Mk4 2010 Diesel 1.8 Or 2 L?
1 reply to this topic
Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:07 PM
hey lads I have an older mondeo and thinking of buying a mark four but I'm not sure what problems there are with the 1.8 or the 2ls or which one is a better engine.i heard the 1.8s are giving injector trouble and the 2ls are eating the clutches which isn't a big problem because I'd be buying an automatic as I'm using it for a taxi. If anyone has an info on which one would be the better choice ya'd be really helping me out.. Cheers
Have something to contribute?
Sign in or register to start a topic...
Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:10 PM
...the 2ls are eating the clutches...
I don't think that they do eat clutches, but the clutch is combined with the dual mass flywheel, which does go and produces the same effect - you have to change the clutch assembly, and that's expensive.
i heard the 1.8s are giving injector trouble
I don't know any reason that the 1.8s should be worse in the injector department, but maybe someone with direct knowledge will come along and comment. At introduction the 1.8s were worse in driveability than the 2 litres (sometimes blamed on overboost...and maybe it was reduced by a subsequent re-map, because it wasn't a massive thing) and as there is no difference in the official fuel consumption numbers (unless you get an 'eco' variant) most people would prefer a 2 litre. I've driven a 1.8 and I certainly wouldn't say that it is bad, but, unless it saved me money on fuel, it certainly wasn't my preference.
I'd say that if you did want to save fuel over the 2 litre, the later 1.6 makes more sense (you do give up performance, but you do get some fuel economy in exchange), but if that moves the car out of your price range, stick with the 2 litre. The auto is already giving up some fuel economy over a manual, so you need to think about what you can tolerate.
Not what you're looking for?
Register now, we have a huge community of enthusiasts to answer any questions you might have
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users