maybe you could make 2.0's higher reving w/ it?

 

He just said it was debored to make it a square motor, they didn't do anything to the stroke.

 

smaller is better in terms of fuel economey. most the time. lol

but sreiously, that's not that bad considering honda's 1.6 fit motor is only making 109hp and no torque.

 

Is this just speculation/wishful thinking? Or is a 1.8 happening?

 

it would be nice if they added some kinda variable valve timing for the 1.8 liter to make is stand out a bit from the 2.0 and 2.3, and also to bump the horsepower up a bit. Who knows, maybe we could swap 1.8 liter vvt heads into 2.0's and 2.3's for more power

 

1.8L 2008 in what car. no focus will see the 1.8

 

1.8L 2008 in what car. no focus will see the 1.8

focus have the 1.8... just not in the states...

http://www.ford.co.th/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1137383556213&pagename=Page&c=DFYPage

 

1.8L 2008 in what car. no focus will see the 1.8

One of the top level euro focus engines is currently a 1.6 with VCT on both cams.

 

the states wont get that in the focus. 2.0L

 

the states wont get that in the focus. 2.0L

Thats how people talked in 1978 too, ever seen how big the engines from the '80's are? 1200 to 1600cc's in most smaller cars.

$4.50 -5.00 per gallon would cause a lot of changes in american driving preferances.

 

EU has a turbo deisel that gets 40+ mpg, also has a turbo all wheel drive availible, but will not ever see it in the states:rant:

 

Opinions? Smaller displacements generally yield greater fuel efficiency at the expense of output.

I think a 1.8 Duratec is due; 2.0 is a huge engine by euro standards.

After having tasted the fruit of teh 2.3 torque tree, I am spoiled; I'd rather have the displacement, and if fuel prices become a personal financial burden I'll drive everywhere at 1750 RPM, shifting at 2250... LOL.

 

After having tasted the fruit of teh 2.3 torque tree, I am spoiled; I'd rather have the displacement, and if fuel prices become a personal financial burden I'll drive everywhere at 1750 RPM, shifting at 2250... LOL.

The "fuel saver" Ford ought to sell us is the 5.4-powered Focus, which gets 35 mpg because you can putter around town while idling.

 

It's no joke, actually; big inches at very low RPM yields excellent fuel mileage. Pete Brock told me that. Yeah, THAT Pete Brock. But just try to keep your foot out of it... LOL. Impossible.

 

It's no joke, actually; big inches at very low RPM yields excellent fuel mileage.

The 2006 Corvette Z06 concurs. 500 horsepower and no gas guzzler tax!

 

I'd love a 1.8 in a Fiesta or a Mazda 2.

 

It's no joke, actually; big inches at very low RPM yields excellent fuel mileage. Pete Brock told me that. Yeah, THAT Pete Brock. But just try to keep your foot out of it... LOL. Impossible.

Yep...you're supposed to be able to get good mileage w/a turbo too, shift before it spools and stuff...:lol:

1.8 would be cool...I'm sure they'll have it for the Fiesta

 

1.8l TDi would be awesome, but no such luck in the states...

 

The duratec I4 family (mazda mzr I4) are 1.8 - 2.0 in europe
ford focus ( throttle by wire), c-max, ford mondeo, volvo s40, volvo v50 and mazda 6 use versions of this engine
The 2.3 is only for the USA market and for special Caterhams on UK.

The 1.6 Ti-Vct (twin indipentent variable cam timing) is a complete new engine from ford that offers a good potencial and fuel economy.

Also over the 40% of the european customers prefer the turbodiesel engines!

 

The VW bettles have a turbodiesel options... my nieghbor has one... shw is about 65. and when she is at the pump she always gets asked, mam do you know what your doing... lol

But she gets insaine gas millage on that thing!

 

It's no joke, actually; big inches at very low RPM yields excellent fuel mileage. Pete Brock told me that. Yeah, THAT Pete Brock. But just try to keep your foot out of it... LOL. Impossible.

the reason pushrods get good mileage is that thier displacement allows for a lower torque peak, they also have less friction than OHC.

Larger displacemnt = less econoy Because the engine doesn't work as hard, and wastes gas idleing, and accelerating.

one of the largest inhibitors to efficentcy is the throttle. Engines work best at WOT, less restriction, a engine needs to work as close to 100% as possible but rarely is working near 60%.

technolgyies like the CVT+electronic throttle, uses the CVT to keep the engine working harder and longer, squeezing as much MPG out of every drop of gas.

using light throttle on a big engine, is worse than using heavy throttle on a smaller engine.
The 1.8 vs 2.3 would be

22/32 2.3
27/37 2.0
30/40 1.8

I am sure some people enjoy drivng a focus 2.3 with worse economy than the Camry. most won't and some will apreciate the added MPG over 11hp and 11 ft/lbs of torque.

honestly the 2.3 doesn't make enough extra hp to make up for the 25%-36% loss in economy.

 

"honestly the 2.3 doesn't make enough extra hp to make up for the 25%-36% loss in economy."

But the willingness of the larger disp engine to net larger % gains from simple mods is obvious... You know the old saying, there's no replacement for ... yeah, that... displacement.

 

I like the roughly 30% more TORQUE from not only the larger displacement, but the larger stoke. The 2.3 is simply wonderful.

I do agree with you about fuel economy, though, however I'm not quite as enthusiastic about it. LOL.

 

"honestly the 2.3 doesn't make enough extra hp to make up for the 25%-36% loss in economy."

But the willingness of the larger disp engine to net larger % gains from simple mods is obvious... You know the old saying, there's no replacement for ... yeah, that... displacement.

IMHO

The Torque is wasted on the Focus at higher power levels. 200ft/lbs FWD and tiny tires is not the optimum situation.

I believe the 2.0 is the best engine ofr theFocus because its balalnce between torque and weight. with a 4.06 Final drive ratio and the 2.0 revability you will have as much torque to the ground as the 3.82 -2.3, and you can actually keep the motor in its power band, without nasty torque steer and an over indulgence of wheel spin.

the 2.3 is pathetic when 4 years ago it was making 175hp how di we get only 151hp? when mazda's 2.0 make 150?

Of course the DISI version of the 1.8 makes ~35/43mpg and an even 130tq/130hp.

 

whos got tiny tires?