Hi all, new to this forum. I'm just looking for some insight regarding the Mk2.5 Focus. I'm looking to buy a petrol Titanium model, I love the look of the Titanium and I don't do diesel miles. A few months ago I had the chance to drive the 2.0 145bhp and absolutely loved it. I've been looking at prices on AutoTrader and it seems the 1.8 125bhp is quite a bit cheaper and more common. My question is, is the 1.8 significantly slower and less powerful than the 2.0 or is the difference minimal? Does anyone think the 1.8 is powerful for a car of this size? This will be my second car that I use for work and I definitely don't want the 1.6 despite their wider availability. I'd like some insight from someone who has driven both as I wouldn't want to buy the 1.8 and wishing I'd gone with the 2.0litre.

Feel free to ask for more details 🙂

Many thanks

Hi welcome 

3 hours ago, Ashleyweightman said:

Hi all, new to this forum. I'm just looking for some insight regarding the Mk2.5 Focus. I'm looking to buy a petrol Titanium model, I love the look of the Titanium and I don't do diesel miles. A few months ago I had the chance to drive the 2.0 145bhp and absolutely loved it. I've been looking at prices on AutoTrader and it seems the 1.8 125bhp is quite a bit cheaper and more common. My question is, is the 1.8 significantly slower and less powerful than the 2.0 or is the difference minimal? Does anyone think the 1.8 is powerful for a car of this size? This will be my second car that I use for work and I definitely don't want the 1.6 despite their wider availability. I'd like some insight from someone who has driven both as I wouldn't want to buy the 1.8 and wishing I'd gone with the 2.0litre.

Feel free to ask for more details 🙂

Many thanks

Haven't driven either but definitely go for the 2.0L. It's much more reliable than the 1.8 which is a Mazda engine usually with piston rings or throttle body problems. 

2.0L has a bit more power and decent economy for a 2L

Only owned a diesel Focus myself, but a friend went for a 1.8 rather than a 2.0 petrol thinking it might be more economical. It wasn't - he spent the 3 years he owned it moaning about it's thirst!

The 1.8 is not particularly powerful for this size car - the 1.0 ecoboost in the Mk 3 has similar power and performance with better economy.

The 2.0 TDCi performs well with better torque, is economical and my 2010 was pre-dpf so no issues there.

 

12 hours ago, Focus_ said:

Haven't driven either but definitely go for the 2.0L. It's much more reliable than the 1.8 which is a Mazda engine usually with piston rings or throttle body problems. 

2.0L has a bit more power and decent economy for a 2L

Apart form the displacement the 1.8 and 2.0 that are used on the Focus MK2/MK2.5 are technically identical. Both belong to the Duratec HE engine family. The 2.3 and 2.5 Duratec HE engines have a higher engine block. 

To be clear the Duratec HE engines are not fully Mazda engines. The Duratec HE engines are only based on the Mazda L engine. As a result of the Ford/Mazda partnership at the time Mazda developed a new engine for the entire Mazda/Ford family. This resulted in the Mazda MZR / Ford Duratec HE engine. The Duratec HE engine was fully produced at Ford's own engine plants. Despite the similarities there also a lot of differences between the Mazda MZR and Ford Duratec HE engines. After the original engine design each manufacturer went their own route by further developing the engine.

Both the 1.8 and 2.0 Duratec HE engines are well known for excessive oil consumption caused by tired piston rings (the piston rings loose tension and fail to seal properly). Replacement of the piston rings is quite expensive since a lot of labour is involved. When buying a car with a 1.8/2.0 Duratec engine you absolutely have to make sure that there is no excessive oil consumption.

I personally prefer the 2.0 Duratec HE engine. The 2.0 runs considerably smoother than the 1.8 and has more power with almost the same fuel consumption.

4-inline Duratec petrol engines in Focus mk2/mk2.5 (as well as e.g. in Mondeo at the same era) are basing on the same Mazda L engine  Ford Duratec engine (Wikipedia)

Even 2.0 (145hp) engine is not making mk2.5 very fast - not least Estate (0-60mph 8,9s).

Also here in Finland, lots of piston ring issues reported for 1.8 DuratecHE, but far less for 2.0 DuratecHE. So, I ended up to 2.0 Estate; now about 174 000 km (108 000 miles) on clock.

Throttle body contamination issue is common for both (1.8 and 2.0) and can be solved out just by clearing throttle body (can be quite easily done by oneself). Root cause probably EGR-system, which circulates exhaust gas back to intake manifold right next to throttle flap.

