zetec
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 10:09 AM |
|
|
Ford Focus advice.
Now that fuel is getting up to £1 ltr my Volvo is getting a joke to run. I'm looking around for another estate and have decided to go all
mainstream and get a Focus as they seem cheap on fuel and parts and generally well thought of.
I'm looking to a TDi or 1.6 from around about reg 2000-2002, anyone any advice on things I should look out for?
" I only registered to look at the pictures, now I'm stuck with this username for the rest of my life!"
|
|
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
Sorry for a minor redirect but:
According to Mr Brown this morning - Europe is going to struggle more than the U.K. well that's nice know - ar5e!!! 
I always find this site useful... HERE I've been posting on it for years!
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 10:33 AM |
|
|
a mate runs a focus TDCI estate. Quicker by some margin than the 1.6 petrol (I'd say nearer to the 2.0 petrol actually)
it is the higher power one of the two tdci's available.
great car, not my cup of tea but a great car, "ticks all the boxes" would be a good description
|
|
|
speed8
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 11:55 AM |
|
|
Don't have an estate but do have a 2003 1.6 Zetec.
Good fun to drive (for a normal car). Does what it says on the tin.
Recently done a 4000 mile trip round Europe, including top speed Autobahn fun, and not even a murmor from the car.
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 12:25 PM |
|
|
Make dure you get TDCI and not a TDI. A mate had a new rental TDI early this year, and it sounded like a total tractor. This isnt a refined unit. It
also only does 0-60 in 12.5 accoding to what car, and riding in it proved it. Its only 90hp. On the other hand, the TDCI Montego he got after was very
smooth.
Take into accoutn diesel costs more than pertol, and the constant bitching of the oil co's that there is a shortage and it needs to cost
more.
Further, you will only get good milage on many diesels if you drive it like one. That means low revs, and letting the torque do the work. If you like
to rip thro the revs and gears, then do that on a diesel and you will get little benefit.
Also, the advantage of a diesel may depend on the length of journey.
I do 50 miles each way to work, and I get 45mpg from my Laguna 1.9dci - which isnt that great - mate that does similar / identical journey in his
Mondeo and it does better. Anyway - the point is that if my journey stopped 2 miles down the road where my wife works, the car indicates 28 mpg at
that point from a cold start!!!!!!! Id be well sick if I paid premium prices for a diesel and ended up with that.
If you can tolerate a small (very) car, just take a look at the petrol milages the new 107 / C1 / Toyota Aygo are getting !!!
atb
steve
[Edited on 9/9/05 by steve_gus]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
UncleFista
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 12:31 PM |
|
|
I agree with Steve, drive both the TDi and the TDCi. The TDi is much more "agricultural".
Tony Bond / UncleFista
Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...
|
|
|
zetec
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 01:10 PM |
|
|
If I got to a stealer I won't get a TDCi for under £4000, and that's an ex NASA company car. I'm going to the BCA auctions tomorrow
to see what they go for there....Now where's my sheepskin coat.
" I only registered to look at the pictures, now I'm stuck with this username for the rest of my life!"
|
|
|
Danozeman
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
If you can id stretch to a tdci. Much better engine. Smoother etc and less juicey. IIRC The tdi's are normal injection and TDCI is common
rail.
Dan
Built the purple peril!! Let the modifications begin!!
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 01:35 PM |
|
|
I hired a brand new Focus estate (1.4 petrol) a 3 years ago build quality was excellent for a bread & butter car but I hated it --- no torque
and the handling was really odd -- lots of rear wheel steer effects just after initial turn in to a corner --- this didn't inspire much
confidence. I also hated the driving postion very upright.
The odd handling might be an estate only problem but it totally put me off I was glad to get back the well worn old style Rover 214 that was waiting
for me at home.
One other diesel that you may find in the same price bracket is the Rover 75 CD-T -- absolute gem to drive the 2 litre 131 bhp BMW turbo is a
smashing engine and returns 54 mpg.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
thought there's be some rover input mr Trident!!!!!!!!!!
