Is this a good deal ?

greenbamboo

I am currently looking at buying a Ford Focus or something similar in the years between 02-04. I found a 2003 1.4 litre petrol focus with 70000 miles on it.nct till january 2013.The price is 3500 and its in good condition.Is this a good model and price or should i be looking at different makes. Can anybody give me a bit of good advise on this.Thanks

1.4 Focus is dirt, get a 1.6 if you really want a Focus.

Henry Ford III

This has been covered many times.

A 1.4 Focus is underpowered for many, but equally it's adequate for many other less demanding drivers. It's not "dirt".

p.s. Get a Zetec spec. or higher. The entry level ones are a bit spartan.

mickob16

The Focus is def not 'dirt'-its a well made solid car but the 1.4 engine is literally dead.I had a 03 one but ended up going from lovin it to nearly hating the poor thing.Even the sound of the little engine struggling made me angry.Go for the 1.6 or get the diesel.

fonecrusher1

The 1.4 focus of that year was one of the slowest/weakest cars in its class.

Alanstrainor

Okay, i'd agree with pretty much all of the above, the 1.6 is the way to go. But for the likes of my mother, who used to drive a 2003 1.4 focus would never have noticed this "complete lack of power", and she would never have cared. I just think it's worth noting that the 1.4 would be adequate for lots of people. It's still a good looking, good handling car and it's pretty reliable too.

Henry Ford III

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

The 1.4 focus of that year was one of the slowest/weakest cars in its class.

Trumped by the 1.4 VW Golf, which also has a nasty habit of drinking oil and failing completely prematurely. Oh and it also has an awful gearbox too.

Bizzarely they still sell well, and sometimes even achieve a price "premium" seeing as VW is perceived as a high quality brand.

p.s. I'd personally prefer a 1.6 Focus too, or ideally a 2.5

1.4 Golf is also dirt.
Anyone who had the misfortune of driving a 1.4 Focus for any period of time can testify that the engine is woeful if you are not a granny. Sink the shoe and there is nothing there even when flat out. They are almost as slow as a 1.1 Mark 3 fiesta.

MrDerp

Don't do it to yourself. I drive a 2005 focus 1.4lx. The lack of power will break your heart. Get the 1.6 at a minimum.

That said, it depends on your usage and your driving habits. Great car around town, not so hot on the motorway.

It was a great car for me when I got it, I bought it just after I got my license in 2008 (I was driving 9 months at the time), but I've completely outgrown it. When I think what I could have got for that 14K

My first car was a 2000 Opel Corsa 1.2, and it was much quicker (almost as powerful and way lighter). I feel I didn't enjoy it enough as a learner (I was a sensible learner at 25)

If you don't need the space I'd consider a smaller, quicker hatchback.

coylemj

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Trumped by the 1.4 VW Golf, which also has a nasty habit of drinking oil and failing completely prematurely. Oh and it also has an awful gearbox too.

I hope you're not referring to the Golf GT 1.4 TSI, I have a 2007 model (170 PS) and it doesn't drink a drop of oil. The gearbox has never given me any trouble either but maybe that's because I don't drive the sh1te out of it.

EPM

coylemj wrote: »

I hope you're not referring to the Golf GT 1.4 TSI, I have a 2007 model (170 PS) and it doesn't drink a drop of oil. The gearbox has never given me any trouble either but maybe that's because I don't drive the sh1te out of it.

Safe to say he's not...

colm_mcm

I'd agree with the comments on the 1.4 being fairly slow, the 1.6 isn't exactly quick but its ssuited to the weight and you won't have to drive it hard to keep up with traffic.
Some uk models have aircon alloys ect even on lx models.

It's all relative of course, but if you in any way like driving then the 1.6 Is a must.

Fuel consumption should be better on 1.6 in real world driving.

fonecrusher1

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Trumped by the 1.4 VW Golf, which also has a nasty habit of drinking oil and failing completely prematurely. Oh and it also has an awful gearbox too.

Bizzarely they still sell well, and sometimes even achieve a price "premium" seeing as VW is perceived as a high quality brand.

p.s. I'd personally prefer a 1.6 Focus too, or ideally a 2.5

Ah yes the legendarily slow 1.4 golf. Heavy car/small weak engine...the worst of both worlds. If i had to choose between either i'd take the ford in heartbeat. Slow but reliable.

Im driving a 1.4 engine car at the moment but its one of better ones. Corolla vvti. Its a nippy enough little yoke. Its a bit of a downsize for me as my last car was a 3.0 litre td & before that a twin turbo 2 litre. The corolla although a bit of a fisherprice car has decent lump in it.

Henry Ford III

RoverJames wrote: »

1.4 Golf is also dirt.
Anyone who had the misfortune of driving a 1.4 Focus for any period of time can testify that the engine is woeful if you are not a granny. Sink the shoe and there is nothing there even when flat out. They are almost as slow as a 1.1 Mark 3 fiesta.

A bit OTT don't you think.

A 1.4 Focus/Golf might not be your personal cup of tea, but that doesn't mean it's "dirt".

If a prospective purchaser doesn't rate performance as a priority then either of these cars might suit them well enough.

Many here wouldn't have the slightest interest in an archaic v6 automatic with an insatiable thirst, from a defunct manufacturer, or wearing slippers and a smoking jacket, but just don't mouth off all the time about it here.

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Many wouldn't have the slightest interest in an archaic v6 automatic with an insatiable thirst, or wearing slippers and a smoking jacket, but they don't mouth off all the time about it here.

