407 v Mondeo

cullenswood

Hi, I'm thinking of buying a car and seeing as its a buyers market I want to get my moneys worth for my 10k. I was looking at a Peugeot 407 1.6 Diesel or a Ford Mondeo diesel. Anyone any thoughts on which to go for. I reckon I could get a 05 version of either for that price. The 1.6 would mean cheaper tax and would probably be more fuel efficient? But would the Mondeo be a better buy, even though there is a newer model out since. Any advice appreciated.

Tony Broke

Those Peugeot engines are class, its a big car but 110bhp and 0-60 in under 12secs should be enough.

Peugeot diesels have good sale on value, so dont worry about depreciation.Much better looking car too.

bazz26

I have that 1.6 HDi in my Focus and it is fine but I think it would struggle in anything bigger. In a car the size and weight of a 407 or Mondeo the extra capacity and torque from a 2.0 litre diesel would be superior to a 1.6 litre.

Have a look out for a 2.0 HDi 407 if you really like them, they are not much more expensive to buy over the 1.6. If going for the Mondeo make sure it is the more modern TDCi though and not the old TDDi bone shaker.

E92

cullenswood wrote: »

Hi, I'm thinking of buying a car and seeing as its a buyers market I want to get my moneys worth for my 10k. I was looking at a Peugeot 407 1.6 Diesel or a Ford Mondeo diesel. Anyone any thoughts on which to go for. I reckon I could get a 05 version of either for that price. The 1.6 would mean cheaper tax and would probably be more fuel efficient? But would the Mondeo be a better buy, even though there is a newer model out since. Any advice appreciated.

110 bhp in a big family car like the 407 means it will be slow.

The only real saving of the smaller engine is on road tax, being diesels those cars are going to do 50 mpg anyway.

A bigger engine is going to have more power and if anything will be more economical in the real world because it won't need to be worked as hard due to the extra power and torque the engine produces.

All that said the 1.6 HDi is very good for a diesel(though I'd be buying petrol every time).

colm_mcm

Tony Broke wrote: »

Peugeot diesels have good sale on value, so dont worry about depreciation..

:eek:

cullenswood

E92 wrote: »

110 bhp in a big family car like the 407 means it will be slow.

(though I'd be buying petrol every time).

Do the 407s not have a turbo that kicks in to boost acceleration over short distances eg passing out! Also, why go for the petrol. Surely diesel would be more economical if I could pick then both up for the same price?

R.O.R

The 1.6D engine seems to work fairly well in smaller cars (focus, C4, S40) but has given a whole heap of trouble in the 407's.

Having driven the Mondeo and 407 fairly recently, there is no question of a choice. Even a 90ps Mondeo LX is a cut above a 2.0Hdi 140ps SX 407 in my opinion.

Hate the driving position in the 407, hate the handling in the 407, hate the styling of the 407, hate the radio controls in the 407 (I could go on).................

digitaldr

My Ma used to have a 407 - biggest criticism would be that the excessively springy clutch made it very prone to stalling. I heard it was something to do with the clutch couple cable having to be rerouted on the RHD model.

E92

cullenswood wrote: »

Do the 407s not have a turbo that kicks in to boost acceleration over short distances eg passing out! Also, why go for the petrol. Surely diesel would be more economical if I could pick then both up for the same price?

All diesels have turbos these days.

At low revs because of all the torque diesels feel much faster than a similar size petrol, but that is only an impression that if you will quickly find out is the wrong one if you hold on to the gears and change up later. Even with a good diesel like the one in the 407, they run out of puff fairly quickly(take them beyond 3,000 rpm and you'll see what I mean), whereas in a petrol you can hang on to a gear right up until near enough to the rev limiter.

You might say that because in a diesel you can go up a hill at 30 mph in 4th gear and if you put your foot down it will get up to 40 mph fairly quickly and if you tried the same exercise in a petrol it might start to lose speed that I'm talking through my behind, I'd say that that's nonsense and if you went down to second gear in a petrol it would climb up the hill no bother at all. By contrast a diesel would be starting to run out of puff by the time you're getting close to 40 mph if you tried the same thing in second gear.

That is the difference. Diesels drive differently to petrols. That doesn't mean better. What you often hear is that because of situations like the one above, "diesels need fewer gearchanges than petrol". I disagree, because if you're joining a motorway you have to go from 50 to 120 km/h fairly rapidly, and in a petrol you can start off in third, and it will quite happily hit 120 km/h in the same gear. It might make a bit of noise after 100 km/h and if you drive like most people you'll think the engine sounds like it's on the brink of collapse, but actually you'd be surprised at how far you can go in one gear in a petrol before you have to shift up. A decent sized car could go up as far as 140 km/h in third gear.

In a diesel, you could start in 3rd, but usually they are running out of steam by the time you've hit about 70 or 80, so you're going to have to go to 4th, and the power will be gone at about 105 or 110. So then you're up to fifth.
So you'll end up making three gearchanges there in a diesel(3rd to 4th then to 5th or 6th), when 2 would only be necessary in a petrol(go straight from 3rd to 5th or 6th depending on the car).

People *think* petrols are slower because they seem to have a big phobia of revving the engine beyond about 3,500 rpm; petrols are only getting into their stride at this stage and will more than happily go up to 6,000 rpm.

If you're prepared to give a petrol plenty of revs they'll make minced meat of "diesel torque" whatever that thing is.

As one of the posters here once put it "torque is king in cars without gearboxes".

cullenswood

Cheers for that reply E39. I had a fair idea that petrols were 'zippier' than diesels which is why I was mentioning the turbo to part counteract this. I wasn't saying it would make it better than petrol was just hoping it would give the slower diesel a boost. Would be prepared to sacrifice the extra acceleration of a petrol though due to the savings on fuel

HashSlinging

E92 wrote: »

In a diesel, you could start in 3rd, but usually they are running out of steam by the time you've hit about 70 or 80, so you're going to have to go to 4th, and the power will be gone at about 105 or 110. So then you're up to fifth.
So you'll end up making three gearchanges there in a diesel(3rd to 4th then to 5th or 6th), when 2 would only be necessary in a petrol(go straight from 3rd to 5th or 6th depending on the car).

Laughable.

The whole point of turbo diesel is you get all the power in low revs, so you can drive along all day in 6th gear if you wanted..

I can picture one of those BMW drivers that come on to a motorway screaming like a jet only to jam on the breaks when they see a gap disappear.

cabrwab

Give me a petrol any day........personally

But the OP asked about the 407 and mondeo.... mondeo would be the choice for me, i still think its better looking then the basking shark looking yolk, the 407 not overly nice to drive and if your tall you need tiny little feet to drive it. A prime example of the LHD manufacturers, not worrying about the RHD customers. Plus whats the deal with all the buttons on the dash, looks like looking at a phone or something with alot of buttons to that effect

I did hear diesel mondeos have problems with fuel injectors is this true ford mech's?

Any way best of luck OP you'll do alright with 10grand