Ford Mondeo 2.5T.
Discussion
I can't see the width being an issue to be honest, might just be a bit of an illusion. My Megane is about wider than a Mondeo - and I had no issues driving an estate Mondeo as a hire car when my daily was a Fiesta. I did enjoy my stint in that hire car though, even if it was a diesel.
blueb10 said:
Thanks for all the replies, quite a bit to consider, including the Volvo.
What got me thinking about one of these is that I am not a big lover of diesels and I do like the Mondeo, at least in mk3 form and you seem to be able to pick up the 2.5t at what I would consider to be a very reasonable price for a lot of car, although the estates do seem to command a hefty premium.
Anyway, will consider some more, thanks for the help from anyone who replied.
The 2.5T is a mark 4.What got me thinking about one of these is that I am not a big lover of diesels and I do like the Mondeo, at least in mk3 form and you seem to be able to pick up the 2.5t at what I would consider to be a very reasonable price for a lot of car, although the estates do seem to command a hefty premium.
Anyway, will consider some more, thanks for the help from anyone who replied.
Scousefella said:
Cougho said:
One thing you may not take into account, the car is BIG - the width is the main issue,
I struggle to understand how people make comments like this about the size of a family car - with a good sense of spatial awareness and a short time to familiarise yourself with a car then size really should not be an issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fusion_(Americas...
For the 2.5T in the ST, the urban consumption is always compared to extra-urban or combined consumption of other cars, usually to second hand accounts of the urban consumption, or cold engine running.
I could do this with my old car, which did 30+mpg at 85/90mph cross-Europe journeys. But the urban consumption was in the low 20s, so what the hell is going on? mystery or conspiracy by ford and Volvo? No. it's just retards don't compare like-for-like, and there's a million "my mate had this, that , blah blah..." when they should be saying "I read such and such hearsay on the internet, but I don't really know about anything, so I'll be doing you a favour and shutting my retard mouth, and melting down my greasy keyboard of BS"
I could do this with my old car, which did 30+mpg at 85/90mph cross-Europe journeys. But the urban consumption was in the low 20s, so what the hell is going on? mystery or conspiracy by ford and Volvo? No. it's just retards don't compare like-for-like, and there's a million "my mate had this, that , blah blah..." when they should be saying "I read such and such hearsay on the internet, but I don't really know about anything, so I'll be doing you a favour and shutting my retard mouth, and melting down my greasy keyboard of BS"
pigeonskirt said:
Welshbeef said:
You'd rather 220bhp v 450bhp for near on same economy
I5 over a v8?
Really?
Some people would, as their criteria for buying and what they want/need may be different to yours. It's not just a case of power top trumps. I5 over a v8?
Really?
amusingduck said:
Sound? (subjective)
Weight?
Lower repair/servicing costs? Is the Audi 4.2 V8 not prone to timing chain issues, which is an engine out job?
Yep. Budget, looks of the car, image the car portrays, ride, handling, car dimensions etcWeight?
Lower repair/servicing costs? Is the Audi 4.2 V8 not prone to timing chain issues, which is an engine out job?
There are many different reasons people buy what they buy. They have their own views and opinions along with buying criteria. Not always something quantifiable.
There's a lid for every pan and all that!
amusingduck said:
skyrover said:
I can't think of a single advantage the I5 has over the V8 tbh.
Sound? (subjective)Weight?
Lower repair/servicing costs? Is the Audi 4.2 V8 not prone to timing chain issues, which is an engine out job?
Weight? Depends on the V8, an alloy LS for example is similar to the Volvo motor
Servicing? Volvo turbo motors need looking after, especially the PCV system.
skyrover said:
Sound? Subjective indeed
Weight? Depends on the V8, an alloy LS for example is similar to the Volvo motor
Servicing? Volvo turbo motors need looking after, especially the PCV system.
The point I was trying to make was that some people would choose to buy an inline 5 over a V8. Whether or not the engine is technically inferior is irrelevant.Weight? Depends on the V8, an alloy LS for example is similar to the Volvo motor
Servicing? Volvo turbo motors need looking after, especially the PCV system.
Don't take my word for it though, look at how many Focus ST are on our roads.
