The BMW 520i Vs Mondeo GLX 2.0 Litre....

[LuS1fer]

Well for all you dyslexics here, I said I'd never owned one. I have driven several and have been underwhelmed so maybe you need to drive something else. My sister buys them for the badge though, like most people. Now you can settle back up your own arses and close the door and think of your hilarious replies. I can just wait.

I don't really understand the point about value - is that an optional extra?

Edited by LuS1fer on Friday 25th January 21:57

[paoloh]

Lusifer, are you going to try and tell me that a Mustang drives better than an M5?

[paoloh]

I'd like to say something about the badge snobbery you talk about.

A 3 bed council house on a bad estate does the same job as one in a nice leafy suburb.
Where would you rather live?
Are you going to pay more for that?

[MH82]

hmmm, an interesting topic.

I myself drive a Mondeo ST24 (V6) and I am under no illusion that it is a mass produced car . A Mondeo can't be compared to a BMW as like has been said before they are for 2 different markets. BMWs are driver machines with their RWD and 50/50 weight distribution. The Mondeo is primarily built for businesses to offer to their employees or to plod up and down the motorway.

I do think the Mondeo is a very good car, why else would i have bought one, and i personally prefer it to 4 cylinder BMWs. The Mondeo is well built and very good to drive in comparison to it's competitors Vectra/Laguna/406s etc but against a BMW i would hope the BMW is better built for the price paid when new and as for driving, BMW have invested a lot of time/money into the drive.

My next car will hopefully be a nice 6 cylinder BMW or a V8, I don't care about image, if I did i wouldn't drive a Ford, BMWs are very good cars, IMO they are both good cars that do what they say on the tin.

Probably be shot down for this, but in their respective markets Ford and BMW are very similar, both BMW and Ford go for driver envolvement whereas Vauxhall and Mercedes go for comfort.

[LuS1fer]

paoloh said:

Lusifer, are you going to try and tell me that a Mustang drives better than an M5?

Wondering when you'd start picking at that one. Not in stock form, no, as it's set up for American roads plus of course it is the small matter of £40000 cheaper even with all import duty, VAT and every one of its options but then you might just as well compare an M5 to a 350Z for the good it will do you..

In supercharged Roush form on Roush suspension, in the 2005 EVO PCOTY, the Roush Mustang was placed just behind the M3 CS and above the 350Z in terms of handling (both behind the Clio Cup if I recall correctly) and I believe The Stig had nothing but praise for it (not the far heavier GT500) when he ran it round the TG track.

Speaking of the TG test track, no listed time for the M5 but the Roush did it in 1:28, exactly the same time as an all-singing, all-dancing BMW M3 CSL with it's carbon fibre roof and shaved tyres. This was the 420hp car as well, some 42hp down on mine but who's counting. Yes, the Roush sells (or sold) for £40k in the UK but the Roush parts are available in the UK and easily fitted to a GT for around £30-32k all done.

Turning to EVO, the Bedford track lap for the M5 is 1:29.95 and the Roush is 1:28.5 despite a 3mph lower peak speed.

Pitting the two head to head was done on a recent PH run and I'd say that in the real world, they were about even although much of that I would have to put down to the somewhat weak brakes on the Mustang which would require another £1000 to endow it with proper Brembos. Of course, respect is still due to the M5 (and I do have a healthy respect, if not a desire, for them) which is a heavy 4 door car loaded to the gills with electro-trickery beyond the wit of a simple soul like me but really, you're comparing chalk and cheese. The true comparator is the BMW M3 but that's still nearly twice the price and still a little anonymous in the styling department.

Are you going to tell me the M5 is worth £35k more than a sorted and supercharged Mustang GT costs? The answer to you may well be yes (it has 4 doors for a start)but for that money, it's a different league of car you'll need to be comparing it to, flattered though Ford undoubtedly are that a car they sell in the US for less than a BMW 120SE should be uttered in the same hallowed breath. I'll also warrant that in ten years time, the Mustang will keep it's value better than the M5 although clearly it would have to depreciate £35k first.

What was the question again?
Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

[CommanderJameson]

LuS1fer said:

paoloh said:

Lusifer, are you going to try and tell me that a Mustang drives better than an M5?

Wondering when you'd start picking at that one. Not in stock form, no, as it's set up for American roads plus of course it is the small matter of £40000 cheaper even with all import duty, VAT and every one of its options but then you might just as well compare an M5 to a 350Z for the good it will do you..

In supercharged Roush form on Roush suspension, in the 2005 EVO PCOTY, the Roush Mustang was placed just behind the M3 CS and above the 350Z in terms of handling (both behind the Clio Cup if I recall correctly) and I believe The Stig had nothing but praise for it (not the far heavier GT500) when he ran it round the TG track.

Speaking of the TG test track, no listed time for the M5 but the Roush did it in 1:28, exactly the same time as an all-singing, all-dancing BMW M3 CSL with it's carbon fibre roof and shaved tyres. This was the 420hp car as well, some 42hp down on mine but who's counting. Yes, the Roush sells (or sold) for £40k in the UK but the Roush parts are available in the UK and easily fitted to a GT for around £30-32k all done.