Instrument Cluster soldering issue appeared to mine around 157 000 km. Easy to fix by re-soldering pins; the hard part is to teardown the cluster.

Fuel economy is quite poor (in my opinion) - at least here in Northern Europe with cold Winters (+5...-20 C). Short trips in cold is pain in the a$$ - easily over 10 l/100 km, but not below 9 l / 100 km. Possible to achieve bit below 8.0 l / 100 km in long road trips.
7,5 l / 100 km (calculated by computer) is the lowest I ever managed - about 200 km as per 60 km/h at Summer.
Engine itself is not the only reason for poor fuel economy, but 5-speed only gearbox (mine has MTX-75) is also effecting - especially road speeds (would say >80 km/h).
Also, has to remember, that engines' base design is from late 1990.

I'd knocking issues with 95e10, so I changed to 98e5/V-Power (albeit more expensive than 95e10) and no anymore knocking.

Guide rollers definitely to be changed with auxiliary belt. I didn't and now bearings are keeping quite a noise.

Had to change front wheel bearings quite earlier as 115 000 km.

We had a couple of MK2 1.8 petrols, they weren't much quicker than the 1.6 but used as much fuel as the 2.0

52 minutes ago, DaveT70 said:

We had a couple of MK2 1.8 petrols, they weren't much quicker than the 1.6 but used as much fuel as the 2.0

That definitely seems to be a common consensus, now you say it I remember someone telling me a similar thing before. 

I think for economy go for the 1.6 (Ti-VCT would be a bonus) as the 99bhp unit can be a bit gutless or for performance go for the 2.0 which still has decent economy. 

The 1.8 isn't an "in-between" as @DaveT70 says above 

The 1.4 on the other hand is absolutely dire, about 75 bhp in a car that weighs 1.6 tonnes! 😂

3 minutes ago, Focus_ said:

That definitely seems to be a common consensus, now you say it I remember someone telling me a similar thing before. 

I think for economy go for the 1.6 (Ti-VCT would be a bonus) as the 99bhp unit can be a bit gutless or for performance go for the 2.0 which still has decent economy. 

The 1.8 isn't an "in-between" as @DaveT70 says above 

The 1.4 on the other hand is absolutely dire, about 75 bhp in a car that weighs 1.6 tonnes! 😂

Just to add, the 1.4 has pretty much the same running costs as the 1.6 but much worse performance

2 minutes ago, Focus_ said:

The 1.4 on the other hand is absolutely dire, about 75 bhp in a car that weighs 1.6 tonnes! 😂

Agreed.

The 1.4 MK6 Fiesta was the same. 1.25, great fun and good on fuel, 1.4 used as much fuel as 1.6 and seemed gutless, 1.6 was lovely

On 2/26/2022 at 6:36 PM, Focus_ said:

Haven't driven either but definitely go for the 2.0L. It's much more reliable than the 1.8 which is a Mazda engine usually with piston rings or throttle body problems. 

2.0L has a bit more power and decent economy for a 2L

The 1.8 and 2.0 Duratec engines in the MK2/MK2.5 Focus are the same engine other than the 2.0 has 0.2 litre extra displacement over the 1.8, so there's no major internal difference between the 2 units. Anecdotally, the 2.0 seems to be less prone to the excessive oil consumption issue.

 

The 2.0 IS noticeably more powerful compared to the 1.8 and offers similar fuel economy.

6 hours ago, FatHead1979 said:

The 1.8 and 2.0 Duratec engines in the MK2/MK2.5 Focus are the same engine other than the 2.0 has 0.2 litre extra displacement over the 1.8, so there's no difference is reliability/durability between the 2 units.

 

The 2.0 IS noticeably more powerful compared to the 1.8 and offers similar fuel economy.

I know they're derived from the same engine, but I hear of a lot more trouble out of the 1.8 than the 2.0

1 minute ago, Focus_ said:

I know they're derived from the same engine, but I hear of a lot more trouble out of the 1.8 than the 2.0

There's no inherent reason for that to be the case, I suspect it's more a case of the 1.8 being hugely more numerous than the 2.0.  I'd also expect an owner that had paid the extra to get the 2.0 over the 1.8 to have the financial means to ensure the engine is service correctly.

2 hours ago, FatHead1979 said:

There's no inherent reason for that to be the case, I suspect it's more a case of the 1.8 being hugely more numerous than the 2.0.  I'd also expect an owner that had paid the extra to get the 2.0 over the 1.8 to have the financial means to ensure the engine is service correctly.

Yes you're  probably right 👍I don't disagree at all 👍

 

Had the problem with the disintegrating swirl flaps been fixed by the time the 1.8 and 2.0 engines were fitted to the Mk2 Focus?

Reading about that made me avoid those engines, but I have seen elsewhere that it was mainly a problem on the earlier Mondeo and C-Max.

On 3/13/2022 at 4:15 PM, AntonovAN12 said:

Had the problem with the disintegrating swirl flaps been fixed by the time the 1.8 and 2.0 engines were fitted to the Mk2 Focus?

Reading about that made me avoid those engines, but I have seen elsewhere that it was mainly a problem on the earlier Mondeo and C-Max.

Yes, the version of the engine fitted to the MK2 Focus was revised compared to the older version in the MK3 Mondy. 

4 hours ago, FatHead1979 said:

Yes, the version of the engine fitted to the MK2 Focus was revised compared to the older version in the MK3 Monday. 

Thanks for that, I have read that some have removed the flaps entirely, but left the solenoid in place to prevent an error code.

Does it have any negative effect on performance? I am sure I have read that it will fail the MOT on emissions without the flaps, is that correct?

On 2/27/2022 at 8:12 AM, AR7530v6 said:

4-inline Duratec petrol engines in Focus mk2/mk2.5 (as well as e.g. in Mondeo at the same era) are basing on the same Mazda L engine  Ford Duratec engine (Wikipedia)

Even 2.0 (145hp) engine is not making mk2.5 very fast - not least Estate (0-60mph 8,9s).

Also here in Finland, lots of piston ring issues reported for 1.8 DuratecHE, but far less for 2.0 DuratecHE. So, I ended up to 2.0 Estate; now about 174 000 km (108 000 miles) on clock.

Throttle body contamination issue is common for both (1.8 and 2.0) and can be solved out just by clearing throttle body (can be quite easily done by oneself). Root cause probably EGR-system, which circulates exhaust gas back to intake manifold right next to throttle flap.

Instrument Cluster soldering issue appeared to mine around 157 000 km. Easy to fix by re-soldering pins; the hard part is to teardown the cluster.

Fuel economy is quite poor (in my opinion) - at least here in Northern Europe with cold Winters (+5...-20 C). Short trips in cold is pain in the a$$ - easily over 10 l/100 km, but not below 9 l / 100 km. Possible to achieve bit below 8.0 l / 100 km in long road trips.
7,5 l / 100 km (calculated by computer) is the lowest I ever managed - about 200 km as per 60 km/h at Summer.
Engine itself is not the only reason for poor fuel economy, but 5-speed only gearbox (mine has MTX-75) is also effecting - especially road speeds (would say >80 km/h).
Also, has to remember, that engines' base design is from late 1990.

I'd knocking issues with 95e10, so I changed to 98e5/V-Power (albeit more expensive than 95e10) and no anymore knocking.

Guide rollers definitely to be changed with auxiliary belt. I didn't and now bearings are keeping quite a noise.

Had to change front wheel bearings quite earlier as 115 000 km.

The issue with the solder on the instrument cluster connector is a all to common fault even here in the UK, i have faced this issue personally and sent hours trying to figure out what was going wrong only for me to spend another 2 hours learning to solder to fix this issue. lol 

On 3/1/2022 at 11:18 AM, DaveT70 said:

We had a couple of MK2 1.8 petrols, they weren't much quicker than the 1.6 but used as much fuel as the 2.0

Old thread that’s been revived today, but since I own both 1.6 and 1.8 petrol versions I’ll give my opinion on this. 
 

I agree with the above quoted comment that the 1.8 isn’t generally much faster than the 1.6 on maximum acceleration i.e if you accelerate in 2nd gear on the flat from 3000rpm upwards the 1.8 isn’t that much different to the 1.6…

but….

there is a big difference low down. If you are tootling along at say 1800rpm in 4th gear and decide to accelerate the 1.6 is really sluggish at picking up any speed until you get closer to 3000rpm. The 1.8 picks up speed considerably better initially at low revs though.
 

Also if you’re climbing a slight incline in 5th gear at say just over 2000rpm and try to pick up speed in the 1.6 it’s not really gunna do much unless you drop it down a gear, but the 1.8 will instantly start picking up speed.

 

Neither cars are fast but I find the 1.8 is a more enjoyable drive as you don’t have to drop down a gear half as often to make good progress on a journey.
 

In summary The 1.6 totally sucks below 3000rpm compared with the 1.8 in anything above 2nd gear, but between 3000rpm and 6000rpm the difference is minimal.