Cougho said:
One thing you may not take into account, the car is BIG - the width is the main issue.
I don't think it's really an issue. It's only two inches wider than the mk3 Mondeo which is not a huge car in the grand scheme of things. The mk4 'looks' bigger due to the more bulbous shape and size of the cabin, but I don't find it any more difficult to manoeuvre than my old mk3, or any other similarly-sized cars I've driven really! pigeonskirt said:
Welshbeef said:
You'd rather 220bhp v 450bhp for near on same economy
I5 over a v8?
Really?
Some people would, as their criteria for buying and what they want/need may be different to yours. It's not just a case of power top trumps. I5 over a v8?
Really?
Honest John Realmpg have the 2.5T Mondeo at ~30mpg, That's not bad if you compare it to it's peers. 25mpg for the newer and utterly dull B8 A4 3.2 FSI, now that's shocking.
Welshbeef said:
I find this interesting - there have been plenty of threads about the Focus ST and its owners publish frankly terrible MOG "low 20''s" yet then challenged why a weightier and auto Vilvo with same engine get more economy its discarded now the as Max and Mondy same engine more weight get vastly more economy. So what gives ? Does the Focus have shocking bad drag to help explain it - or are the owners hooning everywhere?
Around town or being driven enthusiastically will cause the mpg to plummet. We average low 20's as most of the time the car is driven locally. On longer journeys, assuming travelling around about the motorway speed limit, 35+ mpg is realistic.I've got a 2008 2.5T Titanium X Estate, over the last two days I've done 340 miles and over all of that averaged 34mpg, that's nearly all motorway but including the M25 at ~5:30-6pm (I think you can guess what that's like), the M25 at 11pm (down to one lane and stationary traffic) and a massive diversion and b-road blast for the closed A23 (up until that point the average was 37mpg).
I can get 24-25mpg round town (although I've also got as low as 16mpg) and I've managed 38mpg on a run before (at an indicated 70mph).
I love it, genuinely don't know what I'll replace it with and will probably run it until it dies (which may be some time, it's only got 82k on it and I ran my last car to 180k).
I don't know what planet the M5 is getting the same mpg or running costs as the Mondeo 2.5T as this but it certainly isn't this one, the only M5 you'll get for anywhere near the same money will have ~50-100k more and be 6-8 years older[1] while doing a good 8-12mpg worse with massively higher running costs than even a standard 5-series (the M-tax!) and likely far worse reliability (even if BMW weren't worse than Ford for reliability the additional 100k and 6-8 years will take it's toll).
That is not to say the 2.5T is 'better' than an M5, it's not (apart from in running costs), I'd still prefer an M5 Touring but they don't do one and I think the only thing I'd swap it for would be a 530i M-Sport Touring but while better on fuel that is considerably more expensive to buy and run (and ultra rare).
[1] Cheapest 2.5T is a 2007 with 79k for 4.5k, cheapest M5 is a 1999 with 118k for 6k. So 8 years, 40k and 1.5k more expensive.
I can get 24-25mpg round town (although I've also got as low as 16mpg) and I've managed 38mpg on a run before (at an indicated 70mph).
I love it, genuinely don't know what I'll replace it with and will probably run it until it dies (which may be some time, it's only got 82k on it and I ran my last car to 180k).
I don't know what planet the M5 is getting the same mpg or running costs as the Mondeo 2.5T as this but it certainly isn't this one, the only M5 you'll get for anywhere near the same money will have ~50-100k more and be 6-8 years older[1] while doing a good 8-12mpg worse with massively higher running costs than even a standard 5-series (the M-tax!) and likely far worse reliability (even if BMW weren't worse than Ford for reliability the additional 100k and 6-8 years will take it's toll).
That is not to say the 2.5T is 'better' than an M5, it's not (apart from in running costs), I'd still prefer an M5 Touring but they don't do one and I think the only thing I'd swap it for would be a 530i M-Sport Touring but while better on fuel that is considerably more expensive to buy and run (and ultra rare).
[1] Cheapest 2.5T is a 2007 with 79k for 4.5k, cheapest M5 is a 1999 with 118k for 6k. So 8 years, 40k and 1.5k more expensive.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff