The Escort Zetec engines were bullet proof, my dads valve problem was due to a silly person putting too thick oil in at a service. However its electric was a big let down, the electric window and central locking wiring all perished and rust was an issue.
I think one major difference between a Focus and Escort is safety, and I don't just mean crash worthiness. This why insurance costs are so much cheaper for the Focus.
Wasn't the 100E a sit up and beg with the previous Anglia body shell? It had the same side valve engine and vacuum wipers didn't it?
It still seems odd when I open up my dads bonnet (97 Fiesta Ghia) and see the 105E engine in it :D
|
To a certain extent most models "evolve" rather than start with a completely clean sheet. I owned a Y-reg Cortina but it came with Sierra seats and a Sierra engine. The 1990 Escort carried over the old HCS engines because the Zetec wasn't ready in time. Even the MkI Focus used essentially the same engines and front suspension as the Mk7 Escort.
I was going to mention the step from Sierra to Mondeo but although mechanically it was a step change, in terms of "improvement" as the thread title suggests, I'm not so sure it was that great a leap. As has been mentioned above, a Cortina would fall to bits long by 60-80,000 miles but a Sierra could easily run to 150-200,000 - as could a Mondeo, which makes it less progressive than its predecessor.
|
My 1999 Corsa is a classic example it was one of the last of B's and has many parts from the C. The rear head rests were then used in the C, the engine is essentially the same as the current models as is the steering system. A 1994 Corsa B would share nothing with a 2009 Corsa where my 1999 B has a lot of genetic links. You could also say that my car has links with a 1984 Nova (it has the same floor plan and rear suspension) However it is a bit like saying a Ford Ka has links with the Anglia.
I think the Mondeo made leaps forward in terms of safety and standard equipment.
The Punto MK1 was also based on the FIAT Unu before it.
With the Escort the Zetecs mainly replaced the CVH but the CVH and HCS continued long after the Zetecs came out.
|
|
|
|
Rattle, Here's the details from wiki - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Anglia
I had a 100E complete with side vave engine, 3-speed box and vacuum wipers.
Then I had a 107E Prefect. Basically a 4-door 100E body but with the 105E engine and 4-speed box (and electric wipers).
IIRC the 105E engine was pre-crossflow (intake and exhaust on same side) and only 3 bearings on the crankshaft so was significantly different from the later engines.
|
Ha! My mates 1996 Fiesta 1.1 had only 3 bearings on the crankshaft and at 70mph you knew about! The 1.3 HCS and Endura engines did thankfully have 5 bearings.
I am assuming the basic models have vacuum wipers to save money on the altnerator or rather dynamo or what ever you used back then.
|
|
The 1967 Crossflow engines had 5-bearing crankshafts so somewhere along the line they must have thought it was a good idea to take two out!!!
|
Yep probably in the 1976 when the engine was made transverse and called the Valencia. I am sure the engines also seemed to wear at quicker too, all 1.1 HCSs I have owned/mates have owned started to burn oil at around 80k where as Enduras (1.3 5 bearing) seem to be much better for this.
Of course I wasn't around at the time, only know this stuff because between me and my mates we have owned a lot of cars with some sort of Kent engine in it.
|
|
Your telling me rattle. My 1.1 Fiesta used a pint every 500 miles by the end of its life. The only good thing was the oil was alway fresh.
|
A pint for every 500 miles is good :) I had one which would use 1 litre every two weeks, it did 50-100 miles a week. My mate did also around 60-70 miles a week and every time he left my house he had a long routine before he started his car. The first bit of the routine was to put 500ml of oil into his engine. I would then laugh as he drove off leaving a nice cloud of blue smoke behind. He replaced it with a 09 reg brand new Panda so I guess he has had the last laugh :p
We took that Fiesta camping once, another mate kicked a foot ball, it hit his car leaving a 4" hole in the rear valance! I drove it once when I first got my fully comp drive any car policy and screamed "why didn't you tell me it doesn't drive in a straight line!" it pulled rather violently to left and the steering wheel was side ways when going straight. They don't make cars like that any more, despite all its fault both me and my mate were fond of it, it had a lot of stories to tell.
