Jump to content

Undesirable, uneconomical, unkillable? The 1.8 litre curse.


pandamonium

Recommended Posts

I had 2 C reg mk2

Cavaliers with the 1.8e 8v same as in the mk1 Astra gte.

 

And a 1.8l mk3 cavalier with a carb and 20 bhp less in a heavier car.

 

All were great.

 

Not complex. Easy to fix and reliable.

 

What went wrong Vauxhall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite a touching thread, because Amy's 1.8 zafira

 

Is shit on fuel

Stinks of oil when hot

Rattles its tits off when cold

Under the rocker cover is a load of crusty smeggy oil crust

The oil filter was caving in on itself when I gave it a service

 

Yet it plods on quite happily! And has done for a long time, and hopefully will do for a long time yet! Reminds me, it's due an oil change soon...

 

Had the oil smell on sons 1,8 vectra. New cam cover gasket and put a dab of sealant on the bottom corner of the slope at cam pulley end and replaced oil cooler seals. The oil cooler is a bit of a faff having to remove exhaust manifold to do and watch the coolant pipe O rings but check the cam cover gasket first. £15 at local motor factors for an FAI one cured the leak down the back of engine. (It leaked on to exhaust by lambda sensor and burnt oil patch was visible)

 

On the subject of 1.8's, Italy also had some odd sized engines in various vehicles due to taxation, not sure if still the same. I quite like a 1.8, sons 58 vectra runs quite well. A bit of extra grunt when loaded or with passengers is useful, I'm a bit of a fan. I run a 2,0 Scenic (02) so like a bit of torque rather than small high revving engines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had the oil smell on sons 1,8 vectra. New cam cover gasket and put a dab of sealant on the bottom corner of the slope at cam pulley end and replaced oil cooler seals. The oil cooler is a bit of a faff having to remove exhaust manifold to do and watch the coolant pipe O rings but check the cam cover gasket first. £15 at local motor factors for an FAI one cured the leak down the back of engine. (It leaked on to exhaust by lambda sensor and burnt oil patch was visible)

 

On the subject of 1.8's, Italy also had some odd sized engines in various vehicles due to taxation, not sure if still the same. I quite like a 1.8, sons 58 vectra runs quite well. A bit of extra grunt when loaded or with passengers is useful, I'm a bit of a fan. I run a 2,0 Scenic (02) so like a bit of torque rather than small high revving engines.

I've don't the cam cover gasket, that's bone dry. I do have the oil cooler gaskets and a how to printed for one day, want to time it with a service though as I'll need to drop the oil and coolant, and it's too cold for that at the moment! Amys used to not sitting with it idling now, so temporarily fixed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been running my 1.8 pezzer Fuckus for 14 years now. I suppose technically speaking there are now billions of cars more economical than it, but as I've forgotten what it's like to own anything else, I don't notice how bad on fuel it is. For the best part of a decade now I've been trying to drive as smoothly as possible, use the brakes as little as I can get away with, and change up at about 2.5k rpm. So quite short shifty, really. Third gear in the 30 limits, and keeping it legal. It seems to like this kind of treatment and doesn't appear overly thirsty. I prefer it to the 1.6, which the mrs had previously. It's just go that little bit more torque that means you can be quite laid back. Also, and although I've never driven one, I think I might prefer my Fuckus to these new eco boost lumps. Will have to try one though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember it was in about 1985 the company car tax rules / bands altered, up to that point the bands were up to 1.3 litre, next 1.6 litre then 2.0 litre. Possibly in the new tax year from April the bands changed to 1.4 litre, 1.6 litre, not sure if the 2.0 litre stayed the same. The company I worked for had a fleet of Fords, Escorts & Sierras, entry level car was a 1.3L Escort, further up a 1.6L Sierra next 1.6GL Sierra or 1.6 Ghia Escort and the top management a 2.0 Ghia Sierra. As a daft young lad / gofer at the time I got to drive them all. I remember the 1.8 Sierras coming on fleet, the first was my favourite which I always tried to borrow if I could  a 1.8 Ghia Estate, it wasn't quick but it looked good in a metallic blue / grey, pepperpot wheels and roof bars.

