Mk1 Focus 2litre vs 1.6 or 1.8

robj20

robj20

robj20

Soldato
Joined
9 Apr 2007
Posts
14,866
Going to be looking at one soon a Mk1, dropping to a 1.6 saves about £100 a year but since the 2 litre is about £1200 its not a massive amount.

I know the 2 litre has a few extras as standard but are they worth it, doesnt seem massivly more powerful over the 1.6?

There all going to feel slow to me anyway.
 
So worth it then i suppose. Petrol costs dont bother me in the slightest just need something cheap and reasonably pacey, currently driving a mk2 focus 1.4 and its painfull at times.
 
robj20 said:
So worth it then i suppose. Petrol costs dont bother me in the slightest just need something cheap and reasonably pacey, currently driving a mk2 focus 1.4 and its painfull at times.
Click to expand...

Petrol costs don't bother you but £100 a year is worth mentioning?

Get the 2 litre. It's only real downside compared to the smaller engines is worse efficiency, so if you don't care about fuel costs then you've answered your own question. I had a 1.6 and while its was adequate, I really yearned for a bit more ooopmh on the motorway.
 
Only reason i mentioned the insurance difference is so people know dropping to the 1.6 doesnt save much.
Looks like i will keep my eye out for a 2ltr one. Really fancied the ST170 at first but thats over £3k to insure for some bizzare reason.
 
Even though it's a 2 litre with 130bhp, it still only manages between 25-35mpg from what I found with mine. Brilliant car though :) I found they were quite rare in 3-door guise as well however.
 
Last edited:
I get about ~37mpg out of my Mk1 1.8 and it's plenty nippy enough for my needs. I pondered the 2.0 but it's pretty thirsty for not a lot more gains in performance from what I understand.
 
wait, didn't ocuk motors used to massively harp on about the 1.6 focus being the better choice over the 2.0 due to it being not much slower, lower tax band and more economical?
 
loltim said:
wait, didn't ocuk motors used to massively harp on about the 1.6 focus being the better choice over the 2.0 due to it being not much slower, lower tax band and more economical?
Click to expand...

An internet forum is a collection of people with differing opinions. It is entirely possible for some people on a forum to have different opinions from other people on the forum. The forum is not a united voice, it is a collection of different voices.

Some people might well have said the 1.6 is a better choice than a 2.0, that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with them does it? There are occasions when it is a better choice - ie if you are particularly cost concious for example.
 
Pre Facelift Stats

Code: 
Capacity 0-60 Combined MPG
1.6      10.9     40.9
1.8      10.2     36.7
2.0      9.3      32.5

None are particularly quick but to only get 32.5 mpg out of a Focus would annoy me. The 1.8 is almost pointless as it wont be noticably quicker than the 1.6 but it will be noticably less efficient.

Personally I'd get the 1.6 even though you're not particularly bothered about mpg as it's not that much slower. If you want a quick car get a quick car, a standard Focus isn't.

With the Ghia model, are there any differences in spec between the 1.6 and 2.0? My gut feeling is no, but I may be wrong.
 
Malc said:
Pre Facelift Stats

Code: 
Capacity 0-60 Combined MPG
1.6      10.9     40.9

With the Ghia model, are there any differences in spec between the 1.6 and 2.0? My gut feeling is no, but I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
My 1.6 Ghia (Mk1.5 53 reg) gets that MPG virtually guaranteed and can go up to around 44 - my average is closer to 42 on a fairly fast but twisty A road.

Had a 1.8 (Mk 1 T reg) before it and there was a slight difference in performance but nothing major... I definitely prefer the better MPG.

Spec wise my Ghia has rear parking sensors, aircon, 'quickclear' heated windscreen, alloy wheels, powered drivers seat, CD player, armrest, body coloured bumpers, grill and sill. My older 1.8 had leather seats but no CD player, arm rest or parking sensors.

Overall I can't see you getting that much more with the 2.0.

gt
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;20586394 said:
An internet forum is a collection of people with differing opinions. It is entirely possible for some people on a forum to have different opinions from other people on the forum. The forum is not a united voice, it is a collection of different voices.

Some people might well have said the 1.6 is a better choice than a 2.0, that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with them does it? There are occasions when it is a better choice - ie if you are particularly cost concious for example.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Internet lesson Tim Berners Lee:p

I was talking more of facts and figures, which previous members had often referred to. Malcs post clears it up actually, maybe I was thinking of 1.6 vs 1.8
 
I'm sure I've read about an oil problem on the 1.6 engine's...

I would go for the 1.8 Zetec 16v
 
If you're not bothered about petrol costs get the 2.0 litre. It should be noticeably quicker than the 1.6.

Or get the ST170 if you can get the insurance figure down.
 
Carrying less fuel will increase efficiency. It has to. By how much is debatable and the heavier the car, the less difference it will make per litre of fuel.

However...

Take a 1500kg car with a 50 litre tank. As Petrol is about 3/4 the density of Water, half a tank of fuel is about 18KG. 18KG as a proportion of 1500KG is about 1%. Assume weight is inversely proportional to MPG and every other variable is constant, speed, wind speed, tyre pressure, road surface etc. If you get 40 mpg then 1% is about 0.4 MPG.

So it makes a difference but it's not worth bothering about given that the other variables aren't constant and will have a much greater effect.
 
Last edited:
Malc said:
Carrying less fuel will increase efficiency. It has to. By how much is debatable and the heavier the car, the less difference it will make per litre of fuel.

However...

Take a 1500kg car with a 50 litre tank. As Petrol is about 3/4 the density of Water, half a tank of fuel is about 18KG. 18KG as a proportion of 1500KG is about 1%. Assume weight is inversely proportional to MPG and every other variable is constant, speed, wind speed, tyre pressure, road surface etc. If you get 40 mpg then 1% is about 0.4 MPG.

So it makes a difference but it's not worth bothering about given that the other variables aren't constant and will have a much greater effect.
Click to expand...

But then all of that is negated by going to petrol station X amount of times to fill up more often.

This argument has been done to death!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom