Focus - 1.6 and 2.0 OK engines?
- Thread starter stoofa
- Start date
The 1.6 and the 1.8 are near enough the same engines in terms of performance, the only noticable difference you will see is that the 1.8 is slightly faster when putting your foot down and the 1.8 returns around 35mpg. In terms of 0-60 the only difference between the 2 engines is only 0.5 of a second.
The 1.6 belongs to a different family of the Zetec engines (Yamaha), but the 1.8 and the 2.0 versions both come from the same family of Zetec engines (Mazda).
From what I have read on other people's previous experiences, for the total power go for the 2.0 engine but you will only acheive around 30mpg at the best but for economy go for the 1.6 - I have the 1.6 version on my Focus and on my last holiday trip the best I acheived was 41mpg and the car was packed with 2 extra people and loads of holiday luggage.
Yes the 1.6 isn't the fastest engine but it does pull well and I'm happy with it, it isn't a slow as some people make out IMO. If I was to get another Focus again I would go for the 2.0 version.
Edit - I have just realised that the OP is after a MK2 focus, and I've been talking about the MK1 engines - so the info I have given is really about the MK1's - my bad sorry!!!
Liam
The 1.6 belongs to a different family of the Zetec engines (Yamaha), but the 1.8 and the 2.0 versions both come from the same family of Zetec engines (Mazda).
From what I have read on other people's previous experiences, for the total power go for the 2.0 engine but you will only acheive around 30mpg at the best but for economy go for the 1.6 - I have the 1.6 version on my Focus and on my last holiday trip the best I acheived was 41mpg and the car was packed with 2 extra people and loads of holiday luggage.
Yes the 1.6 isn't the fastest engine but it does pull well and I'm happy with it, it isn't a slow as some people make out IMO. If I was to get another Focus again I would go for the 2.0 version.
Edit - I have just realised that the OP is after a MK2 focus, and I've been talking about the MK1 engines - so the info I have given is really about the MK1's - my bad sorry!!!
Liam
Last edited:
Permabanned
I've driven the 100bhp 1.6, the 1.8 and own the 115 1.6.
The 100bhp 1.6 engine is woeful in the MK2.
The 115bhp 1.6 VCT engine is fine, however. Ok, it isn't going to blow your mind, but for what a Focus is generally used for, it is more than ample. No issues with four passengers, either.
That said, the vct takes a fair old economy hit over the not-vct. It isn't far off the 1.8 for its economy figures, which makes the 1.8 seem like a slightly better prospect as that little extra torque certainly helps.
The 100bhp 1.6 engine is woeful in the MK2.
The 115bhp 1.6 VCT engine is fine, however. Ok, it isn't going to blow your mind, but for what a Focus is generally used for, it is more than ample. No issues with four passengers, either.
That said, the vct takes a fair old economy hit over the not-vct. It isn't far off the 1.8 for its economy figures, which makes the 1.8 seem like a slightly better prospect as that little extra torque certainly helps.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,898
The 1.6 Ti-VCT is fine in the Mk2 Focus, the standard 1.6 is a bit lethargic. Only thing is it's a bit revvy at motorway speeds so there is some engine noise.
The VCT has better fuel economy and lower C02 emissions on paper, so I'm not sure what MikeHiow has based his assertion that the economy takes a big hit over the standard 1.6. I've run my Mum's round a bit and it is noticeably more economical than the Mk1 1.8 I used to own and has been no worse than the couple of 1.6's I've had as hire cars.
The only thing to be aware of is the VCT is belt driven, the 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 petrol's are all chain driven so there is a bit of extra running cost in the belt change over the longer term.
In my experience the 2.0 engine is nothing special - it's not very economical and doesn't have great performance, similar things can be said for the 1.8 too. The only advantage of the 2.0 is you get the MTX-75 transmission which has a synchro on reverse - this does away with the annoying jolt you often get when selecting reverse on the 1.6's.
For me I'd be the 1.6 Ti-VCT or one of the diesels.
The VCT has better fuel economy and lower C02 emissions on paper, so I'm not sure what MikeHiow has based his assertion that the economy takes a big hit over the standard 1.6. I've run my Mum's round a bit and it is noticeably more economical than the Mk1 1.8 I used to own and has been no worse than the couple of 1.6's I've had as hire cars.
The only thing to be aware of is the VCT is belt driven, the 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 petrol's are all chain driven so there is a bit of extra running cost in the belt change over the longer term.
In my experience the 2.0 engine is nothing special - it's not very economical and doesn't have great performance, similar things can be said for the 1.8 too. The only advantage of the 2.0 is you get the MTX-75 transmission which has a synchro on reverse - this does away with the annoying jolt you often get when selecting reverse on the 1.6's.
For me I'd be the 1.6 Ti-VCT or one of the diesels.
Soldato
I've found not to expect more than 32mpg out of the 2.0 with a mix of all types of driving, and for it to show its true colours it needs revving to atleast 4k, seems like a lazy engine to me low down in the rev range. 
Permabanned
Perhaps the variable timing offers improvements when you are cruising, but locally which is mostly B-roads and town driving I found the non-vct to be a fair bit more economical under normal driving, by around 5 MPG. If I drive really carefully, and keep off the higher cam profile I can achieve 40+MPG over a longer trip - but normal use sees 32-34MPG.
The 115s seem to be well documented on the focus owners club for relatively poor economy.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,417
We got an 05 Focus Zetec (with climate pack) 1.6 Ti-VCT with 30,000 miles last May for 6k, so i'd imagine you could get something similar for less now. Was from Dagenham Motors.
Power wise it's the 115 PS version. It's decent enough, like someone has already said it won't blow your mind but there's enough power so you don't get embarrased at the lights by 1.0L Puntos. Fine on the motorway but it runs out steam fairly quickly.
I like it, it's a nice car to drive and has enought room for us and all our baby junk. Only bad thing is the fuel economy is atrocious for a small 1.6. I thought it was ok to begin with, but since we've done loads more driving in it we dont get more than 30 MPG in normal London driving, sometimes less and not much more than that on the motorway. And we have a baby in the back most time so we're not exactly caning it around.
Power wise it's the 115 PS version. It's decent enough, like someone has already said it won't blow your mind but there's enough power so you don't get embarrased at the lights by 1.0L Puntos. Fine on the motorway but it runs out steam fairly quickly.
I like it, it's a nice car to drive and has enought room for us and all our baby junk. Only bad thing is the fuel economy is atrocious for a small 1.6. I thought it was ok to begin with, but since we've done loads more driving in it we dont get more than 30 MPG in normal London driving, sometimes less and not much more than that on the motorway. And we have a baby in the back most time so we're not exactly caning it around.