|
I've just been looking at the New Ford Focus online brochure, and it appears that there is no petrol engine size available bigger than 1.6 litre. I'm disappointed to say the least ~ unless I've got it wrong.
|
|
But isn't that a 1.6 turbo, which is at least as powerful/torquey as the old 2.0 non-turbo, as well as being more economical?
|
|
Just looking at the brochure - the 1.6 ecoboost puts out 150ps, does 0-60 in 8.6 (5 door), and has an urban mpg of 36.7, figures which as an mk1 2.0 petrol owner I can only dream about :)
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 21 Apr 11 at 19:13
|
Old 2 litre Focus.
0-60 mph 9.0 s
Power Output 128 bhp
Torque 178 Nm 131 lb-ft
Top Speed 125 mph
MPG 32
Insurance Group 17
Euro Emissions Standard III
CO2 Emissions 207 g/km
Road Tax Band K
New 1.6 Ecoboost
0-60 mph 8.3 s
Power Output 147 bhp
Torque 240 Nm 177 lb-ft
Top Speed 130 mph
MPG 47
Insurance Group 19
Euro Emissions Standard V
CO2 Emissions 139 g/km
Road Tax Band E
|
Looks good on figures, will you have a test drive in one of those L'es and report back your impressions, be interesting to hear your thoughts.
Not so many years ago when petrol turbo's were fairly common, the turbo's often had quite a short life span, combination of excess heat, driver abuse or at least lack of care and possibly oils not really good enough?..they usually seized up.
I wonder if the latest petrol turbo's will last better....this is just an idle thought and not aimed at L'es's possible car purchase.
|
>> I wonder if the latest petrol turbo's will last better....this is just an idle thought
>> and not aimed at L'es's possible car purchase.
They should be better. Turbo charged cars of yore usually relied on oil for lubrication and cooling, until they introduced water cooling, considerably lengthening the turbo's life. Also petrol engines shouldn't suffer the carbon build up that diesel turbos do from the emissions equipment like EGR valves.
|
|
My Golf GTI 1.8T has done 141k on its original turbo, and is still fine. Similarly, my previous Volvo S60 2.0T was still running fine on its original blower at 153k when I sold it. Both are ancient engine designs compared to the likes of the Ecoboost, which should be at least as durable, if not more so.
|
>> My Golf GTI 1.8T has done 141k on its original turbo
How can you be sure it's the original. My Golf GTI 1.8T had a new gearbox and turbo within the first few months. Would have been sooner but went on holiday soon after getting it for two weeks and then had to schedule it in. The problems with both were there from delivery.
My Passat 1.8T needed a new gearbox from delivery. Garage insisted the noise was turbo was that replaced first.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 22 Apr 11 at 09:27
|
>> >> My Golf GTI 1.8T has done 141k on its original turbo
>>
>> How can you be sure it's the original. My Golf GTI 1.8T had a new
>> gearbox and turbo within the first few months. Would have been sooner but went on
>> holiday soon after getting it for two weeks and then had to schedule it in.
>> The problems with both were there from delivery.
>>
>> My Passat 1.8T needed a new gearbox from delivery. Garage insisted the noise was turbo
>> was that replaced first.
>>
Obviously I can't be 100% sure, but it was a one owner car with a fully documented service history, and had receipts even for bulb and tyre changes. There is no reference to a turbo replacement anywhere.
The KKK K03 turbo on this engine is a very widely used and well proven unit.
|
.>> The KKK K03 turbo on this engine is a very widely used and well proven
>> unit.
>>
Pointy hard hats at the factory?...sorry i just had to.
|
Not saying it's not on it's original turbo. If anything was replaced under warranty you would have no receipt for it though.
And I got my facts mixed up on my Passat in my haste to post. It was the turbo faulty on the Passat but garage insisted it was gearbox. The turbo should have failed the inspection because it sounded like a jet fighter taking off.
Golf needed a new gearbox and turbo. Passat needed a new turbo. Both brand new - one August 1999 and the other May 2000. Don't worry the Golf was stolen so likely to be overseas.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 22 Apr 11 at 21:33
|
47mpg? From a 147 bhp car weighing a ton and a a half!!
