What are E Class diesels like?

I was more surpised that Ford had managed to design a decent engine without paying someone else to do it for them.....

Reply to
SteveH
Loading thread data ...

They've done it plenty of times. Just because the CVH was a piece of shit doesn't mean that Ford can't make decent engines.

You really should take those blinkers off, Steve. Ford can and do make some brilliant cars, they've made some excellent ones in the past (and admittedly some s**te) but just because you can't handle a Mondeo clutch doesn't mean they're crap. No more than the Arna means all Alfas are s**te and always will be.

If I'd owned an Arna (or a 33 for that matter) it'd be difficult to get me to like Alfas, but a drive of one would convince me. I'd not be as star-struck by them as you are though. I'd still know that other people can and do build better cars.

Please note, there isn't a single Ford or Alfa product in my sig.

Reply to
Pete M

Look at the history:

Kent - OK when new, struggled on way beyond it's sell-by date. Pinto - s**te when new, again, struggled on way beyond it's sell by. Essex - Not as good as the Cologne. Which itself wasn't a great engine. Zetec - Designed by Yamaha. TDCI - On the whole designed by PSA.

Hardly a glittering array of engines, is it?

The only decent ones of the bunch were designed by other people.

Reply to
SteveH

Very strong engine though.

The Cosworth engine is a Pinto block, not many standard 2.0 blocks will take

500 bhp reliably.

The Essex was far better than the Cologne. The Cologne used siamese ports which strangled it considerably, it was quieter and smoother than the Cologne. The Cologne was only fitted because the Essex was more difficult to get through emissions regs. The Cologne had already been engineered to get through them because it was fitted to the poverty spec Mustangs.

I think Andy wassisface will disagree there.

No worse than anyone elses. Fiat have done some god-awful s**te engines, Alfa have made some glaring errors, VW still are making some proper s**te, GM have made some bad stuff, everyone has but at least the Ford stuff, whilst some of it was unrefined and less than pleasing, tended to keep working.

Hardly unusual. There are a massive number of manufacturers who get other people to design their engines for them. Cosworth did a lot of the head design on the 2.0 16v Astra, for example. Ricardo do a lot of engines for the likes of VW. Porsche and Lotus are other people who are much more closely involved with other peoples engines than you'd think.

Alfa use a GM lump nowadays...

Reply to
Pete M

Aieeeeeeeeee

Even the most hardened Alfas fans I know rejected that pile of crap.

An Alfa engine in a Nissan body. Not even the right way round for reliability,

Reply to
Steve Firth

Cleveland? Windsor?

Fraser

Reply to
Fraser Johnston

True to a point. As I said before, the 1.4/1.6 are largely PSA's work, as is the 2.0 in the Focus, S-Max and Galaxy.

The 1.8 in the Focus and the 2.0/2.2 in the Mondeo/X-Type are entirely Ford's own work, as are the 2.4 in the Transit/Defender, and the upcoming 5-cyl 3.2 in the Transit. PSA did have an input on the 2.7 V6 unit - they supplied packaging constraints to ensure it would fit under the bonnet of the 407/C5/607/C6. Everything else is Ford. The

3.6 V8 unit is entirely Ford's work, and exists only under the bonnet of the Range Rover/Range Rover Sport.
Reply to
Andy Tucker

Yup - 3.6 litres, 2 turbochargers, 280PS, 640Nm torque. :-)

Reply to
Andy Tucker

Nice - what does it chip to :-D ?

Reply to
Iridium

Why isn't that in the XJ?

Reply to
Steve Firth

Contrary to press reports, it can be made to fit under the bonnet of the XJ.

The problem lies in the sheer weight of the unit. Despite being made from CGI, the engine is substantially heavier than the 4.4 supercharged petrol unit, and seriously upsets the weight distribution of a relatively lightweight alloy body, so I'd expect to see it only in Land Rover products for the moment.

The V6 unit still has plenty of potential.

Reply to
Andy Tucker

Several chip firms offer a 320bhp/830Nm upgrade. It's still only the first generation of the engine though, so there's probably more to come if it's needed.

Reply to
Andy Tucker

That is SOME torque...

Reply to
Iridium

Ford may have designed the engine and built it, but didnt PSA supply the know how in the injection side of things to make it less of a tractor ???

Tim..

Reply to
Tim..

That is pretty pissweak. A single turbo 2 litre flat four wrx has 250hp.

Fraser

Reply to
Fraser Johnston

How much does the WRX diesel make?

Reply to
Douglas Payne

Ewwwwwwwwwww. Diesel. : (

Fraser

Reply to
Fraser Johnston

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.