2.0 auto v. 1.6 manual? - Nickdm
I'm looking at used Focii, both petrol engines. I'd be perfectly happy with a 1.6 manual, but for similar-ish money I can get a 2.0 automatic. Will the 2-litre offer vastly better performance, or will it be sapped by the auto box? Presumably the 2.0 will also be considerably thirstier?

Car would be a second car, for rural runarounds - say 10k miles/year tops.

Any suggestions for preference?

I recall the 1.6 automatic Focuses that I used to rent on a regular basis - gutless! Presumably the 2.0 is far better...

Edited by Dynamic Dave on 29/07/2009 at 11:34

Focus 2.0 auto v. 1.6 manual? - Happy Blue!
The difference in economy will be startling! probably easily 10mpg worse I would have thought. However that may only cost you £500pa, so you pays your money.......
Focus 2.0 auto v. 1.6 manual? - L'escargot
The April 2008 Ford brochure says ..........

1.6 Duratec 5-speed manual, 0-62 mph 11.9 secs, 31-62 mph 13.3 secs in 4th, combined consumption 42.2 mpg
2.0 Duratec 4-speed automatic, 0-62 mph 10.7 secs, 31-62 mph n/a, combined consumption 35.3 mpg
Focus 2.0 auto v. 1.6 manual? - The Melting Snowman
The 1.6 ti-vct is the one to have. Bit of extra punch at about 4000rpm when the valve timing changes. Lighter than the 2.0. The 1.6 is a great balance for the chassis.