I love the way the Focus drives, which is saying something because I will normally refuse to drive front wheel drive cars.
As for a rover 214.........my mate had one for a bit but I don't want to start an argument. Their only redeeming feature is that they are a very
cheap way to get a k-series engine I suppose, so there is an upside!
no comparison with the Focus I'm afraid!
Wouldn't buy a 1400 focus though. I have driven a 1600 one which was acceptable and fun to drive, a 2.0 ghia which "felt" heavier
but performed better, and the tdci estate which I would say was the best of the bunch.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
hang on a minute, you said 1.4 ESTATE!!!!!
Surely that is not powerful enough to move!! I had a Pug 206 1.4 hire car in France with work a year or so ago and that was diabolically slow, almost
stationary if you put the aircon on
what sort of maniac would buy a 1.4 estate, unless they don't plan on putting anything in it!!!!!!
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 02:48 PM |
|
|
A ford focus estate is little more than the hatchback without the slope at the back.
There a re a whole load of crappy underpowred cars on the UK market - a 75hp focus wouldnt stand out as exceptional.
The 1.6 ford sierra produced just 75 hp in the 80s - even the 1.8 was only 90hp, and you could buy the 2.0 for a heady 105 - 115 hp if you felt like a
boy racer. The estate did indeed come in the 1.6 and the 1.8 models - i myself had the latter.
They are all cars weighing upwards of 1250 kilo.
Underpowered cars are nothing new, and I think pretty much the rule in the UK.
atb
steve
PS - also depends on the 1.4 - the Megane Scenic is offered as a 1.4!!!! But at least thats a heady 98hp - exceeding anything ford had in the
80's below 2.0 litres.
[Edited on 9/9/05 by steve_gus]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
pbs
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 03:34 PM |
|
|
Had a company Focus Estate Tdci (115Bhp) over three years and 83k. The car was very reliable and very cheap to run. Front tyres lasted 25k, front
discs 50k rear discs 75k and it would cover 500 miles on a tank, which was about 50Mpg. The performance was good with execelent over taking ability
and handling, although not as good as the petrol ones was still better than most cars in its class. The car was very reliable and the interior stood
up to the mileage well with no squeeks or rattles.
Things to look out for would be the paint quality. Mine was shocking, it had been poorly applied and was thin inside the door checks and had started
to bubble on the tail gate and inside the door sills. This wasnt caused by rust or stone chips it just seemed to be lifting from the metal.
I had a 1.6 for a few days and it didnt have the performace or the economy of the Tdci although the handling was slightly better and it didnt torque
steer like the diesel. If you can find a Tdci for the money I would buy it, if not buy the 1.6, dont buy the Tdi as they not that good on fuel and
there are better diesels availble for the money.
Build your own sports car for £250 my ar5e!!
|
|
|
asn163
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 04:46 PM |
|
|
Had a TDCI 115 bhp for 3 years, avg. 48mpg over 49000 miles.
Would highly recommend them. Good compromise between performance and economy
|
|
|
Northy
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 05:31 PM |
|
|
I've got a 1.6 petrol Hatch and I'd say the car is ok. When I first got it it was light years better than my old Punto, but now I find it
boring after driving the Tiger!
It's just a bit gutless, if you put your foot down it just tends to make more noise and not go that much faster.
I do get 480 - 490 miles from 49 litres of feul, how many mpg is that?
Graham
Website under construction. Help greatfully received as I don't really know what I'm doing! 
"If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?"
