I am considering replacing my current car ('99 Almera) with something newer. Really I'd like another MX-5 but as I need to be able to transport bikes and want sensible running costs, it looks like it will have to be another small family hatchback or estate.
The obvious choice is the Focus but I've never driven one so would appreciate your views on the various engine options, i.e. how they are too drive and their relibility.
I'm ruling out the 1.4 petrols as too slow & the newer 1.6/2.0 diesels because they are too expensive relative to the petrols (I only do about 6000 miles per year), so that leaves:
1.6 (100) - plenty around
1.6 (115) - looks good on paper for performance/economy
1.8 - doesn't seem to offer any advantage over 1.6 (115)
2.0 - a bit quicker but hopefully still reasonable economy, not so to choose from though.
1.8TDCi - would prefer petrol but might consider one, how reliable are these?
|
The TDCI can be quite expensive if things go wrong, they have a dual flywheel too I think. If you don't need a diesel then the petrols are much cheaper in terms of repairs. The 1.8 apparantly has quite a bit more torque on the motorway but I have not driven either. I don't know anything about the 1.6 115bhp engine but I would imagine it would be more stressed than a 1.8 at the same power?
You probably want to go to for the simplist engine.
|
|
The Focus is rated very highly in the german reliability reports (TUV and ADAC). I never really warmed to the Mk2 version which seem rather dull compared to the Mk1, but my choice of engine would be the 1.8 125bhp petrol, though the 1.6 115bhp version is also ok. I would recommend the 6 speed gearbox in any case, though don't know how many buyers opted for this in the petrol engined cars. I find the TDCI versions very easy to stall in stop start city driving.
|
The 1.6 TDCI 110 bhp diesel does not stall as above - I found the other Ford TDCI`s did - so avoided.
In fact the 1.6 diesel was punted by HJ as the "pick of the bunch" and after 18 months with an `05 Estate I`d agree absolutely.
I`m not quite so keen on the Focus 2 itself, and if this engine had been available in the older model, I`d have gone for that. Focus 2 is noisy due to the lack of any sound-proofing, over-wide low profile tyres (to get that whizzo handling) - and because it`s such a heavy car (mine is 1.4 tonnes) Ford seem to have economised on the body work, which reverberates like a drum.
For a low mileage (less than 8000 miles/year) deal, I`d go for a Focus 1 Estate if findable, with a 1.6 petrol engine, and to hell with the mileage. My earlier Fords all did well over 150,000 miles, no major problems, the best (a 1992 2.0 litre Sierra Ghia 4x4 Estate) did 260,000 and still ran like a watch when the happy new owner drove it away last year. (He was a mini-cab owner bored to sobs by his Mondeo `04 2.0 litre TDCI Estate - for hire and reward; but no fun)
The motor media do not always have it right.
AS
Edited by Webmaster on 05/02/2009 at 00:40
|
|
|
merganser,
There are a few people on here who are well happy with their Focuses.
My 1.8TDCi has provided 80,000 trouble free and enjoyable miles.
You're probably better off with a petrol if you are only doing 6,000 miles a year.
Go and have a test drive, I bet you'll be impressed.
|
|
OK, I think I'll stick with petrol. I was only considering the 1.8TDCi because it seems to cost much the same as the petrol versions.
|
|
|
Either of the 1.6 petrols engines would be a good choice, they are the cheapest to run and own out of the ones you've listed. The 1.6 TDCi (109ps) is the best diesel option.
Take a couple of test drives as they'll help you decide. Plenty of Focus II cars around so lots of choice is available.
|
When we bought our (facelift) Focus 1, we had the choice of the 1.8TDCi or a similar looking 1.6 petrol. The diesel had bags of grunt - but was £2k dearer. We worked out that getting the diesel wouldn't start to make sense until after 15k miles per annum (as at 5 years ago), so we opted for the 1.6 petrol. We've no regrets at all, though I can't tell you if it's the 100 or 115ps model. Is it possible to do this just by examining the engine??? I'd like to know.
Ours averages about 38mpg and, on a run can easily do 43-44mpg. Short runs and higher speeds significantly reduce fuel efficiency. Friends who run 1.8/2.0 petrols say that they 'go like the proverbial', but are definitely thirstier.
|
|
I believe the 115hp 1.6 has a cam belt, whereas all other petrols have chain driven cams. A look under the bonnet should reveal which it is.
Edited by merganser on 04/02/2009 at 22:42
|
Did the 'facelift' Mk 1 1.6 also have the belt cam engine i.e., ours is a Sept '02 reg (52)? At what point did that change?
Yes. HJ
Thanks
Edited by Honestjohn on 05/02/2009 at 10:49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my experience of owning two 2 litre petrol Mk 1 Focuses in succession, I recommend the 2 litre petrol version. Effortless driving with reasonable economy. The average fuel consumption of my current car ~ driven spiritedly ~ over a distance of 42,000 miles is 37.4 mpg. That's a genuine figure based on total mileage travelled and total petrol used.
|
Sounds good, for the sake of 4 or 5 mpg, I'd prefer the 2.0.
OK, so I think my preference would be the 2.0 if I can find one or the 1.6 (115) or 1.8 if I can't.
|
|
By comparison, the best I've measured on SWMBO's Mk1 1.6 auto is 37 - on a 400 mile round trip to Liverpool, steady 75 (indicated).
|
|
Worth taking into consideration, the 2.0 petrol is higher insurance and VED, and parts slightly more costly than 1.6, plus town/city fuel consumption will be significantly higher with a 2.0.
|
|
Just read somewhere that some Ford 2.0 petrols have dual mass flywheels, does anyone know if this is the case with the Focus?
|
|
|
........... town/city fuel consumption will be significantly higher with a 2.0.
The fuel consumption that really matters is the overall average, and as I said my Mk 1 gives a very respectable (and genuine) 37.4 mpg.
Edited by L'escargot on 06/02/2009 at 06:17
|
|
Ah, but don't forget, the 1.6 has an alloy sump whereas the 1.8 & 2.0 have rust-susceptible pressed steel sumps (at least, on the Mk 1) ;-)
|
Ah but don't forget the 1.6 has an alloy sump whereas the 1.8 & 2.0 have rust-susceptible pressed steel sumps (at least on the Mk 1) ;-)
That's very true, but mine isn't leaking yet! I'm going to leave it well alone until it actually starts to drip oil onto the ground, then it will get a new sump asap.
|
The 1.6 Ti-VCT is the best engine. It likes to rev though so may not suit everyone.
Regarding the comment about the Focus' handling. It's nothing to do with tyre sizes, I've driven plenty of cars on 16s and 17s that have handled like a manky blancmange. The reason that the Focus handles so well is down to its elaborate multi-linked rear suspension whereas some other manufacturers continue with the torsion beam arrangement which is much harder to 'tune'.
Edited by The Melting Snowman on 08/02/2009 at 18:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
