1.8L vs. 1.9L
killermrob83
09-23-2006, 03:30 PM
I currently own a '92 LX 5spd with 260k on it......extremely reliable drivetrain package. How does the 1.8L configuration stand up in comparison?
AltecZX2
09-23-2006, 04:34 PM
much better motor,mazda made, people have gotten over 300hp/tq on the 1.8L
Rockhousehootie
03-05-2009, 11:13 PM
much better motor,mazda made, people have gotten over 300hp/tq on the 1.8L
I DISAGREE!!!! Having owned 9 Escorts as a family since 1992 and one being a 1.8 in a GT, the reliabilty of the 1.8 is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the 1.9. My 1.9 5 speed would leave my 1.8 auto in the dust. I realize that a stick will always out perform an auto trans., in stock, equal situations, but the biggest pain in my A was the 1.8! My friend had one as well and my son in law had another and they were all problematic.... The 1.9 is a great engine..... and far more reliable than the 1.8. Do some internet research and you may agree!!!! Consumer Reports agrees with my assessment as well!!!! Good Luck!!!!!
I DISAGREE!!!! Having owned 9 Escorts as a family since 1992 and one being a 1.8 in a GT, the reliabilty of the 1.8 is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the 1.9. My 1.9 5 speed would leave my 1.8 auto in the dust. I realize that a stick will always out perform an auto trans., in stock, equal situations, but the biggest pain in my A was the 1.8! My friend had one as well and my son in law had another and they were all problematic.... The 1.9 is a great engine..... and far more reliable than the 1.8. Do some internet research and you may agree!!!! Consumer Reports agrees with my assessment as well!!!! Good Luck!!!!!
chrisanthony
03-06-2009, 09:19 AM
the 1.8l is a mazda twin cam engine which is much better then the 1.9l..i so wish i had a ESCORT GT for that engine. According to Rockhousehottie, i really dunno how a Ford Engine can over take a twin camed mazda?. I never really owned a GT so I cant pass judgement .
My 96 1.9lx has 260k on it as well, i bought it at 240k and I'm having no major issues with the engine yet lol
My 96 1.9lx has 260k on it as well, i bought it at 240k and I'm having no major issues with the engine yet lol
Rockhousehootie
03-06-2009, 10:02 PM
the 1.8l is a mazda twin cam engine which is much better then the 1.9l..i so wish i had a ESCORT GT for that engine. According to Rockhousehottie, i really dunno how a Ford Engine can over take a twin camed mazda?. I never really owned a GT so I cant pass judgement .
My 96 1.9lx has 260k on it as well, i bought it at 240k and I'm having no major issues with the engine yet lol
I agree with you and was excited about the 1.8 when I got it. Had under 100,000 miles and was a supposed one owner. In the first three months I replaced timing belt, distributor, and valve cover gasket. It always used oil from the day I got it and it always leaked a little somewhere. I spent more money fixing this one car in the 6 months I owned it than I spent in the previous 3 years on the other 2. After a headgasket went, still under 100,000 I sold it. When my daughters friend bought his, he had a most of the same problems I had in a farely short time as well. My friend told me he had one he bought 2 years old in 95 (38k) and said it is the reason he will never own a Ford again!!! I will admit that because the 1.8 is ONLY in the GT, they are very likely to have been run hard most of their life and then by the time I/we got them used, it had been thrashed to death! In my opinion this is the reason the 1.9 is a more reliable motor. Neither are available anymore so I have to assume the q being asked was because he is looking at a couple of Escorts and has a choice.
As far as the performance, honestly, if you get a chance to drive a GT, take it and tell me if you feel like it would outperform the 1.9 you have.
