ST220,328i, 330i, 330d or T5?

[nottyash]

Podie said:

I certainly never found an issue, although I will agree there is a big inmprovement to be had with the Focus ST (225) calipers. Sadly the days of picking them up for £50 a pair are long gone.

When I test drove my ST220 I commented on how poor the brakes were.
It had new discs and pads at Ford only6 months before.
It also has FSH at Ford, and is immaculate, so properly maintained.
I owned several other performance cars at the time which all would out brake the ST220 with ease.
My Dad has a Jag x type with the same engine and brakes, and comments just how poor they are.

Fitting the Focus ST brakes has made a world of difference, you only need to stand them side by side to see how punney the standard ones are.

[nottyash]

Blue Oval84 said:

I drive a bog standard Mondeo 2.0 and whilst I wouldn't necessarily say they have immediate bite (it's not exactly a sports car), if I decide I really want to stop they will happily put any passenger who isn't belted up straight through the windscreen. It's a car that stops very, very well IMO.

I also use them to slow down as well as stopping, and they didn't inspire confidence.
It's a big heavy car, and with the 3.0 lump at the front them piddly little brakes while adaquate for a 1.8 or 2.0 that potters around its just not good enough

[amusingduck]

Japveesix said:

Owner isn't sure. Seems to have (possibly) been specced originally for the police but in wrc spec:
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/s...

Looks like a good buy if you like the all white look.

Looks like WRC to me. I don't think the standard octavia's came in white. Plus this one has xenons/ESP/heated seats too which are either not standard or not an option on the normal VRS

[Podie]

nottyash said:

Podie said:

I certainly never found an issue, although I will agree there is a big inmprovement to be had with the Focus ST (225) calipers. Sadly the days of picking them up for £50 a pair are long gone.

When I test drove my ST220 I commented on how poor the brakes were.
It had new discs and pads at Ford only6 months before.
It also has FSH at Ford, and is immaculate, so properly maintained.
I owned several other performance cars at the time which all would out brake the ST220 with ease.
My Dad has a Jag x type with the same engine and brakes, and comments just how poor they are.

Fitting the Focus ST brakes has made a world of difference, you only need to stand them side by side to see how punney the standard ones are.

When I bought my ST220 I changed the pads, discs, fluid and brake lines. It had absolutely no issues in hauling up. I drove hundreds on Mk3s when they came out (job at the time) and never had a cause to complain.

FYI, the Jaguar engine is not the same.



ETA - got a funny feeling that there were some revisions to the brakes in the 05 facelift, but can't recall what they were. Think they were to improve pedal feel.

[anonymous-user]

Podie said:

nottyash said:

The Mondeo ST 220 even has the same terrible brakes as a 1.8 Mondeo, so clearly its not been developed.
One thing to factor in is some St Focus Callipers, discs and pads to make the car drivable.
I was actually amazed Ford produces a car with such poor brakes.
It's well documentedon all ST sites.

It's funny, I read this all the time. Having driven many, many Mondeos over the years I never had an issue with the brakes on any of them - if they were properly maintained.

I'd agree with that, it's one of the few cars I've driven where they actually feel spot-on, everything else seems ridiculously over-servo'ed in comparison.

I've never liked the clutch though.

[Podie]

Symbolica said:

I've never liked the clutch though.

No, I wasn't a fan either.

[nottyash]

Podie said:

When I bought my ST220 I changed the pads, discs, fluid and brake lines. It had absolutely no issues in hauling up. I drove hundreds on Mk3s when they came out (job at the time) and never had a cause to complain.

FYI, the Jaguar engine is not the same.



ETA - got a funny feeling that there were some revisions to the brakes in the 05 facelift, but can't recall what they were. Think they were to improve pedal feel.

Mines an early facelift being on a 53 plate, I could of put up with the brakes, but they really were not up to the job the way I drive.
JAG engine is so similar in size, layout and power output, and brakes are exactly the same. I read above about differences, but it even looks the same side by side covers removed!.

[Podie]

nottyash said:

Mines an early facelift being on a 53 plate, I could of put up with the brakes, but they really were not up to the job the way I drive.
JAG engine is so similar in size, layout and power output, and brakes are exactly the same. I read above about differences, but it even looks the same side by side covers removed!.

The engines do look identical, but they're not. Try fitting the Jag sump on the Ford and it wont fit! A guy on here actually designed the engines and listed all the differences once - I knew about the main differences having worked at FMC.

[nottyash]

Podie said:

The engines do look identical, but they're not. Try fitting the Jag sump on the Ford and it wont fit! A guy on here actually designed the engines and listed all the differences once - I knew about the main differences having worked at FMC.

I thought they were both Duratec?
I don't understand why a Manafacturers would make 2 engines, at the same time, that look the same but are not compatible with each other due to small differences which make next to no difference on performance.
It's just not sensible business sense.

My point is that the brakes are equally as poor on the JAG too.

Anyway if your happy with milk bottle tops for brakes, safe in the knowledge that you changing the fluid and pads have somehow transformed them into a decent set of brakes, well that's good for you.
Personally I bought new Brembo discs, brembo pads and a set of calipers off a 59 plate 225 Focus ST, and they are now just how I imagine Ford should of produced them originally.

[Art0ir]

330ci

[Limpet]

Pentoman said:

I'm doing lots of miles at the moment and your words "comfy cruiser" with some poke (and handling) couldn't be a more accurate way to define the Renault Laguna 2. Media and PH give no recognition to this machine.

So I'll throw this in the mix for you:

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/r...

Also, it's a small turbo four, which may equal decent economy compared to the 5s and 6s?

This is the era (2002-2006) that was responsible for much of Renault's dreadful reputation for reliability. And with some justification in my experience. I'm not Renault bashing - the stuff either side of this era is fine. But I do speak as a former owner of a 2004 Scenic, and having had a 2005 Laguna and 2003 Clio in the family. All were cripplingly expensive to keep running out of warranty.

[a_bread]

Rollcage said:

a_bread said:

Patrick Bateman said:

I can't remember the last time I saw one that didn't have rust.

Believe me, from experience, they rust.

I can't remember the last time I saw one that did have rust.

Believe me, from experience, they don't rust.

Different experience, different conclusion. The internet is strewn with "facts" that are really anecdotes and thoroughly inconclusive.

Believe me, they do. Yours might not have, maybe the ones you have seen haven't, but you are in a minority of about one if you think the E46 doesn't rust at all.

I was trying to illustrate one of the features of internet "facts": Anecdotes much smaller in number than their proponents would have you believe, which are in many cases are then repeated mindlessly by those who have read them and then gain status as "facts" through such repetition, even though such repetition does not increase the sample size of those who have first hand knowledge and experience.

Yes of course all cars with some steel in them will rust eventually, and yes it will be possible to observe hundreds of E46s with some rust. A high number because they sold in huge numbers and many of them are now quite old cars.

Let's keep it in perspective and avoid such hysterical crap as "they rust like it's 1979", as made by one previous poster.

[Podie]

nottyash said:

Podie said:

The engines do look identical, but they're not. Try fitting the Jag sump on the Ford and it wont fit! A guy on here actually designed the engines and listed all the differences once - I knew about the main differences having worked at FMC.

I thought they were both Duratec?
I don't understand why a Manafacturers would make 2 engines, at the same time, that look the same but are not compatible with each other due to small differences which make next to no difference on performance.
It's just not sensible business sense.

My point is that the brakes are equally as poor on the JAG too.

Anyway if your happy with milk bottle tops for brakes, safe in the knowledge that you changing the fluid and pads have somehow transformed them into a decent set of brakes, well that's good for you.
Personally I bought new Brembo discs, brembo pads and a set of calipers off a 59 plate 225 Focus ST, and they are now just how I imagine Ford should of produced them originally.

Duratec was just the name the range of engines had. The diesels were DuraTORQ. At one time everything was a Zetec.

As for why, that I can't answer. Linky here to an old thread - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=319...

I can only go on my experiences. The hundreds of Mondeos I've all driven (granted most were less than 6 months old) and my ST220 were all fine. I upgraded as I found a set of ST225 calipers for £50, and would agree that they were much better and should have been factory standard.

[nottyash]

I agree, actually back in 2006 I had a Mondeo 2.2 ghia x hire car, and never once noticed the brakes being a problem. I did only drive it on the motorway though.

The calipers cost me 200 pound, but maybe because its caught on and they are popular. Still worthwhile if your keeping the car IMO

[anonymous-user]

Podie said:

Duratec was just the name the range of engines had. The diesels were DuraTORQ. At one time everything was a Zetec.

Yes. Marketing BS. OT but the Focus ST although badges as 'duratec' was a regular Zetec. Not sure why Ford thought it would matter either way?