I'd take that with a pinch of salt! Maybe driven 500 miles at 50 mph on a calm day by Mr Economy Driver.
The official figures get ever more optimistic,. My 1.6 petrol Focus struggled to beat mid 30s driven gently, the official figure was 43mpg I believe.
I reckon most owners will see 40s on a run and high 30s running around.
|
>> Just looking at the brochure - the 1.6 ecoboost puts out 150ps, does 0-60 in
>> 8.6 (5 door), and has an urban mpg of 36.7, figures which as an mk1
>> 2.0 petrol owner I can only dream about :)
>>
The overall average for my 2003 2 litre, driven spiritedly, is 37 mpg. That's a genuine overall average, recording every drop of petrol for 58,000 miles. I'm well pleased.
|
>> The overall average for my 2003 2 litre, driven spiritedly, is 37 mpg.
What sort of journeys are those L'esc? The relatively few miles I do tend to be fairly short and around town, where the trip computer indicates I'm getting about 30mpg.
Last edited by: Focus on Sat 23 Apr 11 at 18:12
|
>> What sort of journeys are those L'esc?
6000 per year A & B roads longish journeys, 3000 per year in town journeys.
|
>> The overall average for my 2003 2 litre, driven spiritedly, is 37 mpg. That's a
>> genuine overall average, recording every drop of petrol for 58,000 miles. I'm well pleased.
Your not getting 37 mpg and driving spiritedly. Not the same spiritedly the rest of us mean anyway.
|
>> Your not getting 37 mpg and driving spiritedly. Not the same spiritedly the rest of
>> us mean anyway.
>>
To be fair my dad has a Focus I 2ltr estate and gets 36 ish mpg on avergae and he has always driven with a bit of spirit.
|
>> But isn't that a 1.6 turbo, which is at least as powerful/torquey as the old
>> 2.0 non-turbo, as well as being more economical?
>>
But I don't want a highly-stressed 1.6 turbo engine. I'd sooner have a lower-stressed 2 litre.
|
>>
>> But I don't want a highly-stressed 1.6 turbo engine. I'd sooner have a lower-stressed 2
>> litre.
>>
It isn't highly stressed, to the contrary the low down torque will mean it requires less revs to pull strongly.
If you want an n/a 2 litre that is efficient look at a Focus II or a BMW 118i/120i.
|
|
I want is not going to get. If you want an old engine stick with your old car and pay old car high road tax and old car high fuel consumption.
|
|
Most people will be happy with an engine giving more power and more economy than the old 2 litre engine. If they also kept the a non turbo 2 litre, offering about the same perfomance but giving less mpg in the range who would buy it, apart from you?
|
I tend to agree with L'es, i'd rather a larger engine (with or without turbo) than a smaller engine that relies on forced air to provide any useful torque, unfortunately in the wake of the global warming scam everything has changed.
From umpteen years of truck driving a small engine that is rated at the same or even more BHP than a large engine always has to be driven above a certain rev range to keep the power on tap, whereas the larger engine without fail still has useful pulling power long before the turbo really gets going...one of the best pulling European truck engines was fitted to Fiat trucks back in the 70's/early 80's, if my memory serves correctly, around 19 litres NA, unstoppable.
With intentional enthusiastic driving the smaller turbo engine is probably ultimately faster, but for everyday ease you can't beat CC.
It's been my experience that driven enthusiastically turbo'd engines gulp fuel far quicker than equivalent NA engine, it will be interesting to see some real life brim to brim figures for these amazing new engines.
|
...i'd rather a larger engine (with or without turbo) than a smaller engine that relies on forced air to provide any useful torque...
Technology moves on, although not as fast as some people say.
Twenty or so years ago most car diesel engines were better suited to tractors.
Some of the figures for the new generation of high output/small capacity petrol engines are impressive.
I like to take advantage of progress, rather than complain about it.
Ford is a conservative company, so buying one of these engines in a Focus is not much of a risk.
|
>> Ford is a conservative company, so buying one of these engines in a Focus is
>> not much of a risk.
Sorry Iffy, i didn't explain very well as usual, no doubt it will turn out very durable and reliable as do most things Ford make...excepting one particular Focus Cmax auto box.
