Yes. A great number of cars manage to produce some warmth from the heater inside a couple of miles in the summer, some are notable for not managing this.
The Ka managed to warm up reasonably quickly despite having an iron block, it took the Honda for me to remember exactly how quickly the Ka warmed up.
The Saab takes a long time... but when it's cold out the auxiliary fuel heater cycles in. Now if I drive a short trip and its cold, I'll hear it powering down, but most of the while it's transparent in operation.
Earlier specification models had an auxiliary heater (as I recall, essentially electric heaters in the coolant jacket). Ford deleted this from UK specification models though.
Yes, mostly. The 1.6 needs to be revved more compared to the 1.8 TDCi and this can prove detrimental to consumption, especially if you're up for a laugh *grins*.
But presumably a big reduction in fuel consumption?
It's the excuse for me swapping the Accord for the 9-3. I'd return high 30s / low 40s from the Accord on a long, gentle run (heavy goods vehicle pace for hours). Scoot along at the speed limit in the 9-3 and it returns high
40s / low 50s *and* it's much easier to access the performance too. Drive gently and I'm looking at mid to high 50s... :)
So, kinda like the PAS or clutch on your current Volvo? :-)
"DervMan" wrote in news:459fef44$0$27092$ snipped-for-privacy@news.zen.co.uk:
Heh....mine managed it this morning. And yes, I always warm up smoothly & gently without using excessively high gearing.
I haven't driven the 1.6 but I tried the 1.8 and did indeed note how effortlessly it would pull from low revs, giving it gentle yet brisk acceleration, even though the sense of raw power was absent.
Precisely. I now commute to work, rather than falling at the doorstep as I get out of bed like I did previously (1 mile distance). In spite of this, car mpg is still not a huge factor as I still only travel 15 miles each way. I also work shifts now, so I have to attend on less than half the days of the year. Hence my annual mileage, after weekend trips and the like, is still below average. However, as I intend to buy a nearly new & unspoilt car to last me several years, I must consider fuel price trends and I therefore feel it makes sense to get something that delivers optimum mpg without too much performance sacrifice. Looking at the current choice of low cost medium sized cars, I feel that the diesel Focus currently offers the best value. My other choice would be a Corolla D4-D but these fetch a higher price.
The modern dervs seem to get more like petrol engines all the time with regard to the concession to performance at the expense of economy. Classic diesel units like the old Pug XUD always returned respectable mpg without seeming to care how heavy the owner's feet were. Maybe that's because they were pretty slow anyway - LOL.
Yep. Which begs the question of whether or not it would be worth swapping when I would simply be trading fuel cost for depreciation. It may make more sense to stick it out until fuel price becomes a more governing factor. My existing (thirsty) car is worth very little so I don't have to concern myself with the impact on it's value.
Thing is, I specify those two particular repairs for a reason. The PAS rack steering column seal is weeping (damn slowly - I've topped it up once in 16 months of ownership) and the clutch suffers from a tendency to judder & a noisy release bearing, even though there's no slippage or signs of imminent failure. These are two of the most expensive things to sort on this car because the racks are bloody dear and the clutch change requires a lot of labour. So I *know* it'll get expensive sooner or later, but how much sooner or how much later? With a nearly new car, at least one would expect major repair costs to be far less likely.
BTW, this discussion started because I was probing about common rail engine problems. If anyone has any more detail or statistics regarding this topic I'd be interested to hear about it. I really should have started a new thread. Apologies.
The 1.6 and 1.8 are different in character. The 1.8 is more the traditional turbodiesel whereas the 1.6 is keener at higher engine speeds; it starts to want for the next gear from 4,000 rpm. The payback for producing all that power at higher engine speeds is in this case detrimental to low down shove. But, it's all relative. Compare the 1.6 variable valve Focus with the 1.6 TDCi 16v, the TDCi owns the VVT petrol under 3,000 rpm. Maybe even 3,500 rpm. Over this, the VVT makes up for it. It is a great engine - worth considering.
The DI-D is a lovely piece of kit, isn't the Corolla available with the smaller Toyota donk these days too? I like the DI-Ds and the Corolla but they were too expensive used. Actually that written the Yaris DI-D is a bit like the BMW 2.0 turbodiesel in that it *needs* revving for performance.
This is partially because of weight, emissions control crud, electronic control and finally turbocharging. Modern stuff achieves poorer consumption when running cold too because the ECU adjusts the timing so as to improve running, technology-less donks may increase the running speed but do nothing else. In fact come to think of it in the summer the Saab returned materially better interim consumption figures compared to the winter.