Built 2L 8 Valve Vx Powered Avon
|
|
|
marcyboy
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
first fast diesel i drove was a fiat brava turbo diesel with 100bhp typical fiat lovely box and loved plenty of revs...then along came the focus with
115bhp ......yippee...it used to top out at 126mph and didn't hang about getting there either, much quicker than the 1.8 petrol...the only thing
was it felt a little jittery at 126 mph ..but lets be fair you won't be doing that sort of speed,
fords have improved so much on some of their models and not so much on others...at the moment i'm driving an escort van thats diesel 3 years old
and no turbo....real pants, unlike the mondeo (petrol) 2 ltr duratec i hired back in 2003 got 140 mph out of it and it the handling was much better
than the older model and you didn't suffer a bad back after driving for more than 20 mins
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 05:50 PM |
|
|
about 43 to the gallon
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Northy
I've got a 1.6 petrol Hatch and I'd say the car is ok. When I first got it it was light years better than my old Punto, but now I find it
boring after driving the Tiger!
It's just a bit gutless, if you put your foot down it just tends to make more noise and not go that much faster.
I do get 480 - 490 miles from 49 litres of feul, how many mpg is that?
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 06:51 PM |
|
|
I'm currently driving a 2000 W Focus 2.0 Ghia (petrol) which I should have given back 2 years ago but I've held on as its just such a
fantastic car.
It'll do 43mpg if you are happy sitting at 75 (which is actually 71mph) and even giving it some welly with me in "race every car you come
across" (on a private road naturally) mode it'll never get below 36mpg.
It abosolutely flies too, especially if the ambient temp is less than 7 degrees C.
Can do 500 miles in a day and still feel refreshed, seating and positioning is excellent.
And its never let me down either.
The problem is they hold their value pretty well. You'd get a same age Passat 130 TDI for about the same price, but it'll have more
miles.
For a cheap n easy Diesel the Astra 1.7 TD Envoy can be picked up for well under 2K, but get the GM not the Isuzu engine.
The other Diesel option, which I'm probably going to take as I'm opting out of our co. car scheme, is a Saab 93 2.2 TID SE. A 2000 model
can be had for £3.5K with reasonable miles and an SE spec. Great car and will do 250k easy.
Lower spec S's or high miler SE's can be as cheap as £2k. Fantastic value for money, BMW/Merc can't even come close.
As for TDDI verses TDCI. The TDCI is nicer, but it'll also cost about 30% more and is only better on a performance (speed) front and you
don't exactly buy a diesel for performance.
Check out the Saab's, great cars.
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 06:59 PM |
|
|
you can buy a diesel for performance
try the latest 150hp plus BMW 320d engines.
the 150hp saloon can do 8.8 secs, which would shame many petrol saloons.
I used to get 42mpg driving mine that way
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 06:59 PM |
|
|
Something to add on Focus's.
Ford seems to chance spec quite a bit.
My 2000 Focus Ghia, has rear disks, ABS, 6-CD, ESP.
I know other Focus's we have don't have rear disks even up to 52's and ABS wasn't standard till even later.
The Zetec were supposed (in 2000 MY) to have 16's, lowered suspension, rear discs. We have one at work which has none of these and no ABS,
madness.
Rear disks may not be a real issue (but its nice to have them if you can) but no ABS would be a deal breaker for me.
I'd buy the Focus off the company and stick some bike throttle bodies on it, but a few months ago I rearranged a brick wall with it, so its not
mint any more 
Fantastic car though, still enjoying it, handling is fantastic.
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 07:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
you can buy a diesel for performance
try the latest 150hp plus BMW 320d engines.
the 150hp saloon can do 8.8 secs, which would shame many petrol saloons.
I used to get 42mpg driving mine that way
atb
steve
I was driving our 330d this week, really enjoyed it.
But 8.8 isn't quick. Whilst it may shame a lot of petrol euro-boxes, it woulnd't catch me in the Focus which cost half as much (I know we
aren't doing a cost comparison as lots would beat the focus too!)
Sub 7 is quick by my standards.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 07:34 PM |
|
|
0-60 time dosen't mean anything any more it is over taking performance that matters, a lot of modrn cars have good 0-60 times but overtaking
performance is useless because of lack of low to medium speed torque and a masive gap between 2nd and 3rd gears.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 07:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
hang on a minute, you said 1.4 ESTATE!!!!!
