Focus 1.8 or 2ltr

scratch · 21 Jul 2011 at 10:43

Hi guys, just a quick question!

The gf is looking at Focus's, the 1.8 in particular, but I'm sure I've seen mention on here that the 2ltr makes more sense? I've done a quick search and can't find any relevant info so could somebody please advise?

Ta,
Andy

Gaygle · 21 Jul 2011 at 10:46

2 litre.

IIRC - the 1.8 is thirsty, but not particularly fast. The 2.0l has the right performance to match the economy.

Morba · 21 Jul 2011 at 10:48

I remember hearing the same as Gagyle, 2ltr makes more sense

Benihana · 21 Jul 2011 at 10:48

Are you looking at the MK2's?

scratch · 21 Jul 2011 at 10:50

Thanks for the info so far guys, seems to match what I thought.

It's the mk1 she's looking at.

DBT85 · 21 Jul 2011 at 10:52

scratch said:
Thanks for the info so far guys, seems to match what I thought.

It's the mk1 she's looking at.

I do like the MK1, but then I have one so I'm biased

Only the 1.6 though. Great fun on my own or even with 1 passenger but needs more when full.

Liquidfox · 21 Jul 2011 at 11:49

I had a 2L for a while. Extremely thirsty considering it was only 130bhp! Think I averaged around 25mpg, with mid 30's on a long run. However i did have a bit of a lead foot

blun · 21 Jul 2011 at 11:51

I had a 2L for 5 years - it was an excellent car. Agree it was thirsty for its power, but it is quite an old engine design. Given the fact that it was faultlessly reliable I would let it off on being 5mpg worse that it should have been

valkia · 21 Jul 2011 at 11:52

I have the ultra rare 1.4 CL. AKA the unknown, unwanted and unpopular edition. Selling up soon to buy something more powerful and looking at a 2L too.

Imy · 21 Jul 2011 at 12:04

I got the 2L but am tempted by the ST170 which doesn't look much worse for economy.

peterattheboro · 21 Jul 2011 at 12:08

Imy said:
I got the 2L but am tempted by the ST170 which doesn't look much worse for economy.

It is worse and also insurance is ridiculous on it. Nice car but totally pointless.

Imy · 21 Jul 2011 at 12:13

Got to admit I haven't looked at the insurance for it. I pay around £300 for the 2.0l full comp. I average 26.4mpg so what could I expect from the ST170?

shaank · 21 Jul 2011 at 12:16

hmmm had a 1.8 focus MK1 for 4 months or so, hated it after owning a similar specced MK4 Astra to be honest, engine lacked the power and torque the astra had, not a huge difference, but just not as good IMO. Get the 2.0L

peterattheboro · 21 Jul 2011 at 12:27

Imy said:
Got to admit I haven't looked at the insurance for it. I pay around £300 for the 2.0l full comp. I average 26.4mpg so what could I expect from the ST170?

You should get around that from an ST170 but it sounds like you have a heavy foot so expect worse. I had about 32 average from a 2.0L Focus. I had 24 mpg from an ST220.

I seriously would consider an ST220 over an ST170 as you get more space, more toys and more power for the little more it costs to run.

Ohh and learn to drive economically

Imy · 21 Jul 2011 at 12:56

Fortunately I don't need anything as big as a Mondeo right now. Looks like it would cost a fair amount more to run than the ST170.

To the OP: get the 2.0l - I've had mine for 6 years; it's a good car. You'll start hitting problems at around 85k miles so get one well below or one that's had a fair amount of work done to it. Parts/repairs are reasonable.

kidloco · 21 Jul 2011 at 13:11

Imy said:
I got the 2L but am tempted by the ST170 which doesn't look much worse for economy.

Dont do it. Got rid on my ST170 last year. Was thirsty as hell and the replaceables were very expensive for a car of its type. Discs, pads etc were very pricy for a focus. Wouldnt of minded all of the above if it was quick, but it wasnt. DMF failiers are pretty common on them as well. Mine was just showing the early signs so I got rid quickly.

Other than all that it was a nice solid car, well screwed togethe with no squeks or creeks.

Imy · 21 Jul 2011 at 14:36

TBH I don't know a whole lot about the ST170. I always thought as it was only a bit faster than a regular 2.0l that it'd just have a few tweaks under the bonnet but pretty much the same car otherwise. The economy rating was similar too on paper.

I'm no stranger to having to replace stuff on the Focus... cambelt, thermostat housing, clutch, alternator, battery, exhaust, rear seatbelt assembly (which never got used) plus the usual wear n tear suspects. Fortunately nothing too expensive has needed replacing yet and most were expected given I push the car somewhat.

The engine and gear box (touch wood) have been fantastic though but when one of those die I was going to get a low mileage ST170 if I needed something in a hurry. You've put me in 2 minds over that now!

Sin_Chase · 21 Jul 2011 at 14:40

I picked the 1.8 over the 2.0.

Different gearbox in the 2.0 over the 1.6 and 1.8 models although this is largely irrelevant. I think the difference in power between a 1.8 and 2.0 is about 17BHP. The difference in performance is pretty marginal to be honest. Buy on condition and spec. If it turns out to be a 1.8 I don't think that should stop you buying one just because it's not a 2.0.

Imy · 21 Jul 2011 at 14:52

Not driven the 1.8 but on paper at least here are the key differences:

1.8 | 0-62 in 10.3s | 37.2mpg | Group 7 | £210 road tax
2.0 | 0-62 in 9.3s | 32.5mpg | Group 10 | £260 road tax (or £215 pre-Mar 2001 reg)

Source: AutoTrader

Chris. · 21 Jul 2011 at 14:54

scratch said:
Thanks for the info so far guys, seems to match what I thought.

It's the mk1 she's looking at.

If shes looking at getting a mk1 2.0l she may as well go for an ST170. They aren't much more, solid runners, and have a much better interior, and you can get so much more for your money.