Right until they were turbocharged: the 306 and 406 with the turbocharged XUD were capable of very poor consumption figures...
For me it's a case of if I like it, I'll keep it. Now the Honda, it was a fine machine in so many respects. Slightly thirsty compared to what I was used to but I could live with it. But, I just didn't like it... :)
Whereas the Saab, I like it. Lots. It's arguably an inferior machine compared with the Accord, but I prefer it.
If the shoe fits, wear it. If you like the Volvo, keep it?
On the other hand you also have the great unknown. Okay there's an element of this with the Volvo, but here at least you have a pretty good idea what the major problems will be. With a used Focus TDCi, it could be... well... common rail problems?
Nah this is Usenet. :)
You might want to try the Focus forums kicking about on t'internet...
"DervMan" wrote in news:45a00461$0$32031$ snipped-for-privacy@news.zen.co.uk:
It would be important for me to try out both if and when I come to seriously consider getting one. Prices are very similar. On paper there's very little difference in performance. Being involved in engineering, I'm always enthusiastic about new technology, yet anything built to last has a certain appeal to me. And there's not many things as tough or durable as a nice heavy lump of iron. :-) So the pros and cons of each balance perfectly, it has to be down to the driving experience.
According to the motoring press, it would seem that the smaller unit doesn't quite have the desired poke when compared to the 2.0. My conclusions are the same as your re the pricing. When considering long term ownership, though, reliability is a key concern and so in terms of value the Toyota might just merit the extra cost. I certainly feel that they're better value than a Golf, where I would be paying for a badge rather than a better quality or more reliable vehicle than the Focus (IMHO - go back 15 years and I would look at it very differently). All of that alters nothing if I can't raise the initial wedge, though.
Sure I like it. What I don't like is that is that it's almost 10 years old and I'm 100% dependent on it to get me to work and let me earn a living. There's no fallback - due to the hours & location, public transport is impossible so if it isn't running, I'm screwed! OK, it's far from knackered, but problems can and will arise like the one I had over xmas with the maf sensor. These need sorting, and that takes time and aggravation which will inevitably come when I can do without it. This situation has nothing to do with costs and personal choice but I still have to think about it.
Not a bad idea. What I'm really after is the general consensus on the reliability of the technology, rather than a mix of horror stories from some owners and praise from others who can't see what all the fuss is about.
And I suspect if you had a heavy foot you'd not find much difference either... but, yes, trying them...
*cough* Titanic. ;)
Yes. And perhaps equipment too.
I had a short list of things as "must haves" when replacing the Honda. Cruise control, ABS, air conditioning were on the list. Oh and a budget. :) The only Focus TDCi models with cruise control are the new generation and too expensive for me.
As expected of course.
Yes it might. I went through a similar set of arguments myself. Saabs are known for expensive servicing and the original generation 9-3 has certain issues, oh the DTI Ecotec also has known problems too. The trick, I figured, would be in either spotting them before you buy it *or* before it's an expensive repair *or* factoring this into ownership...
The current generation Corolla surprised me. It's sharp to drive, comfortable, looks okay and has most of the toys. It's quiet enough, smooth enough, so on and so forth. My concerns were that it would bore me like the Honda and the interior, whilst comfortable, the seats weren't quite what I was looking for.
This the Focus that won all of those awards for reliability?
Playing Devils' Advocate... you have this potential problem with everything though. The advantages you have are that if the clutch fails it's still possible to drive. And you already monitor the steering, so you'd pick up on a rapid drop in fluid level too.
Yes.
Yes, and you could get a pucture at any time too...
Welcome to motoring though. :)
I do understand your points, but, during the initial few months of car ownership as you start to understand and appreciate it, little problems can be thrown up. New car, old car, either / or. Shoot my Dad's Passat he bought new has caused him all manner of problems...
