2009.5 Mondeo v 2010 Focus

It has 66bhp/tonne, its not going to effortlessly waft its way to Motorway speeds with the minimum of fuss is it? It's about as powerful as a Corsa 1.2!
 
Going around in circles now. It gets to 70 quicker than almost anything I've ever driven - certainly quicker than pretty much anything I've owned. It's fine to me, very likeable drive. It's a luxobarge rather than a hot hatch, I actually enjoy its slow but sure driving style.

Get a Fabia? I know you were being fatuous, but I'm 6'5" - I didn't get the Superb because it was "omg so refined and awesome", I got it because it's cheap, economical, and it suits me physically. It's a Motability car, not a £40k finance deal.

Really, what's the problem? You hate the engine, I get that. But I'm over the moon with my new car, and I've driven it under varying conditions TWICE. I love it. Do you really have to keep on peeing on my parade because the engine is "only good to Rainmaker not to Fox"? :\

It may only have 66bph/tonne, but it's a derv not a petrol. It has bags of torque, nicely delivered (for my liking). It pulls fine, so meh.
 
[TW]Fox;17560185 said:
I love cars, so it rages me to see a great car ruined.
Click to expand...

In your subjective (not to mention diesel hating) opinion, yes. Whereas in mine, this car and engine are great. So quit the hating, unless you fancy stumping up a couple of grand so I can get the 170bhp 2 litre common rail. :p
 
The jetta probably doesn't have much more power per tonne and in 6 hours of driving I don't think I ever used more than 50% throttle or exceeded 3000rpm. That's not even remotely struggling. I even picked up a friend in it after I got back, who said "woagh, this is WAY quicker than your honda" when I pulled out of a junction quickly - that's a lighter car with about 140bhp.

To you it's a great cat ruined because you don't like the engine - to someone less bothered about having a silky smooth 6 cylinder petrol, its just a great car.
 
Fox I'm not really getting your complaint. It's a proven and reliable engine, perfectly capable of shifting a car from AtoB. I did thousands and thousands of miles in a 98 Golf TDI and the engine has improved a lot since then!

Also - I managed to get about 65mpg on a run from Edinburgh to Southampton in my 98 Golf. I'm sure 70mpg is easily achievable with the newer cars that have PD technology, lower rolling resistance, lower drag etc.

Besides you're less likely to run someone over with a 1.9TDI because people think 'oh pants a massive van is coming'
 
[TW]Fox;17560309 said:
Why have any engine progress then, lets just keep buying 90's engines for ever.
Click to expand...

Of course there are better engines but they cost more!

I personally wouldn't buy it, because I owned a 3.0V6 which I could sit in and when the car was in neutral the rev-needle had to reach about 2500rpm before I could audibly detect ANY extra noise over idle. I loved that engine and am not sure I could ever go back to diesel. But - the OP LIKES the tractor noise. I know someone else who is like that, enjoys the 'agricultural' feel.
 
[TW]Fox;17560309 said:
Why have any engine progress then, lets just keep buying 90's engines for ever.
Click to expand...

Until I win the lottery? Probably. Which is exactly my point. I've enjoyed picking out a car that I like, only to spend the next hour getting told what a shed it is by someone who is telling me stuff I already knew.

12 seconds 0-60, cracking economy whichever way you look at it, 'Superb' size and comfort. Do I really care whether the engine is 10 years old? My last car was 16 seconds 0-60, struggled to hit 45mpg and that was a 'brand new' HDi 'refined and progressive' engine.

I know what I got, and I'm happy. You'll just have to accept that. Oh and according to online sources, the Greenline is indeed lighter than standard.

AutoExpress said:
The Skoda Superb has already lived up to its name, meeting rivals such as the Ford Mondeo, Audi A4 and BMW 5-Series head-on. Now, to improve its fortunes further, the Czech firm has given it the fuel-sipping Greenline treatment, too!

Combined economy has rocketed to 55.4mpg and CO2 is slashed to 136g/km. But do the eco tweaks compromise this accomplished car?

Power comes from the same 105bhp 1.9-litre turbodiesel as in the standard Superb. Yet a raft of subtle changes have cut fuel consumption by 12 per cent and emissions by 10 per cent.

By replacing the full-size spare wheel with foam sealant, Skoda has reduced the weight by 13kg to 1,443kg. An ECU remap, higher gearing (without affecting the 0-62mph time) and low rolling resistance tyres help the car go further on a tank of fuel, as do lowered suspension and a new aerodynamic spoiler.

Thankfully, the smooth driving experience largely remains. The engine is a little noisier at idle, but on the move it’s refined and sharp throttle response helps the car feel quicker than its meagre power output suggests. Despite its lower springs, the Greenline still absorbs bumps in the road without fuss, making it perfect for motorway cruising.

The newcomer’s strict diet can take the credit for some of this comfort. In regular trim, the Superb is already quite a light machine, but less weight means less energy for the suspension to keep control of – and even small changes can make a big difference to a car’s character.

Shedding some kilos has sharpened up the handling, too. You could be forgiven for thinking you’re driving a Fabia supermini, rather than Skoda’s big saloon.
Click to expand...
 
Besides - owning a REALLY creamy engine is a bit like having that really hot girlfriend too early on. If you date utter mingers when you are young you are very content perfectly moving up the ladder.

If however you date an utter stunner you become severly limited in your choices and if you date less hot girls you are CONSTANTLY thinking about the one that got away.

So - with engines - get the worst one you are happy with. Then in the future you'll only be pleasantly surprised :)
 
Interesting thread, sounds like the Superb is a no brainer regarding comfort.

I totally get what Fox is trying to say here. A new 2.0 TDI engine in that car would add refinement, smoother power delivery, and more than likely in every state of tune more performance. It's completely reasonable for Fox to say its mad that an engine that old is a bizarre choice in a 2010 car.

Lets not remember that in 1997 just a year before this engine was released everyone was still in awe at the XUDT peugeot mechanical pump diesel engines. Reliable? most definately, Good Fuel Economy? certainly, A better choice than the replacement 2.0 HDI engine? ....no.
 
Has anyone here actually compared the 1.9 and 2.0 side by side?

Unless out 2.0 is broken, there's really not that much between them. Yes, there's technically a lot of difference and I'd have the 2.0, but the difference really isn't that pronounced
 
I didn't test drive the 2.0 because there was no point in my case. It was the 1.9 105ps Superb or the 2.0 163ps Mondeo. Naturally the Mondeo shifted, but that's comparing apples to oranges in my eyes. The Superb is a cruiser not a hot hatch, and it moves very well. Granted the Mondeo was a cracking drive, but I had much more room and more enjoyment overall from the Superb, 1.9 or not.

That's all I was trying to say - I know the engine, I know what I've got, and I still chose it for a reason. I don't care about anything else. If I just wanted a more 'refined' or 'better' engine I'd have taken the Mondeo. As it was, I preferred the experience of the Superb. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom