VVT is available E92. On the 1.6 petrol. Ghia and Titanium models only. Diesels are 2nd generation common rail units, with dpfs.

Only on the top of the range models I note! In the UK any Focus bar the ST and Freedom or whatever they call the bog spec model over there can bought with it.

And I didn't mention diesel at all either!

JHMEG

Henry Ford III wrote: »

VVT is available E92. On the 1.6 petrol.

IIRC the 1.6's with VVT should have slightly more bhp than those 1.6's without?

E92

A BMW 318i averages 47.9 mpg and that is a 2.0 litre with 143 bhp, as foes the 118i which also averages 47.9 mpg. A 320i which has 170 bhp averages 46.3 mpg 1.5 more than a Lexus IS220d (diesel) and also has 2.0 litres by the way. Of course these are the EU claimed tests, and therefore are by no means what the cars will actually do in reality. Most 2.0 litre cars seem to be getting close to the 40mpg mark these days, only a few years ago a good 2.0 litre would hit 35 mpg, so no matter what way you spin that it is progress.

A 320i in 1990 had 129 bhp, compared to 170 bhp today(and when you consider that the 320i is really the replacement for the old shape 318i, the 323i is really the replacement for the old shape 320i although it's not available here) and both are 2.0 litre engines(the old 320i I'm using had 2 extra cylinders too), so really I should say that the entry 6 cylinder 3 series has gone from 129 to 190 bhp in under 20 years!