My 96 1.9lx has 260k on it as well, i bought it at 240k and I'm having no major issues with the engine yet lol
I agree with you and was excited about the 1.8 when I got it. Had under 100,000 miles and was a supposed one owner. In the first three months I replaced timing belt, distributor, and valve cover gasket. It always used oil from the day I got it and it always leaked a little somewhere. I spent more money fixing this one car in the 6 months I owned it than I spent in the previous 3 years on the other 2. After a headgasket went, still under 100,000 I sold it. When my daughters friend bought his, he had a most of the same problems I had in a farely short time as well. My friend told me he had one he bought 2 years old in 95 (38k) and said it is the reason he will never own a Ford again!!! I will admit that because the 1.8 is ONLY in the GT, they are very likely to have been run hard most of their life and then by the time I/we got them used, it had been thrashed to death! In my opinion this is the reason the 1.9 is a more reliable motor. Neither are available anymore so I have to assume the q being asked was because he is looking at a couple of Escorts and has a choice.
As far as the performance, honestly, if you get a chance to drive a GT, take it and tell me if you feel like it would outperform the 1.9 you have.
Intuit
03-07-2009, 01:05 PM
Manual Shift 227k 1.9L '94 LX:
I think it's obvious that some here are confusing performance and reliability. For an every-day car, I'd choose the latter over the former any day.
Since I haven't owned a 1.8L I can't speak for it, but I can speak for my 1.9L and the many others I still see on the roads today.
I've run my 1.9L very hard and has been pretty reliable despite. Doesn't blow smoke or consume oil. Never left noticeable oil spots until more recently. (I'll get around to it.) For cars of varying makes and models built during this era, there may be head-gasket issues due to the different expansion rates produced by the iron block and aluminum head. Head develops hairline cracks where it meets with the iron exhaust-header but are repairable unlike when those Saturn engine heads crack. (Dodge Neon as another example - but not nearly that bad.) Other than that, the engine (and car) has been very, very reliable. Has NEVER left me on the side of the road in over 10 years of ownership. Still original alternator, PS pump, etc. Just stay the hell away from AutoZone, change oil often, and perform preemptive maintenance regularly. Great engine (and car) if you don't like car notes. Easy to maintain and work on, inexpensive yet reliable.
Based upon those 10 degree Fahrenheit weather cold-starts, I'd estimate that will probably get the bottom-end rebuilt for rod-bearing wear in another 30-90k. When I did the head gasket at 180k all four cylinder walls had a flawless mirror finish and as said for 227k, still doesn't consume oil or blow smoke.
Like most cars of any brand it has it's issues, but I'd choose reliability over performance any day.
BTW, at about 150k did have a hydraulic roller-lifter lock up which pitted the cam-shaft 2nd cylinder exhaust lobe. Didn't seem to affect it's performance though and they're as simple as four bolts and ten minutes to replace. Clever little design.
I think it's obvious that some here are confusing performance and reliability. For an every-day car, I'd choose the latter over the former any day.
Since I haven't owned a 1.8L I can't speak for it, but I can speak for my 1.9L and the many others I still see on the roads today.
I've run my 1.9L very hard and has been pretty reliable despite. Doesn't blow smoke or consume oil. Never left noticeable oil spots until more recently. (I'll get around to it.) For cars of varying makes and models built during this era, there may be head-gasket issues due to the different expansion rates produced by the iron block and aluminum head. Head develops hairline cracks where it meets with the iron exhaust-header but are repairable unlike when those Saturn engine heads crack. (Dodge Neon as another example - but not nearly that bad.) Other than that, the engine (and car) has been very, very reliable. Has NEVER left me on the side of the road in over 10 years of ownership. Still original alternator, PS pump, etc. Just stay the hell away from AutoZone, change oil often, and perform preemptive maintenance regularly. Great engine (and car) if you don't like car notes. Easy to maintain and work on, inexpensive yet reliable.
Based upon those 10 degree Fahrenheit weather cold-starts, I'd estimate that will probably get the bottom-end rebuilt for rod-bearing wear in another 30-90k. When I did the head gasket at 180k all four cylinder walls had a flawless mirror finish and as said for 227k, still doesn't consume oil or blow smoke.
Like most cars of any brand it has it's issues, but I'd choose reliability over performance any day.