Turning to EVO, the Bedford track lap for the M5 is 1:29.95 and the Roush is 1:28.5 despite a 3mph lower peak speed.

Pitting the two head to head was done on a recent PH run and I'd say that in the real world, they were about even although much of that I would have to put down to the somewhat weak brakes on the Mustang which would require another £1000 to endow it with proper Brembos. Of course, respect is still due to the M5 (and I do have a healthy respect, if not a desire, for them) which is a heavy 4 door car loaded to the gills with electro-trickery beyond the wit of a simple soul like me but really, you're comparing chalk and cheese. The true comparator is the BMW M3 but that's still nearly twice the price and still a little anonymous in the styling department.

Are you going to tell me the M5 is worth £35k more than a sorted and supercharged Mustang GT costs? The answer to you may well be yes (it has 4 doors for a start)but for that money, it's a different league of car you'll need to be comparing it to, flattered though Ford undoubtedly are that a car they sell in the US for less than a BMW 120SE should be uttered in the same hallowed breath. I'll also warrant that in ten years time, the Mustang will keep it's value better than the M5 although clearly it would have to depreciate £35k first.

What was the question again?
Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Lap times aren't everything; an F1 car would go round either track quicker than either the Ford or the BMW, but I bet you wouldn't say it "drives better".

As is usual with these sorts of arguments, it can only really be settled by a back-to-back drive. So if you two want to drop your cars off at my house, I'll be more than happy to conduct an extended test on the camera-free North Yorkshire moors roads.

[75_Steve]

havoc said:

dcb said:

Just to hammer the point home, you are almost
always better off with a bottom of the range
model from a better manufacturer than you are
with a top of the range model from an inferior
manufacturer.

I think this is in Car Buying 101.

I think this is in "How to flog an overpriced badge to an image-obsessed berk 101" actually.

I disagree wholeheartedly...c. £22k will get you a Mondeo ST (220 or TDCi), both of which are superb cars with a LOT of standard kit, a very good ride/handling balance, and good engines. The same will buy you a base-spec 320i or 320d if you're lucky (and probably won't get you into a C-class). For me, much as I like BMW cars, I'd go for the Mondeo!

They have over-assisted steering, clutch and throttle pedals that may as well be binary switches and interior trim materials that airfix would reject.

This is my experience of the MkIII, anyway. The MkIV may be and needs to be better.

Most laughable detail in the MkIII is the clock - it looks vaguely Maserati-esque, but in a Christmas cracker style.

[GEP]

75_Steve said:

Most laughable detail in the MkIII is the clock - it looks vaguely Maserati-esque, but in a Christmas cracker style.

All said and done, they do actually tell the time... which I suspect they don't in any Fiat.






watch out -mount vesuvius about to erupt on our screens!

[bodhi]

LuS1fer said:

paoloh said:

Lusifer, are you going to try and tell me that a Mustang drives better than an M5?

Wondering when you'd start picking at that one. Not in stock form, no, as it's set up for American roads plus of course it is the small matter of £40000 cheaper even with all import duty, VAT and every one of its options but then you might just as well compare an M5 to a 350Z for the good it will do you..

In supercharged Roush form on Roush suspension, in the 2005 EVO PCOTY, the Roush Mustang was placed just behind the M3 CS and above the 350Z in terms of handling (both behind the Clio Cup if I recall correctly) and I believe The Stig had nothing but praise for it (not the far heavier GT500) when he ran it round the TG track.

Speaking of the TG test track, no listed time for the M5 but the Roush did it in 1:28, exactly the same time as an all-singing, all-dancing BMW M3 CSL with it's carbon fibre roof and shaved tyres.

The CSL went out on a wet track, in the dry it would annihalate the Mustang. Plus iirc the M5 did it in 1.26.

How did we get on to Mustangs anyway? Surely anyone can see that the Mondeo 2.0 GLX (please note not even the Ghia or Ghia X) is a far superior machine. NTB's is faster than a Ferrari!



Or something.

[AlexE46]

Plus the small matter of the Roush mustang looking like something by 3 year old cousin knocked up out of Mechano! Oh yeah, and the large issue of build quality and 'how it drives' which is the same issue we are discussing between the BMW 520i and Mondeo. The mustang is still a ford, and is like sitting in a council house. The mondeo may be a millisecond quicker around a track but if thats your main criteria, get yourself a fettled R5GT or something.

[havoc]

75_Steve said:

havoc said:

dcb said:

Just to hammer the point home, you are almost
always better off with a bottom of the range
model from a better manufacturer than you are
with a top of the range model from an inferior
manufacturer.

I think this is in Car Buying 101.

I think this is in "How to flog an overpriced badge to an image-obsessed berk 101" actually.

I disagree wholeheartedly...c. £22k will get you a Mondeo ST (220 or TDCi), both of which are superb cars with a LOT of standard kit, a very good ride/handling balance, and good engines. The same will buy you a base-spec 320i or 320d if you're lucky (and probably won't get you into a C-class). For me, much as I like BMW cars, I'd go for the Mondeo!

They have over-assisted steering, clutch and throttle pedals that may as well be binary switches and interior trim materials that airfix would reject.