The irony is you constantly throw in the Rover/MG digs at every oppurtunity, so yes, you do mouth off about it here almost all the time :pac:


You recently brought it up in a topic where someone was asking advise and you then clarified you knew absolutely sweet f*** all about what the OP was asking. Of course, it wasn't surprising you knew f*** all about it, which was why I asked. And how did I know that you knew sweet f*** all about it? Several thousand posts told me;)

Yet if anyone mentions something with a blue oval badge on it is dirt you get all snotty. You would really want to grow up a bit.

Regarding the archaic V6, take away Volvo, Cosworth and Yamaha and you won't find a decent Ford engine for decades.

And about the many here, many posters here wouldn't know a wheelbrace from a CV joint and rely on Topgear, honest John and posts of other numpties on here for knowledge.

greenbamboo

yea i can see why people ar saying that the 1.4 is low on power but wudnt the 1.4 be alot easier on petrol then the 1.6 and cheaper to tax and and also cheaper to buy.what other advantages does the 1.6 have other then that extra little bit of power.it cant be that much different or am i completely wrong

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Trumped by the 1.4 VW Golf, which also has a nasty habit of drinking oil and failing completely prematurely. Oh and it also has an awful gearbox too.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

A 1.4 Focus/Golf might not be your personal cup of tea, but that doesn't mean it's "dirt".

If a prospective purchaser doesn't rate performance as a priority then either of these cars might suit them well enough.

.

And how can you describe a car as suiting anyone well enough when you say they drink oil, fail completely prematurely and have an awful gearbox?

If that's not dirt I don't know what is (allowing for the 1.4 Focus obviously)

Henry Ford III

RoverJames wrote: »

And how can you describe a car as suiting anyone well enough when you say they drink oil, fail completely prematurely and have an awful gearbox?

If that's not dirt I don't know what is (allowing for the 1.4 Focus obviously)

Because they are frequent problems with 1.4 Golfs of that era. One that doesn't have those issues might be a decent buy? They certainly sell well enough.

MrDerp

greenbamboo wrote: »

yea i can see why people ar saying that the 1.4 is low on power but wudnt the 1.4 be alot easier on petrol then the 1.6 and cheaper to tax and and also cheaper to buy.what other advantages does the 1.6 have other then that extra little bit of power.it cant be that much different or am i completely wrong

Depends on your driving needs, my good man, which you have yet to share.

I have a 1.4 focus. Its easier on petrol driving around town, up to the sweet spot of 80-85 km/h, but its a dog once you go over that. I drive 30km of motorway/national primary daily, and I drive up and down to Cork from Dublin a lot. I'm averaging 8.1l/100km, which is not far off the stated Urban figures.

The stated 0-100km/h figure is 14.4s. In practice its a little more, unless you really rev the car. I don't know if you're the type of person to name your car, but I named mine Betsy a long time ago during a particularly painful drive up a hill with passengers in the back. Betsy FFS!

I zeroed my l/100km computer driving to Cork the other day, for the craic and at 130km/h I was getting 11.5 - 12l/100km. You'd get better out of a 320i at that speed.

Smaller engine does not mean less petrol, not unless you're driving a tin can around.

If long trips are a rare for you (I do the trip to Cork about 15 times a year) and you don't drive on 100km/h roads daily, by all means tear into a 1.4 Focus. You'll enjoy the car, and its solid and has a nice interior (which is important to me, as that's what I look at twice a day).

Otherwise, don't assume 1.4 = less petrol

MrDerp

MrDerp wrote: »

I zeroed my l/100km computer driving to Cork the other day, for the craic and at 130km/h I was getting 11.5 - 12l/100km. You'd get better out of a 320i at that speed.

22mpg :eek:

Ardennes1944

get a 1.4 88hp astra, simples. had one for 4months and it is very nippy

EPM

RJ and HF - Enough please

RoverJames wrote: »

And about the many here, many posters here wouldn't know a wheelbrace from a CV joint and rely on Topgear, honest John and posts of other numpties on here for knowledge.

Right, not letting this one go as it's not the first time you've made a comment like this on here. You have to remember that this is a public forum and people can contribute at will. You can discuss or question posts all you wish but broad insults are not on and you know it.

EPM

EPM wrote: »

Right, not letting this one go as it's not the first time you've made a comment like this on here. You have to remember that this is a public forum and people can contribute at will. You can discuss or question posts all you wish but broad insults are not on and you know it.

Indeed, I'd like to apologise to anyone who took offence from that comment, it was uncalled for and unneccessary.

Ardennes1944

RoverJames wrote: »

Indeed, I'd like to apologise to anyone who took offence from that comment, it was uncalled for and unneccessary.

lickarse

C4Kid

don't assume 1.4 = less petrol

I think I read somewhere, a small engine working hard may consume as much if not more petrol than a bigger engine at lower revs.

L-M

MrDerp wrote: »

I zeroed my l/100km computer driving to Cork the other day, for the craic and at 130km/h I was getting 11.5 - 12l/100km. You'd get better out of a 320i at that speed.

a 320I is designed for driving at that speed. Try driving a 320 around town and you'll know all about it . Not a fair comparison IMO.

+1 on the 1.4's being dead, they're hilariously slow and the newer (05 on) are even worse!

At a guess I'd say the 1.6 would be better, it's less of a struggle to pull the car around and would be better at motorway speeds as well!