BTW, at about 150k did have a hydraulic roller-lifter lock up which pitted the cam-shaft 2nd cylinder exhaust lobe. Didn't seem to affect it's performance though and they're as simple as four bolts and ten minutes to replace. Clever little design.
02wrx
03-10-2009, 12:35 PM
My cousin and I are currently beginning a build on his 94 Escort LX Wagon 1.9L.
IMO, If you have a 1.9L AND it is your first build, then do not go for the motor swap. Just go for the straight build up and you will have more $ to spend on the rest of the car.
If you absolutely LOVE your escort and cant live without it, then do the swap and turbo.
If not, then do the build up AND SELL IT! Then, you will have more $ for a better car =D
...'cause no escort can stand up to my WRX sorry to say, and I only spent $7,600 for it, LOL!
IMO, If you have a 1.9L AND it is your first build, then do not go for the motor swap. Just go for the straight build up and you will have more $ to spend on the rest of the car.
If you absolutely LOVE your escort and cant live without it, then do the swap and turbo.
If not, then do the build up AND SELL IT! Then, you will have more $ for a better car =D
...'cause no escort can stand up to my WRX sorry to say, and I only spent $7,600 for it, LOL!
chrisanthony
03-10-2009, 01:30 PM
My cousin and I are currently beginning a build on his 94 Escort LX Wagon 1.9L.
IMO, If you have a 1.9L AND it is your first build, then do not go for the motor swap. Just go for the straight build up and you will have more $ to spend on the rest of the car.
If you absolutely LOVE your escort and cant live without it, then do the swap and turbo.
If not, then do the build up AND SELL IT! Then, you will have more $ for a better car =D
...'cause no escort can stand up to my WRX sorry to say, and I only spent $7,600 for it, LOL!
Mine can:smooch:
IMO, If you have a 1.9L AND it is your first build, then do not go for the motor swap. Just go for the straight build up and you will have more $ to spend on the rest of the car.
If you absolutely LOVE your escort and cant live without it, then do the swap and turbo.
If not, then do the build up AND SELL IT! Then, you will have more $ for a better car =D
...'cause no escort can stand up to my WRX sorry to say, and I only spent $7,600 for it, LOL!
Mine can:smooch:
02wrx
03-10-2009, 05:07 PM
Mine can:smooch:
I'm sorry, I meant to say that no "bolt on" escort is outperforming my AWD Boxer Turbo.
Therefore, that is why I suggest selling a nice car you built up and finding a deal on the next step up
I'm sorry, I meant to say that no "bolt on" escort is outperforming my AWD Boxer Turbo.
Therefore, that is why I suggest selling a nice car you built up and finding a deal on the next step up
mightymoose_22
03-10-2009, 09:00 PM
I know it is just a hobby, at least I hope so...
But turbo on an Escort and talk of performance tweaks really seem absurd to me.
If you want performance why not just get a more suitable vehicle?
My own very biased suggestion.... get a goat.
But turbo on an Escort and talk of performance tweaks really seem absurd to me.
If you want performance why not just get a more suitable vehicle?
My own very biased suggestion.... get a goat.
Intuit
03-12-2009, 08:41 AM
Engine wise the Escort is no performance car. It's a reliable A to E car; that's it. Lots of low-RPM torque that will get you off the line quick and sling you up hills but little power compared to 16-valve DOHC engines. Good handling decent cornering ability but no performance car.
That said and based on experiences, it has limited potential with timing modifications but then you're swapping out computers and/or fabricating parts which equals *major* $$$$$.
Engineers intentionally down-tune and limit the engines in the interests of stamina and over performance. BTW I've seen too many Hondas (WRXs included) and Saturns (with modified exhausts) blowing smoke over the years to know that it's a good idea.
That said and based on experiences, it has limited potential with timing modifications but then you're swapping out computers and/or fabricating parts which equals *major* $$$$$.
Engineers intentionally down-tune and limit the engines in the interests of stamina and over performance. BTW I've seen too many Hondas (WRXs included) and Saturns (with modified exhausts) blowing smoke over the years to know that it's a good idea.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026