 I believe the first 1.8s were the Pinto engine and was changed to a CVH engine when the Sierra was facelifted for the 87 model year, I preferred the Pinto ones. The Escorts got the 1.4 CVH engine in about 86 I think - its a long time ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small capcity V6's are pointless - just as expensive to run as their bigger engined siblings put power outputs comprarable to their smaller engined bretheren.

 

I don't necessarily agree. I can rag the crap out of my Rover and know I'm hardly likely to upset PC Plod. I like that. I want a V6 more for the the noise than the performance.

 

Personally, I'd far rather have a 1.8 over a 1.6. Now they really are the worst of the worst. Barely enough power to move, yet clobbered for the same rate vehcile tax as a bleedin' Range Rover. Or a Dodge Viper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Vauxhalls etc

 

I think you’re wide of the mark on this one though, chief - that engine is the pick of the range and at least it’s a proper auto and not easychronic!

 

My mum's car, while she could drive, was a '58 Astra 1.8 VVTi in Elite spec.

 

140hp in a car that small made it pretty damn nippy, particularly off the line, and it also had a weirdly distinctive (and enjoyful) engine note.

 

The 4spd autobox was very basic and dimwitted...you had to treat it really roughly to get it to kick down or stay in gear, but it would rev happily and keep pulling willingly all the way. It also settled down to a pretty refined cruising engine speed too.

 

It was dreadful on fuel. Like, 22-24mpg around town, although shorter journeys didn't help.

 

I once had it for nearly a week while I was between cars. I actually put around half my mum's annual mileage on it in that time! On a long run I managed to get 42mpg from it.

 

I think that 1.6 diesels are the modern-day version of the older 1.8 petrol, although clearly it'll be more about the performance compromise than the economy. I'm surprised at what a 1.6 TDi is being shoved into.

 

In fact, if Nissan launched a bloody cruise ship I wouldn't be at all shocked to find out that its engineers had considered fitting it with the 1.5 DCi unit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily agree. I can rag the crap out of my Rover and know I'm hardly likely to upset PC Plod. I like that. I want a V6 more for the the noise than the performance.

 

Personally, I'd far rather have a 1.8 over a 1.6. Now they really are the worst of the worst. Barely enough power to move, yet clobbered for the same rate vehcile tax as a bleedin' Range Rover. Or a Dodge Viper.

 

Agree with this entirely.

 

I find in all ranges, the 1.6 is the unhappy middle ground, the worse of all worlds choice. (the only exceptions are arguably the Mk1 Focus, where the 1.6 feels like the 1.8 except slightly less thirsty, and the B16 Vtecs, a great engine in their own right, albeit still the 1.8 Vtec flavour is better).

 

A boggo 1.6 never has enough power to justify the extra thirst over a 1.2 or 1.4, nor does it usually save enough fuel to justify ignoring a 1.8 or 2.0, yet you still pay top tax on the old system.

 

Using Fiat as an example, they has a 1.6 that was used from early 90's to around 2004, it was terrible.

 

Fiat had the 1.2 8v MPI 75BHP engine which in the real world, felt arguably faster than the 1.6 due to its torquier nature and also did an extra 15mpg. It also had a 1.8, which was no thirstier. In fact, the 2.0 20v 5cyl engines in non turbo variety were actually giving about the same MPG as the 1.6 in the real world!

 

They ended up binning the 1.6 and replacing with the 1.2 16v SuperFIRE and later added the 1.4 16v.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the E46 3 Series, the three 6-pot petrols (320i, 325i, 330i) all have basically the same fuel economy figures. So why would you buy either of the two smaller ones?

