Zetec Vs Duractec
#1
Posted 18 May 2006 - 10:39 AM
SportKa 1597cc 4cyl 0-60 in 9.7 Top Speed of 108mph 94bhp
StreetKa 1597cc 4cyl 0-60 in 12.1 Top Speed of 108mph 94bhp
So considering the puma weighs even more, ill use the 1.6 as a fair comparison:
Puma 1.6: 1596cc 4cyl 0-60 in 10.4 Top Speed of 118mph 102bhp
So why oh why are they putting the duratec in the Focus ST? IS it to save cost because its a cheaper engine or something?
#2
Posted 18 May 2006 - 10:44 AM
is this along the same lines ?
#3
Posted 18 May 2006 - 12:37 PM
#4
Posted 18 May 2006 - 12:42 PM
Å“Å“Å“
and
Emissions.....
Denso Iridium Plugs
Helix Clutch
Mobil 1
#5
Posted 18 May 2006 - 01:01 PM
With regards your performance figures - they depend on lots of other factors other than the basic engine type eg engine management, weight of car, gear ratios etc.
Stop being spoon fed and GOOGLE it!
#6
Posted 18 May 2006 - 01:51 PM
StreetKa 1597cc 4cyl 0-60 in 12.1 Top Speed of 108mph 94bhp
So considering the puma weighs even more, ill use the 1.6 as a fair comparison:
Puma 1.6: 1596cc 4cyl 0-60 in 10.4 Top Speed of 118mph 102bhp
Top speed is dependent on weight and drag as well as power. More importantly, as far as power is concerned, the engines in the SportKa and StreetKa are 8V versions, whereas the Puma 1.6 engine is 16V. Not all Duratec engines will be 8V.
#7
Posted 18 May 2006 - 01:53 PM
#8
Posted 18 May 2006 - 02:02 PM
Yeah this is part I cant really fathom. Why even make a 1.6 engine in a supposedly sporty car if your going to let in down with it only being 8v. Ford are just lazy i think. You can even get it in Fords 'performance blue' so they obviosuly think alot of it. Just my opinion.
#9
Posted 18 May 2006 - 02:11 PM
It's IMPERIAL blue, not performance blue... same as the Focus RS, Racing Puma, etc
#10
Posted 18 May 2006 - 02:20 PM
which is a real shame they can make such good cars when
they can and want to
#11
Posted 18 May 2006 - 02:42 PM
#12
Posted 18 May 2006 - 04:38 PM
Anyway Zetec and Duratec are just brand names, they do not technically define the engine, unless a Duratec is more 'durable' and a Zetec is more, erm, 'zeetee'? Or maybe cosumers really are that taken in by the marketing bu11sh1t...?
This post has been edited by BOK: 18 May 2006 - 04:38 PM
#13
Posted 18 May 2006 - 11:15 PM
i think puma build managed it tho, but it was tight
and it would hav probably cost ford more to do this, so they took the easy option.
i think the proper duratec (not the zetecs badged up as duratec) is ment to be a lighter engine.
back to the focus st engine its a volvo engine just badged up as duratec, it all get very confussing.
#14
Posted 19 May 2006 - 07:45 AM
i think puma build managed it tho, but it was tight
and it would hav probably cost ford more to do this, so they took the easy option.
...and I'd be prepared to bet Pumabuild would not have to respect Legal Pedestrian Protection legislation, Frontal Crash impact or Ground clearace requirements, all of which effectively make the space in which Ford (or any other large scale automotive manufacturer) has to fit the Engine into smaller and smaller, year on year... not that I'm making excuses for them mind
#15
Posted 19 May 2006 - 09:13 AM
Ford sometimed doesn't follow a very rigid naming convention - eg the turbo Zetec in the FRS was called Duratec, and the Cosworth engine in the old Bennetton was called Zetec, despite having nothing in common with the four cylinder engines in shopping trolleys, so remember to compare like with like, not 8v engines with 16v ones.
JP
#16
Posted 19 May 2006 - 11:59 AM
#17
Posted 22 May 2006 - 02:32 PM
Oh yeah, we decided that the guy who was putting the v6 in the puma was a bullpooter. he couldnt answer any questions.
#18
Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:11 PM
#19
Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:35 PM
#20
Posted 22 May 2006 - 04:34 PM
Which would make it a diesel
Duratec (minus the 'h') gets my vote!