I was referring to the lazy driving capabilities of larger engines over an equivalently output smaller engine.
|
...I was referring to the lazy driving capabilities of larger engines over an equivalently output smaller engine...
I'm with you.
I hadn't got as far as the driving experience.
If you don't like the way the thing goes, then it's not much use however good its figures are.
These new engines might not be well-suited to auto gearboxes.
|
>> But isn't that a 1.6 turbo, which is at least as powerful/torquey as the old
>> 2.0 non-turbo, as well as being more economical?
>>
In general, what is reliability like for turbo petrol engines?
|
I've decided i'm not a fan of the new Focus. I think it looks fine in the ST version which is all i've really looked at so far, but Evans Halshaw have a mainstream one on the forecourt and the wheels are unflatteringly lost in the wheel arches - probably a blessing in disguise given the wheel trims are rank rotten. The ungainly body doesn't look right at all, it's far too high up and the lines are bulging to the point of vulgarity.
For cooking versions, Kia's Ceed knocks the socks off it in aesthetics at least and i always thought of the ceed as the plucky underdog.
Anyway, enough ranting :-) One benefit for Mr Snail will be the electric power steering -- the dealer can set various levels of assist via the computer and i'm hopeful the top setting would be a welcome comfort on the bad mornings when the arthritis demon makes itself known.
|
>>but Evans Halshaw have a mainstream one on the forecourt and the wheels are unflatteringly lost in the wheel arches>>
Sure it wasn't a C-max?
>> For cooking versions, Kia's Ceed knocks the socks off it in aesthetics>>
www.specsavers.co.uk
>> the electric power steering -- the dealer can set various levels of assist via the computer >>
I could do that via the computer stalk on my ST.
|
www.carung.com/2012-ford-focus-econetic.html/2012-ford-focus-econetic
vs.
www.babez.de/kia/ceedsportywagon07/kia-ceed-sporty-wagon-01.jpg
You still stand by that Cheddar? I thought the world learned from VWs black bumper rear on the mk5 Golf, but it's back in the new Focus. The whole thing looks horrid, not just bland or boring, horrid in all but the sporty trim - where it transforms into something pretty desirable.
|
I had a sit in the new Focus and thought it was cramped compared to the old one.
But my main gripe is the narrow windows - like looking through a letterbox.
First impressions only, of course.
|
>> But my main gripe is the narrow windows - like looking through a letterbox.
>>
I don't like this fashion either, were the mirrors capable of decent manoeuvering or were you so underwhelmed you didn't notice?
<>
Not the most flattering shot i've seen of a new car, reminds me of the Honda Insight, which despite my respect for Honda has to be one of the ugliest cars currently available.
The Ceed photo was of the Estate wasn't it, nice car still, the Pro Ceed hatch is i agree quite pretty.
Confess i like Kia's whole new range, the family front is excellent, looking forward to seeing the new Magentis, if the pics i've seen are undoctored that is one of the most handsome cars for years.
|
>> www.carung.com/2012-ford-focus-econetic.html/2012-ford-focus-econetic
Something called 'econetic', with wheel trims, is a 'cooking' version??
|
>> You still stand by that Cheddar? >>
Those pics reinforce it, the Focus is a basic version which with decent wheels and a better colour looks great.
The Kia is just bland, ZZZZzzzzz ......
Last edited by: Cheddar on Fri 22 Apr 11 at 09:09
|
>> Those pics reinforce it, the Focus is a basic version which with decent wheels and
>> a better colour looks great.
>>
>> The Kia is just bland, ZZZZzzzzz ......
Do you have shares in Ford? Those rear lights on the new Focus are just pig ugly. They'll probably change them come the facelift.
Last edited by: corax on Fri 22 Apr 11 at 13:22
|
Its ugly inside, with the dash designed by amstrad, looks good from the front but very "samey" as other cars, and those flairy wheel arches are very nasty, in profile, and the A post, front wheel arch to front bumper proportions are all wrong.
Better looking than the Mk2 tho, which was a complete design cop out,. The Mk1 still stands its ground however, designs stand by how they age, and the Mk1 aged very well indeed.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 22 Apr 11 at 13:44
|
>> the Mk1 aged very well indeed.