Because you had to rag it all the time to get any decent forward movement, the naturally aspirated 2.4 20v lump in my V70 (140hp) got around the same mpgs as the same car with the 2.4 T5 lump (260hp) which could be driven relatively normally and was not worked as hard.

 

I guess the outright purchase price between these models at the time may have made some difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being desperately out of touch with modern trends, I wouldn't touch a car with a 3 or 2 cylinder engine. Similarly, something available with 1.6, 1.8 and 2 litre engines suggests to me that the 1.6 is going to be an apology of a power unit, the 2 litre is for those who can disregard the added cost for the kudos of having the 2.0 badge and hang the thirst, or are just straight out nutters that have little desire to keep their licence, and the 1.8 gives the best compromise between power and economy.

 

But then I formed my motoring opinions when a Cavalier was a desirable motor and before 1.4 litre 'tax efficient' engines were a thing. And when you could still get Lemon Puff biscuits.

 

'Ecoboost', I hear you say. Complete with a DMF, to make up for the chronic lack of balance in a three cylinder engine?

 

FTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford fitted the granada with the 1.8 for a mercifully short time. It would'nt pull your foreskin back.

My Mum has one of them to replace a Belmont with the 1.8i engine out of the Astra GTE, the Granny was comfy but woefully slow, especially compared to Dad's Granny 2.8i manual injection special..

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember it was in about 1985 the company car tax rules / bands altered, up to that point the bands were up to 1.3 litre, next 1.6 litre then 2.0 litre. Possibly in the new tax year from April the bands changed to 1.4 litre, 1.6 litre, not sure if the 2.0 litre stayed the same. The company I worked for had a fleet of Fords, Escorts & Sierras, entry level car was a 1.3L Escort, further up a 1.6L Sierra next 1.6GL Sierra or 1.6 Ghia Escort and the top management a 2.0 Ghia Sierra. As a daft young lad / gofer at the time I got to drive them all. I remember the 1.8 Sierras coming on fleet, the first was my favourite which I always tried to borrow if I could a 1.8 Ghia Estate, it wasn't quick but it looked good in a metallic blue / grey, pepperpot wheels and roof bars.

I believe the first 1.8s were the Pinto engine and was changed to a CVH engine when the Sierra was facelifted for the 87 model year, I preferred the Pinto ones. The Escorts got the 1.4 CVH engine in about 86 I think - its a long time ago

1.4LX was the fleet favourite mk4 escrote from memory. They all seemed to be in that crap blue as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford fitted the granada with the 1.8 for a mercifully short time. It would'nt pull your foreskin back.

Dad had a red D plated one. Base trim. No electrics at all. Don't think it even had Central locking or Pas. Wrote it off when it went sideways on black ice and hit a slow moving BMW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being desperately out of touch with modern trends, I wouldn't touch a car with a 3 or 2 cylinder engine. Similarly, something available with 1.6, 1.8 and 2 litre engines suggests to me that the 1.6 is going to be an apology of a power unit, the 2 litre is for those who can disregard the added cost for the kudos of having the 2.0 badge and hang the thirst, or are just straight out nutters that have little desire to keep their licence, and the 1.8 gives the best compromise between power and economy.

 

But then I formed my motoring opinions when a Cavalier was a desirable motor and before 1.4 litre 'tax efficient' engines were a thing. And when you could still get Lemon Puff biscuits.

 

'Ecoboost', I hear you say. Complete with a DMF, to make up for the chronic lack of balance in a three cylinder engine?

 

FTS.

 

Three-cylinder engines are great, though my preference is clearly for engines built before DMFs were things. The Japanese have been building them since the 1980s with no horrible balance issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Dad once had a 1.8 Carlton that was pretty unkillable until I wrapped it around a lamppost.  Sorry Dad.

 

The Owd Giffer went the other way and had a 2.6 with a Getrag manual.  It was a lovely old thing.  

 

Killed by idiot welder (yep, rear inner arches...) who fried the whole electrical system.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...