They were good engines in the sense they would keep going and going regardless how damaged the camshaft or how worn the piston rings were.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know much about "modern" Kent engines but all the Formula Ford engines I've played with have the 5-bearing crankshaft. I've even got an old main bearing cap as a paperweight.
|
|
They were for racing cars though, not cheap poverty trim level hatch backs :).
|
last 3 bearing crank engine by ford was the 950 as fitted to the mk 1 fiesta and boy did they make a noise when you got them flexing
like a grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr noise
|
You lot should leave the Cortina alone.
First car that allowed a family man to set out with the wife and kids on a long journey at 60/70mph with a reasonable prospect of getting there.
My family had six or seven Cortinas and all provided reliable transport.
The Sierra received a lukewarm reception at the time of its introduction.
Derided as a jelly mould, it had one or two serious problems, including a floor that tended to kink at the slightest front or rear impact.
The Mondeo was a greater advance.
Edited by ifithelps on 24/11/2009 at 05:40
|
Mechanically, the Sierra was only a Cortina with independent rear suspension anyway. All the running gear was carried over, and there was very little "new" in it, apart from obviously the styling and interior. The first mechanical advance was the introduction of electronic fuel injection several years into its life, but still on the same 1960's designed Pinto engine.
I had a Sierra as my second car and will always have a soft spot for them. Mine went well over 200k on its original engine, and it wasn't driven gently (I saw the throttle as an on/off switch in those days). Lovely car to work on as well.
I also had a mk2 Cavalier (SRi 4dr), and it did show how far ahead Vauxhall were of Ford in terms of engines. That Vauxhall engine was a smooth, gutsy peach of a thing with a lovely growl at high revs. The Ford engines were always a bit ropey. Reliable, but rough and a bit breathless in comparison.
The mk1 Mondeo was an absolute revelation when it came out. I remember driving one of the first ones (I was selling Fords at the time) and it was a staggering leap forward in dynamics, quality and general mechanical sophistication for Ford at the time. Such a lovely car to drive (and they still are if you find a good one). If only they'd bothered to style it. :-)
The Sierra was an evolution of the Cortina. The Mondeo was a blank sheet of paper and some very talented engineering input (Jackie Stewart was a chassis consultant). And it showed. The Mondeo was the big improvement, and I say that as a Sierra fan. What's more it paved the way for a whole generation of Fords that were better to drive than pretty much any of their rivals. People go on about the Focus mk1, but the Mondeo did it first.
Edited by DP on 24/11/2009 at 08:27
|
|
|
|
The 1500 engine that replaced the 1340 in the early 60's was five bearing.Don't confuse the original engines with the Kent,Valencia and the HCS-externally there were similarities but all were different. CVH to Zetec-upgrade in some ways but the carburetted 1.6 cvh(two valve) made more power than the injected four valve Zetec 1.6.
|
CVH to Zetec-upgrade in some ways but the carburetted 1.6 cvh(two valve) made more power than the injected four valve Zetec 1.6.>>
That was just down to tuning, the 1.6 CVH was quote as 90 and 96 bhp (carb) and 105 and 115 (FI), the later being the solid lifter RS1600 special. Also 132 bhp (turbo).
The Zetec was initially 1.6 and 1.8 which both replaced the 1.6 CVH, the 1.6 Zetec was 90 bhp, the 1.8 105 and 130.
I had an Orion Ghia with the 105 bhp Zetec for a short while, one of the first '91 as I recall.
|
|
|
CVH to Zetec-upgrade in some ways but the carburetted 1.6 cvh(two valve) made more power than the injected four valve Zetec 1.6.
I thought they were both rated at 90PS, jc2. The injected CVH made 105, or 108 with the later electronic injection.