I'd agree with that, the mk1 still cuts the mustard today, for me anyway.
|
>> I'd agree with that, the mk1 still cuts the mustard today, for me anyway.
For me too.
I think the mk1 drives better too. Absolutely lovely car to hustle along a good piece of road.
The leap forward on the mk2 was the interior quality, in my opinion. Funky as the mk1 dash was, it was made out of the same brittle, shiny plastics I remember from my mk1 Sierra. The mk2 was a much classier affair inside with better materials.
I do feel that Ford were too conservative with the mk2 overall though. The mk1 was bold, brave, and great to drive. Hence the fact you still pay a grand for anything decent, even well over a decade on.
Last edited by: DP on Fri 22 Apr 11 at 16:39
|
Very favourable 'mini test' review of a Ford Focus Titanium 1.6 EcoBoost in the Daily Mail today - 'drives like a dream', 'spirited performance', 'good fuel economy'.
The only things they didn't like were the high-tech dashboard ('but you'll adapt quickly'), and the price. That was a pretty steep £22165, but did include options such as self-parking, and one I hadn't heard of before - traffic sign recognition which 'reads' speed signs and displays the limit on the dashboard. Limited value perhaps, but clever stuff.
|
>> Very favourable 'mini test' review
I'm sure it's a superbly capable car and well screwed together in modern Ford tradition.
I reckon even their criticism of a steep price isn't a real problem -- drive the deal says £16k which seems fair to me.
It's in the same bucket as people carriers for me i'm afraid though. It'll do a job, but what an opportunity missed.
Last edited by: Skoda on Sat 23 Apr 11 at 17:07
|
>> I reckon even their criticism of a steep price isn't a real problem -- drive
>> the deal says £16k which seems fair to me.
The list price of the base car is given as £19745 in the article - it was the fact that a few options added a chunky £2.4k.
|
"That was a pretty steep £22165,"
£3,500 discount available at Drive the Deal
|
|
I know DTD do good deals on Fords - I've quoted them on here a few times. Unfortunately I suspect our next car budget will possibly be less than the saving DTD give on a new one :(
|
Compare and contrast the new Focus with my current Golf MK6 with 1.4TSI engine and classy interior. There is surely no competition, the Golf being a much better desgined and comfortable car. The latter is also quick, economical and as powerful as a 2 litre car.
The new Focus will sell no doubt but it exemplifies flippant design over function. Certain interior elements border on vulgarity as do elements of the exterior and this certainly includes the rear lamp clusters.
|
...the Golf being a much better desgined and comfortable car...
Barely a fag paper between them.
The Focus has the sharper drive, maybe a bit more comfort in the Golf.
Both cars are about as good a family hatchback as is currently available.
And there's not much between them and the Astra, C'eed, i30, Auris etc.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sun 24 Apr 11 at 21:13
|
>> Both cars are about as good a family hatchback as is currently available.
>>
>> And there's not much between them and the Astra, C'eed, i30,
.
.
>>Auris
Ooopps one step to far methinks.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 24 Apr 11 at 21:20
|
...Auris...Ooopps one step to far methinks...
Possibly.
Scrub that then, and put in the Civic, for those that like their wheels square.
|
I really dislike the interior of the new Fiesta, C-Max and Focus. It's meant to be mobile phone style but most decent smart phones are now all touch screen ;-) I think they got the interior wrong. I also disliked the interior of the original Focus too mind - especially when compared to a Golf of the period.
Exterior of the Focus isn't bad in my opinion and I am sure it handles well. And the new 1.6 turbo petrol engines should be good. If the 1.8T in the Passat I am getting had lower emissions and available in the higher trim level I'd have considered it. But monthly cost of the 1.8T was more than a 170PS 2.0TDi.
|
My in-laws have just bought a new C-Max, and I have to admit that centre console looks a lot better in the flesh than in the pictures. The standard of materials and finish of modern Ford interiors is actually very good when you're sat inside, and can touch and feel the plastics and controls.
It's incredibly "busy" though, and looks like an airliner flight deck at night when those gazillion buttons light up.
|
Ford Focus III - Ford Focus engine size availability - Focusless