This is my experience of the MkIII, anyway. The MkIV may be and needs to be better.

Most laughable detail in the MkIII is the clock - it looks vaguely Maserati-esque, but in a Christmas cracker style.

Not sure what one you drove, but the one I drove had very good steering and a decent throttle. And the E39 steering doesn't exactly win awards either...

Interior materials...you DO get what you pay for there, true. But to my mind it's not going to be top of my priority list if the performance and the dynamics are there...

[IforB]

E39 steering is variable depending on whether you drive a V8 or 6 cylinder version. The 6 cylinder steering is very good. The V8 less so. Alright, but nothing to write home about.

[southpaw]

Podie said:

D_T_W said:

Is it just me or does he remind anybody of what Southpaw was like when he first joined? (sorry Southpaw)

Difference is, 'paw quickly realised he was being a tt, learned the hard way, accepted it and has moved on (not to mention the fact he took the punishment in good humour and even saw the funny side)

Every so often I flick through some of the old threads and laugh as what a dick I was. Learnt the hard way and glad I did - having attended meets I've made some great friends on here . Thing is, NTB just doesn't seem to realise hes a complete cvnt, and tbh I don't even know why he's still a meber here.

[Mr Robbo]

^^^^ because its either that or furiously masturbating whilst caressing his keyboard. Second thoughts I bet he still does that regardless.

[Donut]

havoc said:

75_Steve said:

havoc said:

dcb said:

Just to hammer the point home, you are almost
always better off with a bottom of the range
model from a better manufacturer than you are
with a top of the range model from an inferior
manufacturer.

I think this is in Car Buying 101.

I think this is in "How to flog an overpriced badge to an image-obsessed berk 101" actually.

I disagree wholeheartedly...c. £22k will get you a Mondeo ST (220 or TDCi), both of which are superb cars with a LOT of standard kit, a very good ride/handling balance, and good engines. The same will buy you a base-spec 320i or 320d if you're lucky (and probably won't get you into a C-class). For me, much as I like BMW cars, I'd go for the Mondeo!

They have over-assisted steering, clutch and throttle pedals that may as well be binary switches and interior trim materials that airfix would reject.

This is my experience of the MkIII, anyway. The MkIV may be and needs to be better.

Most laughable detail in the MkIII is the clock - it looks vaguely Maserati-esque, but in a Christmas cracker style.

Not sure what one you drove, but the one I drove had very good steering and a decent throttle. And the E39 steering doesn't exactly win awards either...

Interior materials...you DO get what you pay for there, true. But to my mind it's not going to be top of my priority list if the performance and the dynamics are there...

I think Steve 75 was reffering to the Mondeo? cause they had the stoopid clock.

[havoc]

Donut said:

I think Steve 75 was reffering to the Mondeo? cause they had the stoopid clock.

So was I...I was saying that his criticising the Mondeo ST steering in a comparison vs a 5-series is a little rich!!!

[75_Steve]

havoc said:

Donut said:

I think Steve 75 was reffering to the Mondeo? cause they had the stoopid clock.

So was I...I was saying that his criticising the Mondeo ST steering in a comparison vs a 5-series is a little rich!!!

I've mostly driven MkIII Mondeo TDCI Zetecs. Hated every minute I've spent behind the wheel of one.

Last 5 series I drove was an E34 - the E34 was a significantly better car in all ways, despite only being a 520.

[richa]

I've currently got a 2004 Mondeo 2.0 tdci. It's the worst built, noisiest car I have owned in a long time. It rattles, leaks when it rains and is unreliable.

I've been thinking about getting a 2002(ish) BMW 525D to replace it, but I'm not sure I can really justify it at the moment. Unlike some people on here, I don't really think that remortgaging the house to buy a car is particularly sensible, and I don't have a stamp collection I can dispose of either

Anyway, I realise after going through this thread that I should keep the Mondeo, as it's clearly the better car .

[Dimski]

Steve_75 and Richa.. must be talking about bottom of the range mondys, but even so, cant agree about a inert steering. Compared to what?

Mondeos are well know in car mags to be a pretty decent drive, as are BMWS.

And Rich, I think you got unlucky, there is not one thing in your post that has caused me a problem.

Still its personal choice.

I was parked next to a 330d in a car park today, and when he started the engine, I couldn't help but think how quiet the engine was, compared to mine, I would love to replace my mondeo with one.

Problem is, that in price terms, my mondeo (st tdci) is equivalent to a 318d. And on that basis the mondeo is a better car...

Get a BMW with similar spec to the mondeo ST you would need a 320d with sports pack. £5k more expensive. (list price)



cant believe I am getting dragged into this! Swore to myself I wouldn't

[richa]

How do you reach the conclusion that I must be talking about a bottom of the range Mondeo when I only say that it's noisy and unreliable

I may very well just be unlucky with mine, but the only other person I know who owns one has just had £2000 in repair costs, so I don't think I'm the only one.

Having said all of that, it's a well spec'd, very comfortable cruiser that returns an average of 47mpg (worked out myself rather than trusting the fuel computer that thinks it does 51mpg!) and is very spacious.