the 2.0 is definitely more reliable than the 1.8
Interested in where you get the evidence for this statement please
The 1.8 is known to have oil ring issues where it starts consuming oil, happens in ford focuses as well as the NC. I know as I rebuilt one and did the research beforehand 
.
1 Like
Strange, but interesting. Thanks for reply.
Both (NC) engines share the same block although the 1.8 has smaller bore.
Same stroke on both.
2.0 is of course variable valve timing.
So why is one more reliable than the other?
Best advice from my experience is 5K oil changes and keep regular eye on the dip stick.
I would suggest that applies to both 1.8 or 2.0
Could be that the different engines attract a different kind of driver maybe? I’m unsure, but frequent slower shorter journeys will bind piston rings quicker than longer journeys where the car gets NIC and hot and/or gets a good redline regularly.
Possibly. 5K oil changes and not driving it ‘like you stole it’ - at least until the engine is at normal operating temp is the best you can do?
I’m also led to believe the MZR engines are Mazda designed used by Ford ( at the time they were related) as opposed to Ford engines simply dropped into the NC. Correct me if I’m wrong please.
I always smile when I hear the term “ fast road use” Don’t know about where you all live, but we have speed cameras coming out of every orifice around here, and then there’s the mobile ones……… so those days are gone.
Just as well that when you’re in one of our cars you THINK you’re going fast, even though you really aren’t.
Of course track driving is very different.
Finally, as a turbo diesel driver for the last 30 odd years, one comes to expect a mountain of torque just as you exit a roundabout……. takes a while to realise that with a (small) petrol engine, it’s just not there- unless you thrash the life out of it.
So yes, I agree- how you drive it, along with how you look after it must be at least relevant.
Thanks
1 Like
[quote=“davidcreswell1, post:7, topic:139609”]I
always smile when I hear the term “ fast road use” Don’t know about where you all live, but we have speed cameras coming out of every orifice around here, and then there’s the mobile ones……… so those days are gone.
[/quote]
So do I. To me, these days, fast road use = using the acceleration, where road/traffic conditions allow, to get to the local speed limit ASAP, then sticking with that limit.
I followed a recent Volvo V60 (21reg) a few days ago, doing 40 in the 40 limit. OK, and so it should.
He left me behind in the 30 limit, vanished into the distance still doing 40 through the village, and kids everywhere right now in school hols.
Twenty minutes later I caught him still doing 40 in the derestricted (60 limit) flat straight clear open road.
Fortunately I was going to turn off soon so managed to resist the temptation to blat past as soon as it was clear, and my gently dozing passenger never noticed my internal debate.
Yep. Despite the cameras the standard of driving is at times, lamentable. I don’t claim to be perfect by any means- but do try to be safe, especially around small kids playing, prams etc
Cars can be fixed……even replaced, not so pedestrians. Sorry, ramble/rant over.
1 Like
Within the top 10 most reliable Mazda engines? How many Mazda engines have there been. I assume none of the rotaries made it.
The Duratecs were derived from the MZR, but after Mazda dripped the family, Ford continued to develop. them. All Duratecs were made by Ford. I don’t there is that much interchangeable in them. Plus it was intended as a FF configuration engine, not FR. The FR application is unique to the MX5, I suppose necessitating a new sump baffle design. I’ve heard of oil surge issues…