Ford Focus 1.8 Zetec - Car #2
Discussion
It appears I was wrong, it was variable cam timing that the Zetec engines had at that time. But even then, it wasn't anywhere near as a dramtic as a VTEC system or a Toyota VVT-i lift profile. It just seemed to make a slight but noticeable swell in power, past the start of the power band for each gear which is what made me investigate the engine in the first place, to see what was responsible for this sudden surge* in power.
- I use this term very loosely because it really wasn't very powerful at all.
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj said:
Baryonyx said:
The funny thing is, with regard to the 2.0L mentioned above, is that it really wasn't much faster than even the slow 1.6! But the petrol consumption was much higher. We used to have one as a fleet car at work, which ended up going the distance, but no more were purchased after (the one we had was a demo). When they got the feedback from the drivers, they weren't really that much more impressed with it than they were with the 1.6, and the 1.4 was considered 'adequate'. I think the problem was when they went back through the petrol receipts for the 2.0, they found the it was often doing about 21-22mpg when it was pushed and that was not acceptable from a Focus!
Fuel consumption is poor but it is a lot faster than teh 1.6. The 1.6 takes a bout a week to get to 60.The 2.0 litre does it in 9 seconds.
0a said:
It always seems people say not to get the 2.0. A friend has one and I have to admit it doesn't seem very fast or refined compared to the 1.6s I have been in (though it's hard to tell as I have not driven it). Is it an old unit?
I couldn't comment on the history of the two litre engine, but the accepted wisdom seems to be to give it a miss. As I say, the 2.0L car we got at work was very thirsty and very slow. Even though it came out a time when the world was less obsessed with economy, it still must have been criticised for being thirsty with little power return. My MX5 was much the same way; very thirsty and not very powerful (29mpg of thereabouts from a 1.6) but in that car you were always charging for the red line and it responded best to being driven hard. Given the associated costs of the 2.0L engine, I'd avoid those Focii and go for another 1.6 Zetec if I were buying another. I suppose some people may buy into the two litre engine, feeling that it will give their Focus a bit of grunt but it really does not deliver in that respect. There is a more noticeable difference between the 1.4 and 1.6 Focus engines than there is between the 1.6 and the 2.0!The Mk1/1.5 Focus 1.8 and 2.0 are from the old Zetec-E range of 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 litre engines. Iron block, alloy 16v DOHC head. Essentially a CVH with a more modern head.
The Mk1/1.5 Focus 1.4 and 1.6 are from the Zetec-SE range of 1.25, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.7 engines. All alloy, plastic inlet on most variants, very zingy.
Only ones with variable cam timing were the 1.7 used exclusively in the Puma, and a 1.6 version used in the Mk2 Focus and Mk7 Fiesta.
The Mk1/1.5 Focus 1.4 and 1.6 are from the Zetec-SE range of 1.25, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.7 engines. All alloy, plastic inlet on most variants, very zingy.
Only ones with variable cam timing were the 1.7 used exclusively in the Puma, and a 1.6 version used in the Mk2 Focus and Mk7 Fiesta.
Baryonyx said:
It appears I was wrong, it was variable cam timing that the Zetec engines had at that time. But even then, it wasn't anywhere near as a dramtic as a VTEC system or a Toyota VVT-i lift profile. It just seemed to make a slight but noticeable swell in power, past the start of the power band for each gear which is what made me investigate the engine in the first place, to see what was responsible for this sudden surge* in power.
VCT is just VVT with another name, (but without cam lift like vtec or VVTiL).- I use this term very loosely because it really wasn't very powerful at all.
I had a 2000 2.0 Zetec ESP(!) Estate with its (then)big 16" rims, when that was the sportiest one there was.
Handling was great with sharp steering, good grip and very predictable understeer and oversteer.
The brakes were a bit poor though.
The 2.0 wasn't particularly revvy or powerful and only managed 32mpg on a run, no matter how carefully it was driven (FWIW, My TDCI 130 Mondeo has similar performance with far better economy)
-The 1.8 is only slightly slower, but less thirsty.
I "ported"/reamed out the throttle body to remove the constriction in the body and make the inside bore more round. It improved the pedal travel:response curve a lot. (You need to build up the outside with JB Weld first, Porting Throttle Body )
In contrast, I used a 1.4 CL saloon whilst working in Ireland for a while and it was horrible in comparison.
A 1.6 I drove had very tall gearing.
I reckon a 1.8 Zetec is the one to go for.
Handling was great with sharp steering, good grip and very predictable understeer and oversteer.
The brakes were a bit poor though.
The 2.0 wasn't particularly revvy or powerful and only managed 32mpg on a run, no matter how carefully it was driven (FWIW, My TDCI 130 Mondeo has similar performance with far better economy)
-The 1.8 is only slightly slower, but less thirsty.
I "ported"/reamed out the throttle body to remove the constriction in the body and make the inside bore more round. It improved the pedal travel:response curve a lot. (You need to build up the outside with JB Weld first, Porting Throttle Body )
In contrast, I used a 1.4 CL saloon whilst working in Ireland for a while and it was horrible in comparison.
A 1.6 I drove had very tall gearing.
I reckon a 1.8 Zetec is the one to go for.
Edited by MC Bodge on Wednesday 7th December 14:44
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff