Hello
Wondering if anyone is able to give me their opinions on the Ford Focus 2.0tdci I am looking at getting this car with my company car allowance but am wondering if it's worth the premium over a 1.6 tdci. I have also heard the 2.0tdci unit has had a few reliability problems.
|
|
I am not aware of any issue with the 2.0 TDCi Focus, there were one or two issues with early C-Maxs though ironed out before the Focus was launched, the 2,0 is much punchier than the 1.6 so IMO worth the difference, the 1.8 is a reasonable compromise, the engine is an older design mechanically than either the 1.6 and 2.0 which are related though has latest electronics etc and is as refined and as economical as the 1.6 and noticably more torquey. Out of choice i would still go for the 2.0 though.
|
I am not aware of any issue with the 2.0 TDCi Focus, there were one or two issues with early C-Maxs though ironed out before the Focus was launched,
Yeah, a former work colleague bought one of the first C-Maxs with the 2.0 TDCi lump and it took four ECU software revisions before it would do any more than 35 mpg, start easily when cold, and not drain its battery intermittently (the alternator is apparently software controlled and only works when needed).
The first six months were a nightmare and he was on the verge of getting shot of it. Then another software revision came out, and he had that installed, since when it's been brilliant. 45 mpg average, loads of grunt and completely reliable.
My uncle has a 55 plate Focus 2 2.0 TDCi as a company car and that's been fine over the 30k or so he's done in it. I've been in it as a passenger, and it feels smoother and quicker than a Golf mk4 TDI 130 which was always my benchmark for a lively diesel hatch. A little noisier than I thought a Peugeot developed unit might be, but it's still far quieter than a VAG PD engine, if not as frugal.
Nice car, go for it.
Cheers
DP
|
|
|
|
the 2.0ltr is much nicer to drive especially on the motorway as at 70mph in 6th gear you are only doing 1800rpm. its a great engine for do long distances and very economical >> Hello
|
Briiliant engine and with a few miles very punchy indeed. My 2005 C Max has had no problems and with my beloved driving has just returned 55.7mpg. Needs varied driving and good fuel. Replaced a 330D BMW and no regrets!
|
>> Replaced a 330D BMW and no regrets!
What!!?? Ya gotta be kiddin'!
|
|
|
|
I've got one of these as a company car at the moment and it's a great car. Done about 8000 miles from new and the engine is excellent - much quicker and smoother than it was when I got it and more power all round. No reliability issues that I'm aware of - only issue with this car has been a squeaking electric window, hardly major.
What you say about the mpg is very interesting. I tend to get between 35 and 40 on long distance driving. Admittedly I do go quite quickly but that still seems far too low. I thought it was just something I would have to accept but perhaps a new ECU update can help. I will give the dealer a ring. Thanks for that one!
|
I tend to get between 35 and 40 on long distance driving.
So much for the fuel economy of diesels! I get a genuine overall average of 39 mpg from my 2.0 petrol Ghia (driven spiritedly) and with none of the noise and smell of a diesel. And, according to What Car? magazine, a quicker 0-60 time and a higher top speed!
--
L\'escargot.
|
This conveniently ignores dodo's 55.7mpg!
And we all know that 0-60 times are only of interest to schoolboys. On the open road it's the 30-50 or 50-70 times that matter.
|
That 50-70 time, or perhaps more usefully the 50-80 time is why I chose a diesel. Virtually all my driving is on the motorway and long journeys at that - York to South London is my regular journey - and as you say I don't really care what the 0-60 time is but the mid range acceleration is crucial. Particularly as that particular journey can involve the A1 which as a two lane road has lots of slowing down for lorries overtaking each other, then speeding back up again when the road clears.
I don't think my experience of mpg with diesels is typical. I occasionally drive a 1.9dci Megane which gives me 40-45, still not perfect but getting there. The car will be due for its first service in 6 weeks or so, so I will mention it then and see what they say. I'm not overly bothered as it is better mpg than the petrol car I drove before at equivalent speeds, with much more power and comfort. The fuel is reimbursed as a company car but my personal finances are very tied up with my company's this isn't a reason to ignore the mpg!
|
|
I' ve got the 1.8 TDCi engine in my C-Max, and though it is a good engine, the 2.0 is better. The 1.8 is noisier and takes much longer to warm up due to its cast iron head, so fuel economy around town is very poor. Most of the early problems with the 2.0 have now been solved, though it does seem to be more prone to problems than the 1.8, simply because it's a much newer design.
|
|
|
|
This conveniently ignores dodo's 55.7mpg!
No, I didn't ignore it. It just didn't say whether it was a genuine overall average or a figure calculated from a single journey which is a notoriously inaccurate and misleading method. If I was to calculate a consumption for a single long journey I might well get 55.7 mpg as well.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
|