Hmm. Not being rude or anything, but there are gazillions of Focus' out there and a good chunk display TDCi on the rump. You'll have some problems, but, with so many having been sold - and with good reason :) - you're bound to find some loud mouthed owners complaining about their never-serviced, run-on-red-diesel, Focii having problems. Like most problems Ford, there can be issues (thinking about one particular model, the Ka, there's the leaky PAS racks, the sticking idle control valves, rust, lower suspension arms) but many of these issues can be partially resolved by using proper parts, looking after the car, ensuring it's kept serviced and the oil is changed. Of all of these problems, my Ka had the tiniest of PAS leaks, no ICV problems in 80,000 miles, no corrision and the lower suspension arms were changed at the 45,000 point (where some owners change them every 20,000 miles) because I don't view speed bumps as launching ramps... :)
Putting it another way, I was looking at Focus TDCi models but their high cost / low equipment ratio put me off. Otherwise can't find fault with them. I'd not avoid one because of a maybe potential problem at some point down the line, 'cos most if not all modern turbodiesels have the same potential problems. Actually I'd favour the TDCi badge over TDI because "same problems, lower cost" aspects.
"DervMan" wrote in news:45a01b2d$0$31227$ snipped-for-privacy@news.zen.co.uk:
Heh....guess I'd have to keep an eye out for the icebergs :-)
I don't believe there's any difference when choosing between the 1.6 and
1.8 model. The sport trim would do fine for me cos it has AC and alloys, which are all I want besides the normal mod cons which are more or less standard these days (i.e. EW, RCL etc). I'd very much like the Zetec because that has the heated screen which I can imagine would be a real boon on those cold winter mornings when the AC won't pull in. There's also the sports suspension but I found that the Sport model I drove, which oddly enough has bog standard suspension (?), was sufficiently firm without being harsh.
I'd be looking at the new shape. I find the old one more pleasing to the eye, but I'd want the new one because, well, it's newer, innit? :-)
Yeah, since the british designers got involved, I hear they've really sorted out some of the old gripes, like the arcade game steering feel that they used to have. As a brand, I really like Toyota. They don't create the same illusion of quality that some German brands do with things like heavily padded interiors, but the quality of the engineering is easy to observe by anyone who occasionally gets his hands dirty.
Noooooo.....I meant that the Focus *is* arguably more reliable than the Golf, people just think otherwise because of the letters on the grill! Hence the over-inflated price, although the superior residual value may also be to do with the fact that the market gets swamped with Focuses on account of fleet and rental sales.
...and once you forked out for the replacement, it's gonna last as long as it would on an new car, right? :-)
Thing is, in 10 years of motoring, I've learnt that the most frustrating problems are the little niggles that keep on coming. Minor things that go faulty and aren't a major drama but happen quite often and need sorting. When you don't need the car everyday it's no problem - in fact, it keeps things interesting. But when you just want it to work, that's when the annoyance starts. IME, these kind of problems are far more prevalent with older cars. I've had 2 new (bought at 2 yrs old) cars and these gave me a total of seven years of motoring without a single fault, minor or otherwise. I tell a lie - my Primera GT had some suspension link bushes done under warranty. That was it. I've had my other 3 cars for about a year each, and each one has given me a string of minor niggles, in this relatively short time span. None of these ever immobolized me, apart from when my Peugeot got damp and *really* didn't want to start, but add them all together and I've spent a good deal of time being p****d off with cars!
Sorry to waffle, just wanted to make the point of view understood.
Yeah, but that's just a 10 minute delay, followed later by a further ten minutes & a fiver for repair at the local fitters. ;-)
See above.
Yes, admittedly I did have one or two in the cases mentioned above, but once that was sorted they really were completely painless to live with.
This is what I mean. It seems they're generally a highly reliable motor, in which case I'm not worried. But a general opinion, like from a guy who works on lots of them, rather than isolated experiences, gives a better perspective, IMHO.
I find that if you compare a Focus and a Golf of similar price & age, you'll find that the Ford is actually as well or better specced. As far as premium toys go like cruise etc, I haven't noticed it on anything but top-of-range models on any car in this sector. I guess there just isn't enough demand for it. Re the badge thing, like I said, you misunderstood my views on the VW :-)
When I had my 1.8 Focus, I tried the new 1.6VVT (115) Focus and found it woefully lacking, handicapped by over tall gearing like the original 1.6, and not alot of go under 4000rpm.
It was immediately clear to me that if I had another Focus i'd need to be looking at the 2.0 petrol, or the then yet-to-be-launched 1.8TDCi at least.
Barely move? Nah. You merely need to use the lower gears more. The VVT
1.6 is also quieter and a lot smoother than the 1.8.
Also the original 1.6 and 1.8 occupy different areas in the range. The 1.8 is for people who want the sportier drivetrain with some economy (and it was quite a bit cheaper than the 2.0), the 1.6 aimed to appeal to wider audience. The 1.6 VVT? Hmm. Fleets?
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.