MG-Rover.org Forums banner

ford engines!

6.9K views 96 replies 26 participants last post by  MattL  
#1 ·
what the hell is wrong with them?

had ago in a friends 05 fiesta zetec s today, was expecting a sporty little thing to go with the big wheel arches and the S badge etc but it was like a dead dog. maybe i am just used to the kseries but it just didnt like to rev and was so boring, no power bursts or anything!

i didnt ask him much about the engine, but i knew it was a 1.6 16v so was expecting about 115-120bhp from a modern engine.

got home and looked it up and it is 98bhp :eek: pathetic, the 1.4 16v is 76bhp :eek: :eek: even worse.

what is going on? is the k-series that good or are ford just rubbish at making engines?

also had abit of a drag on a dead industrial estate, i left him behind after 4k in 3rd in 214si.

10year old 80k 1.4 beats a <1year old 2k 1.6

:D
 
#2 ·
Ford have a habit of detuning engines for cheap insurance.
I've got a 1.8 Zetec and if I bought a new exhaust and air intake it would make quite a bit of difference, they also respond quite well to be remapped.

The 2l zetec, sorry duratec is no slouch and it's the same engine in the 2l turbo.
If the 1.6 zetec se was tuned up a bit it would be quite quick.
However in stock form it's not up to much.
 
#4 ·
Despite being a smaller car, the Fiesta is more or less the same weight as the mk3 200.

The K-series is an exceptional engine, and has a high bhp/litre ratio compared to average, particularly the 1.4 and the VVC variants. I don't rate the smaller Ford engines myself, but the 2.0 Duratec-HE and above are not bad at all. I've driven the Fiesta Zetec-S, and what really lets it down is the gearing - it's really quite tall.

Bear in mind though that (in my experience at least) Ford tend to err on the side of pessimism with their quoted power figures - it's fairly normal for the diesel units to be making 10% more than quoted straight out of the box. The 2.0 Duratec-HE is rated at 145-150bhp depending on application, but I've yet to see one throw less than 155bhp on Gaydon's dynos. One 'Lynx' 1.8TDCI unit from a mk1 Focus threw 133bhp on the dyno, despite being rated at 115bhp. The Jag V8 is similar - 330bhp from the NA 4.2 is not unusual, and it's possible to see 430-440bhp from the supercharged lump.

I'm led to believe it's similar to a 'baker's dozen' scenario after Hyundai got fined quite a large amount of money for overstating the power outputs of their engines a few years ago. Ford is not alone in this - I think that VW do something similar.
 
#8 ·
ash7990 said:
Rover beat that with 197bhp, 0-60 in 6.2 seconds, and over 130mph from a 2l years ago back in..... was it 93??
Yep, but if we're talking like-for-like (i.e. a turbocharged 2.0 engine - I'm assuming you're talking about the T-series turbo here)...

Ford/Cosworth YB. *cough*

The Fiesta ST's engine is NASP.
 
#11 ·
nimbur20 said:
There is nothing wrong with my Ford engine. It is in a Fiesta ST, that makes it a 2l 148bhp beast good for 130mph and 0 - 60 in 7.9 secs. I do agree that the Zetec s is a bit slow and could do with a better gear box

Have to be fair though, 10 ps extra in 19 years. The M16 engine had 138ps in 1986! (XX Rover 820i/Si)
 
#17 ·
callum said:
the dolomite sprint had 127 bhp from 1998cc in 1974!!!

Actually it was better than that. Originally, the Dolomite Sprint was going to be called the Dolomite 130 - the 130 equating to the bhp. In fact, most of the Dolomite Sprint engines produced between 130 and 133bhp, but due to variable build quality in the prototypes they couldn't guarantee that power output, which is why it had a published power output of 127.

By the time the car was launched, the engines were improved, and they improved throughout the life of the car.

Blueprinted race engines produced between 225 and 250bhp, and were used in rally cars, saloon car racing and Formula Three. One of Nigel Mansell's Formula Three cars was powered by a Dolomite Sprint engine.

For everyday use, a small amount of tuning work could easily and cheaply increase the power output to around 150-155bhp with little or no detrimental effect to every day driveability - similar to contemporary 2 litre engines, and quite stunning for a 1970s car.

The Dolomite Sprint engine was the first mass-produced 16 valve four cylinder engine to go into production. It had a single overhead cam and twin carburetors. Like the K-series, it gained a reputation for head gasket failures, but like the K-series, this was usually as a result of the owner not keeping a beady eye on the coolant levels.

They really were a cracking bit of kit.
 
#19 ·
marcyb_SEi said:
yeah but did ford make the cosworth engine or was it cosworth who made it?
The Cosworth YB engine was essentially a warmed-over Ford Pinto engine, and produced on the same assembly line as the Pinto at Ford's Dagenham engine plant. Besides, at this time Cosworth was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ford.
 
#20 ·
Ford's are notably "behind the times" compared to rivals in engine development. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it makes parts / servicing cheaper. Ford were still making side-valve engines when everyone else went to OHV... they were still doing the OHV Pushrod engines when everyone else was Overhead Cam.

It's the way they've always been.... which is as said not a bad thing. You'll find the 1.6 Zetec is less powerful than rivals, and is less efficient than rivals, but it's also cheaper to buy, insure, and run!

Swings and roundabouts.......
 
G
#21 ·
My ex-Ford Cougar 2.0i was ok but the ZS 120+ that replaced it wiped the floor with regards to better acceleration, better warm up times (the Cougar took about 15mins to get warm air in the car) and much much better fuel economy (ZS = ave 36 Cougar = ave 27)

Also drove a friends Focus 1.6 - utter crap - dead slow. 1.4 K-Series 16v wiped the floor with it.
 
#23 ·
I think a comparison of the fuel economy of Ford cars may be justified here. Recently I have been looking for a reliable and economical car to replace my Rover 216Si Auto, which is now past its best (9 years old and 155,000 miles on the clock). I didn’t bother to look at the City Rover, but I did have a good look around before making my final purchase.

One thing I did notice was that a Ford Ka had a combined economy figure of 45 mpg with 59bhp (which compares very well against a 1.1 K-series metro, which has the same power output, and 46mpg combined), yet the Toyota Aygo has a combined economy of 61 mpg, with 67bhp of power. The City Rover had a combined figure of 38 mpg, although the engine was larger and more powerful (1.4 litre, 83 bhp).

What Toyota have done is build a very lightweight (67kg – the lightest car engine in production) 1 litre 3-cylinder engine with Variable Valve Technology engine (complete with timing chain rather than belt), that also meets Euro IV group B emissions (£75 per year road tax). The performance will not set the world alight with 0-62mph as 14.3 seconds and a top speed of 98 mph, but it is still considerably faster than a Smart Car, which costs about the same.

As regarding insurance, the Ford is group 2 or 3, the Aygo is group 1E!

On this evidence, Ford have not quite caught up with Rover on the performance of their engines, but are still well behind the leading edge of engine technology; embarrassing when you consider how little money has been spent developing the K-Series in the last 5 years (Although MG Rover had a replacement engine in the pipeline when they went under). Even the best engine Ford fit to their cars is actually a five-cylinder Volvo engine on the Focus ST (making it the only mk2 Focus I rate). The only real advantage of Ford engines is the that they don’t suffer so much from coolant system failures (i.e. HGF).

After testing one, I now have an Aygo on order - shame that MG Rover didn’t have a car like this to replace the Rover 100.