Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Ranger20

Timing belt or chain on 1.5L and 1.6L engines?

Recommended Posts

My wife wants a new Fusion and I'm running out of excuses for not getting a new car. We were thinking of getting the smaller Ecoboost because of the better economy and its much easier to find on the SE models we're looking at. My understanding is the 1.6 has a timing belt and the 2.0 has a timing chain. Is that correct, and does anyone know if the new 1.5l has a belt or chain? I'm not sure if I want a car with a timing belt, not really a big deal I guess but don't want the hassle or expense down the road. She is trading out of a '03 Taurus with the dohc V6. Any opinions on if the 1.6 is similar in performance, or is the 2.0l more like the V6 power-wise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2.0L is the replacement for a V6, yes.

 

I have the 2.0L and have not been disappointed power wise. Not as good economy as I was hoping but I do have a heavy foot.

 

I've heard people post on this forum that the 1.6L has pretty good performance, but I would test drive them both so you can form your own opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you drive like EPA, you will get EPA numbers. However if you like to drive like you like driving...you wont achieve EPA numbers. :-)

 

I have 18xx on my 2.0. Got a fill-up yesterday and hopped right on the highway for about 53 miles and got 32.7 via the computer. Fully loaded (two adults, two kids) cruising at 70. However, I don't traditionally get those numbers over that same drive. ;-)

 

Knowing the games around the EPA numbers (IE they can only really be used for car to car comparison because the EPA is delusional if they think their test is a true representation of driving) I am pleased with what I can get out of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you drive like EPA, you will get EPA numbers. However if you like to drive like you like driving...you wont achieve EPA numbers. :-)

 

I have 18xx on my 2.0. Got a fill-up yesterday and hopped right on the highway for about 53 miles and got 32.7 via the computer. Fully loaded (two adults, two kids) cruising at 70. However, I don't traditionally get those numbers over that same drive. ;-)

 

Knowing the games around the EPA numbers (IE they can only really be used for car to car comparison because the EPA is delusional if they think their test is a true representation of driving) I am pleased with what I can get out of her.

 

The EPA never intended for their fuel economy numbers to be representative of the actual mileage one could expect to achieve because there are too many variables to consider and the range of real world results is too large. It's really about CAFE and providing a standardized test for comparing 2 vehicles.

 

Just because people continuously misinterpret the meaning of the window sticker mpgs isn't really the EPA's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, you could save yourself a lot of hassle and buy the 2.5L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder....power is similar to 1.6L, has a timing chain for durability and will give you years of trouble free service....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×