MK1 Focus - 1.6 vs 1.8, performance and economy
Discussion
Parents had a mk1 1.6 years ago, was a decent all rounder. Engine was smooth, performance was ample, only 100bhp but fine for normal driving. I've had a couple of snotter Escort GTI's with the 1.8 Zetec, probably not the same engine that the Focus gets, but only had 115bhp, to be honest, comparing the 2 cars, the Escort was probably a bit lighter so felt more sprightly but there wasn't a huge amount in it. The Focus never really felt short on power for normal day to day driving though, it's only when going for an overtake on an uphill stretch of motorway where you might have to drop a gear to make any decent progress.
hairykrishna said:
I had the 2.0, it certainly wasn't quick and it drank fuel. If I was going to have another Focus I'd have the 1.6
My Mk1 2.0 wasn't particularly slow. It was (if you drove it hard) as quick as a Mk2 2.0 TDCI 130, but typically did 32mpg ...and 33mpg if you were careful.ie. It didn't really make much difference.
To actually answer the original post. from someone who's owned both, neither car is particularly good on fuel, but on a long motorway drive at reasonable speeds, things get better.
Go for the Zetec over the LX or Ghia as the handling is much better and you will realise why the Mk I Focus was so successful.
1.8 is quite sprightly whereas the 1.6 is "acceptable".
Go for the Zetec over the LX or Ghia as the handling is much better and you will realise why the Mk I Focus was so successful.
1.8 is quite sprightly whereas the 1.6 is "acceptable".
MC Bodge said:
rb5er said:
The 2.0 is the one to go for. Same economy as the 1.8 but with more punch.
...It was the accepted wisdom at the time that the 2.0 wasn't significantly faster than the 1.8, but more thirsty...I've had both the 1.6 and the 1.8
The smaller engine was noticeably more economical but less able to pick back up with traffic on the motorway in stop / start conditions.
As someone said, they're sluggish and need stick stirring.
The 1.8 had frustratingly poor economy but I found it easier to live with on the motorway.
Out of the two I would go for the 1.8.
The smaller engine was noticeably more economical but less able to pick back up with traffic on the motorway in stop / start conditions.
As someone said, they're sluggish and need stick stirring.
The 1.8 had frustratingly poor economy but I found it easier to live with on the motorway.
Out of the two I would go for the 1.8.
Owned a 1.8 and 2.0 and briefly driven a 1.6. All in Zetec form.
2.0 was the fastest, but 30 MPG and band K VED makes it pricey to run for its average performance.
1.8 seemed revvier than the 2.0. Whereas the 2.0 seemed lazier and "torquier".
The 1.6 was fine, but lacked urgency.
My choice would be the 1.8. The only advantage of the 2.0 over the 1.8 was that it came with rear discs as standard and seemed to handle better with bigger, wider wheels.
My 1.8 did have rear discs, but they were an option, most had drums.
Expect low to mid 30s mpg for the 1.8.
2.0 was the fastest, but 30 MPG and band K VED makes it pricey to run for its average performance.
1.8 seemed revvier than the 2.0. Whereas the 2.0 seemed lazier and "torquier".
The 1.6 was fine, but lacked urgency.
My choice would be the 1.8. The only advantage of the 2.0 over the 1.8 was that it came with rear discs as standard and seemed to handle better with bigger, wider wheels.
My 1.8 did have rear discs, but they were an option, most had drums.
Expect low to mid 30s mpg for the 1.8.
I had a 2.0 ghia - best car I've owned. As others have said around 32mpg. I drove a couple of 1.8's and would concur that the engine was slightly "revier" than the 2.0. The gearbox in the 1.8 was also slightly nicer (ib5? as opposed to the mtx75 in the 2.0). However I much preferred the power delivery of the 2.0 as it would pick up much better from low revs.
A couple of simple mods free them up a bit as well - I had an st170 intake box and snorkel as well as the 4-2-1 manifold sports cat and exhaust (all slightly bigger bore) and it was making about 145 instead of the standard 130. It was also making slightly more torque at 151 lbft. The 1.6 is a lot more limited in options for this as it is a completely different design to the 1.8/2.0 - I think the 1.6 is a Yamaha design??)
I retrofitted rear discs as the rear always felt light when breaking heavily - seemed to cure it although it may have been placebo/knackered drums.
The Zetec did handle better (different dampers iirc) however ford did an official eibach kit that was excellent - very slight drop, 30mm I think - but transformed the ghia.
A couple of simple mods free them up a bit as well - I had an st170 intake box and snorkel as well as the 4-2-1 manifold sports cat and exhaust (all slightly bigger bore) and it was making about 145 instead of the standard 130. It was also making slightly more torque at 151 lbft. The 1.6 is a lot more limited in options for this as it is a completely different design to the 1.8/2.0 - I think the 1.6 is a Yamaha design??)
I retrofitted rear discs as the rear always felt light when breaking heavily - seemed to cure it although it may have been placebo/knackered drums.
The Zetec did handle better (different dampers iirc) however ford did an official eibach kit that was excellent - very slight drop, 30mm I think - but transformed the ghia.
a7x88 said:
A couple of simple mods free them up a bit as well - I had an st170 intake box and snorkel as well as the 4-2-1 manifold sports cat and exhaust (all slightly bigger bore) and it was making about 145 instead of the standard 130. It was also making slightly more torque at 151 lbft.
It's a lot of faff & expense for gaining a little with a fairly old Ford, when you could just buy a Mk3 Mondeo 2.0. It's probably best to leave the engine alone and make sure that the brakes and suspension are working well.a7x88 said:
I retrofitted rear discs as the rear always felt light when breaking heavily - seemed to cure it although it may have been placebo/knackered drums.
I'm not sure how rear discs would have helped.Thanks all, test drove a couple, a 2002 1.8 with 70k miles, speedo worked intermittently (so dunno what the true mileage was) and felt knackered. Conked out 3 times when pulling up at lights and roundabout etc. Then drove a 2004 1.6 with 80k miles which felt much better, tighter and didn't conk out which is a good start! A bit tatty though.
I then saw another which was much better condition all round but with 90k miles and cost a couple of £100 more than the other two.
question is, should I be worried about mileage really? Obviously if one is at 60k miles vs 120k miles but when they're a bit closer perhaps I shouldn't worry too much?
I then saw another which was much better condition all round but with 90k miles and cost a couple of £100 more than the other two.
question is, should I be worried about mileage really? Obviously if one is at 60k miles vs 120k miles but when they're a bit closer perhaps I shouldn't worry too much?
heisthegaffer said:
question is, should I be worried about mileage really? Obviously if one is at 60k miles vs 120k miles but when they're a bit closer perhaps I shouldn't worry too much?
Buy on condition / service history, not mileage. Having said that, my 1.6 has past 120k and does feel a bit tired, but that might be down to the nasty budget front tyres (disturbing levels of understeer at 25-30mph in the damp this morning). No rust, drives reasonably well. Some new tyres, bushes and trackrods might transform it, but I can't be bothered given the value of the car. I managed to squeeze just under 500 miles from a tank, so 45-46mpg, mostly motorway with some enthusiastic B-road driving too. My brother has a 1.8, pulls much better from low revs, but he claims only 300 miles from a tank.Also - avoid the one with the intermittent speedo problem. It's a sensor in the gearbox that can be a total nightmare to remove. Walk away.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff