Mondeo 1.6 tdci

eddiek

does anyone have one of these or driven one.a 11 or12 one. what are they like on fuel?are they underpowered?is the 2 litre a better option?do these give much bother? thanks

trabpc

Not underpowered. Drove one for two yrs from new in a Mondeo 40,000k covered. Feels livelier than the 1.8 which I also owned. But has 10 bhp less 115 vs 125 . never wanting in power except in 6th. If driven sensibly will return 55mpg. But here is the problem if u drive like everyone drives 130kph etc and all it will do is 46/47 mpg. So in effect no better than 2.0. Supposed to be unreliable if not serviced on time but what car doesn't. Can be cheaper to buy s/h than 2.0 so that may determine if you buy or not. If same price buy the 2.0

Noccy_Mondy

2.0 140bhp would be better. I drove 1 or 2 1.6tdci's and despite the fact they had 115bhp, they still lacked that bit of oomph that you would be looking for. There are so many 1.6's for "the cheap tax" and "oh 2.0 is too big of an engine" for Irish Paddy and Mary. 2.0 is far more suited to the car.

As an aside, even the mk5 1.6 unit lacks oomph. Relatives had a 1.8 mk4 and changed to said mk5 unit, and she even notices the decline in power. This a woman in her mid 60's btw!

9935452

eddiek wrote: »

does anyone have one of these or driven one.a 11 or12 one. what are they like on fuel?are they underpowered?is the 2 litre a better option?do these give much bother? thanks

As people will tell you any car that isnt serviced correctly will give trouble.
The earlier 1.6s gave a lot of bother, The 2.0s were known for injector problems.
The 1.8s were known to be less troublesome than the others.

I had a 141 1.6 95hp focus for 3 weeks a few months ago, nice solid car , handled well but engine and gearbox were a disappointment.
Engine was dead , i felt i could have gotten out and pushed and made it go faster. i was happier with my 1.4 petrol golf.
Gearbox was a 6 speed which wanted you to be in 6th at 35mph. 5 gearchanges done at 35, an aweful lot of clutching

tweaf1

We have three of them in work, all very high mileage one on 250,000km - outside of standard servicing they have been very reliable, not to drive and comfortable.

Henry Ford III

9935452 wrote: »

I had a 141 1.6 95hp focus for 3 weeks a few months ago, nice solid car , handled well but engine and gearbox were a disappointment.
Engine was dead , i felt i could have gotten out and pushed and made it go faster. i was happier with my 1.4 petrol golf.
Gearbox was a 6 speed which wanted you to be in 6th at 35mph. 5 gearchanges done at 35, an aweful lot of clutching

Sorry but that's nonsense.

I've owned loads of these cars, the gearboxes are good, and the engines are sweet (for a diesel). Power wise 95bhp is perfectly adequate, although the optional 115bhp is obviously better. When you change gear is entirely up to the driver. There's an "eco mode" which displays an arrow advising you select a higher gear, but you can either ignore it or disable it.

eddiek

while the titanium version is very desirable part of me says just more electrical gadgets to give bother. maybe i am too cynical. lovely dash on them though imo.

punisher5112

eddiek wrote: »

while the titanium version is very desirable part of me says just more electrical gadgets to give bother. maybe i am too cynical. lovely dash on them though imo.

Ford in general have a good name.

I wouldn't be worried about the extra kit.

Henry Ford III

eddiek wrote: »

while the titanium version is very desirable part of me says just more electrical gadgets to give bother. maybe i am too cynical. lovely dash on them though imo.

I just sold my 2nd. Nothing went wrong on either. Not even a puncture.

9935452

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Sorry but that's nonsense.

I've owned loads of these cars, the gearboxes are good, and the engines are sweet (for a diesel). Power wise 95bhp is perfectly adequate, although the optional 115bhp is obviously better. When you change gear is entirely up to the driver. There's an "eco mode" which displays an arrow advising you select a higher gear, but you can either ignore it or disable it.

Well that's my opinion on the focus i drove. I found it dead compared to a 1.4 petrol golf . It was 12 years newer than the golf and id take the golf over it any day.
I never said there was anything wrong with the gearbox but it was disappointing. It was geared very low. at 120kmph you were well up the revs. I bought a 6 speed audi 2.0tdi and its a joy to drive compared to it. ticking over at 120kmph in comparison

Henry Ford III

9935452 wrote: »

Well that's my opinion on the focus i drove. I found it dead compared to a 1.4 petrol golf . It was 12 years newer than the golf and id take the golf over it any day.
I never said there was anything wrong with the gearbox but it was disappointing. It was geared very low. at 120kmph you were well up the revs. I bought a 6 speed audi 2.0tdi and its a joy to drive compared to it. ticking over at 120kmph in comparison

120kph is just over 2000rpm in 6th. The gearbox is good.

Good luck with your 12 y.o. Golf 1.4. Must be quite a machine.

166man

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I just sold my 2nd. Nothing went wrong on either. Not even a puncture.

What were you expecting to go wrong on a car that's what, just over a year old?

Not getting a puncture is a very good example of a cars reliability alright...

9935452

Henry Ford III wrote: »

120kph is just over 2000rpm in 6th. The gearbox is good.

Good luck with your 12 y.o. Golf 1.4. Must be quite a machine.

I never said the gearbox was bad , .

The golf was a great car. Outside of normal servicing i never had an ounce of bother in 9 years of having it, not even a puncture.
The only reason i changed was it was written off in an accident.

Henry Ford III

166man wrote: »

What were you expecting to go wrong on a car that's what, just over a year old?

Not getting a puncture is a very good example of a cars reliability alright...

Nothing, and it turned out just as expected.

The puncture comment was an attempt at humour. Never mind.

JC01

Depends what your used to OP. The father had a lovely one for a while but the few times I drove it I found it shockingly underpowered. Like makes a tdi golf feel like a spaceship underpowered.

It never got the mpg it was capable of either coz youd drive the heart and soul out of it to make it move anywhere. Didn't give any bother but he moved it on after a couple of months.

166man

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Nothing, and it turned out just as expected

.....thus your point is? Because if it's about reliability it's hardly a good example is it...?

Foxhole Norman

My dad has a 13 1.6TDCi Mondeo, I don't really find it underpowered to be honest, it's more than adequate for that car. The gearbox is a very tight one I find as well, the throw is nice and short on it and the clutch is responsive. A few months ago though some of the injectors went, not sure of the cost as it's a company car, it was pretty high though as far as I know.

Henry Ford III

166man wrote: »

.....thus your point is? Because if it's about reliability it's hardly a good example is it...?

Nothing went wrong - therefore in 2 years of ownership the extra equipment is totally reliable.

It's as valid an example as there is.

166man

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Nothing went wrong - therefore in 2 years of ownership the extra equipment is totally reliable.

It's as valid an example as there is.

It's not really though is it, I would expect any new car owned for two years to be more or less faultless, once looked after. After 6 years + then you could accept a few faults, all mileage dependant of course.

Anyhow moving on nothing to see here etc...