Surely that is not powerful enough to move!! I had a Pug 206 1.4 hire car in France with work a year or so ago and that was diabolically slow, almost
stationary if you put the aircon on
what sort of maniac would buy a 1.4 estate, unless they don't plan on putting anything in it!!!!!!
Lets put is this way I used to take great pleasure seeing off 2 litre Siera EFi with my old Rover 214Sei never felt the need for a bigger engine
Strangely my Rover 414Sli was nothing like as nippy or fun to drive yet was supposed to be mechanically identical
The problem with the Focus 1.4 wasn't lack of power it was lack of torque coupled with totally unsuitable gear ratios travelling, the gap
between 2nd and 3rd was massive 5th and 4th gear were so high that when travelling at 120km/h the slightest incline would mean going down the box
two ratios.
Above all it gave me the willys in tight corners it would turn OK then tighten its line without being asked. Also the bolt upright driving position
might be fine for 70 year olds but not for me (yet) -- Ford apparently have made all the design staff try driving cars wearing padded rubber suits
to simulate beng old and fat -- might be pc but a bad move for a marque that has always sold to the youth end f the market.
[Edited on 9/9/05 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
The January edition of what car this year quotes the Ford Focus 2.0 doing a less than ballistic 0-60 in 9.2 seconds............. you seem to infer
its much quicker.........
BTW - its listed as a ford figure, not one tested by what car
If you look at the majority of affordable, everyday cars, costing say less than 15k to buy new, less than 9 secs is fairly quick.
Sadly, most cars on our roads are way slower than 9 secs.
The average family wagon is 10 - 13 secs. Just take a look at What Car and look at the really slow times quoted for most affordable cars. Superminis,
which are a well sold category in the UK, have 0-60 times quoted at 13 secs or more.
I dont think there are many five seater family saloons at sensible money that break 7 secs!
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by the_fbi
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
you can buy a diesel for performance
try the latest 150hp plus BMW 320d engines.
the 150hp saloon can do 8.8 secs, which would shame many petrol saloons.
I used to get 42mpg driving mine that way
atb
steve
I was driving our 330d this week, really enjoyed it.
But 8.8 isn't quick. Whilst it may shame a lot of petrol euro-boxes, it woulnd't catch me in the Focus which cost half as much (I know we
aren't doing a cost comparison as lots would beat the focus too!)
Sub 7 is quick by my standards.
[Edited on 9/9/05 by steve_gus]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 9/9/05 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
The 10 year old Rover 214 was I think 98hp in 16 valve guise..... hence my post saying 1.4 nowadays insnt as crappy as used to be. That 98hp was more
than the 1.8 sierra at the time!
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
hang on a minute, you said 1.4 ESTATE!!!!!
Surely that is not powerful enough to move!! I had a Pug 206 1.4 hire car in France with work a year or so ago and that was diabolically slow, almost
stationary if you put the aircon on
what sort of maniac would buy a 1.4 estate, unless they don't plan on putting anything in it!!!!!!
Lets put is this way I used to take great pleasure seeing off 2 litre Siera EFi with my old Rover 214Sei never felt the need for a bigger engine
Strangely my Rover 414Sli was nothing like as nippy or fun to drive yet was supposed to be mechanically identical
The problem with the Focus 1.4 wasn't lack of power it was lack of torque coupled with totally unsuitable gear ratios travelling, the gap
between 2nd and 3rd was massive 5th and 4th gear were so high that when travelling at 120km/h the slightest incline would mean going down the box
two ratios.
Above all it gave me the willys in tight corners it would turn OK then tighten its line without being asked. Also the bolt upright driving position
might be fine for 70 year olds but not for me (yet) -- Ford apparently have made all the design staff try driving cars wearing padded rubber suits
to simulate beng old and fat -- might be pc but a bad move for a marque that has always sold to the youth end f the market.
[Edited on 9/9/05 by britishtrident]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