I remember the 1.6 CVH being quite punchy, but I will never forget that awful vibration and resonance that used to start your fillings hurting past 4000 RPM. Think of an engine that's enjoyable to use hard, then think of the diametric opposite, and you're about there with the CVH. It was a horrible engine, until they stuck a turbo on it. Then it had enough torque that you didn't need to endure the top end of the rev range to make progress.
I have no fond memories of anything with a naturally aspirated CVH in it.
Edited by Webmaster on 25/11/2009 at 00:54
|
|
That would have to be when I picked up my new Maestro van (about 1990) and it had a radio cassette installed in it. Pure luxury : o )
|
|
|
Looking at all the comments and suggestions on this thread, people have mainly commented about mechanical improvements. I know this subject has been mentioned before, but one thing which strikes me about model changes is how they all get bigger every time. The Anglia to the Escort to the Focus; the Cavalier to the Vectra to the Insignia: the Cortina to the Sierra to the Mondeo.
Has there ever been a case where a mechanical improvement was not accompanied by an increase in body size?
|
Surely there were some big improvements in some model ranges?
I remember years ago as a boy having the Autocar yearbook for about the early 80s and it described the step change that BMW achieved with the 528i from the e12 to e28 528i. The 1982 528i was found to be so much quicker that Autocar was a bit stumped for suitable competitors. Suddenly this was a car that could do 8 secs 0-60 and top 130mph and all the competitors were far off this.
I would think that there were some massive step changes in some of the turbo diesel cars eg from the Volvo 740 diesel to say the V70 diesel? or from the 406 to the 407.
Some model changes with a styling update seemed to change cars eg the Vauxhall Carlton from its original form with the slant front to a much more modern design that sold alot better. Or the update of the Citroen BX from original to update and sales shot up.
|
|
|
Absolutely, Sid, especially the width. A retired friend, a few years ago replaced a Vauxhall Vectra with a Vauxhall Astra only to find the Astra was too wide for his garage doors.
Not that they seem much wider inside, guess it's largely down to side bars and electric windows.
|
|
|
Has there ever been a case where a mechanical improvement was not accompanied by an increase in body size?
I can't think of one. It is easy to follow the model progression of Peugeots by the first digit, which indicates size (or did until recently - we now have 1007 and other departures). I joined Pug in the 205 era, and now own a 207 as well, which is as big as the 306 I swopped it for. I think the habit started with the makers offering 'more car for the money', but now I suspect some of it has to happen to make space for all the extra gizmos, safety devices and crumple zones which have to be there as well as the passengers. That, and the fact that people take more luggage and carry bulkier things like skis and whatnot ...
Given that a 205 weighed well under a ton(ne), while a 207 comes in at around 1.3, the engine developers have done well in improving fuel consumption during this process.
|
>> Has there ever been a case where a mechanical improvement was not accompanied by an increase in body size?
Well, I refer the honourable gentleman to my reply on the opposite thread to this one. 2CV6 to AX. The AX was far smaller.
If you see that change as a mechanical improvement. It was certainly a modernisation though, which is not always necessarily a good thing. I suppose the 2CVs time was up though, and it had to be done.
The 2CV was terrific in terms of interior space compared to the AX. But of course the AX platform gave Citroen far greater scope to widen the range to include performance models and diesel models. I drove an AX GT from Nottingham to Skye once and loved it. The bloke in the back was a bit nonplussed though.
|
|
|
|
Carburetted CVH in XR2 was 96ps. and as you say Zetec was 90ps.
|
|
I never said that they weren't in different states of tune-the Zetec was tuned for emissions.We now have the 1.6 Rocam(SportKa/StreetKa) a 2V which gives low emissions AND performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Escort to the Focus was quite a leap in styling handling and reliability.
Absolutely.
|
I agree completely with those who nominate the original Focus and Mondeo as huge steps forward from their predecessors, but this also happens with the premium brands.
The BMW E39 5 Series was streets ahead of both its predecessor and all other competitors when it was launched in the mid 90s. Many would argue that the E39 was still the best executive car on the market when it was replaced by the current E60 model after almost a decade on sale.
|
|
|
|
|
