RE: Ford Mondeo ST220: Spotted
Discussion
That's a good looking example in the advert for anyone wanting to buy a good one and keep it.
I used to love Fords - had a MK2 Cortina, MK2 Granadas, MK2 Escort, Capri Injections, a Scorpio and a Sierra Sapphire. But when the Mondeo came out and Ford tried to sell the Probe as a Capri replacement I lost interest. Especially as that was when Cosworths were virtually uninsurable.
Sadly the Mondeo by this time was a big car - probably bigger than my Scorpio!
And as well as Mondeos drive I'm still not a fan of FWD.
If I had to pay over £500 a year road tax I'd want to be getting to 60 somewhat quicker than a shade over 7 seconds too! My current car has similar performance but RWD, a straight 6 and it's "only" £315 a year road tax.
It's a shame, but for anyone who needs some interior space with a bit of grunt they're probably not a bad shout.
I used to love Fords - had a MK2 Cortina, MK2 Granadas, MK2 Escort, Capri Injections, a Scorpio and a Sierra Sapphire. But when the Mondeo came out and Ford tried to sell the Probe as a Capri replacement I lost interest. Especially as that was when Cosworths were virtually uninsurable.
Sadly the Mondeo by this time was a big car - probably bigger than my Scorpio!
And as well as Mondeos drive I'm still not a fan of FWD.
If I had to pay over £500 a year road tax I'd want to be getting to 60 somewhat quicker than a shade over 7 seconds too! My current car has similar performance but RWD, a straight 6 and it's "only" £315 a year road tax.
It's a shame, but for anyone who needs some interior space with a bit of grunt they're probably not a bad shout.
The ST220 is a superb car. One of the best handling chassis Ford have ever made. It offers such a good all round package of handling, fun to drive with a rev happy awesome sounding V6, nice leather interior with imo the comfiest seats I have had in a car. It has also aged very well. I have had a fair few comments/compliments about my 220. How many cheap 14yr old cars can you say that about?
The performance can feel underwhelming to people who might have only had a quick test drive etc or look at the 0-60 but from 3rd gear driving it hard and keeping the revs they really shift. Just as quick as the Focus ST225 I had.
I’m on my 2nd one now looks the same as the one in the ad. Was a well maintained 1 owner with low mileage I got it for £2750. There was nothing else for sale for that price that offered anything near as good value for money.
Even now I have 8-9k i could spend on a car I’m constantly looking for something that offers everything I have on a better scale and I just can’t bring myself to spend that extra money. They are very hard cars to replace as any former owner will tell you.
The performance can feel underwhelming to people who might have only had a quick test drive etc or look at the 0-60 but from 3rd gear driving it hard and keeping the revs they really shift. Just as quick as the Focus ST225 I had.
I’m on my 2nd one now looks the same as the one in the ad. Was a well maintained 1 owner with low mileage I got it for £2750. There was nothing else for sale for that price that offered anything near as good value for money.
Even now I have 8-9k i could spend on a car I’m constantly looking for something that offers everything I have on a better scale and I just can’t bring myself to spend that extra money. They are very hard cars to replace as any former owner will tell you.
Mike335i said:
True, although there was the 2.5t which was an ST in all but name.
It puzzles me why we didn't get a Mondeo 2.5T called an ST. We got the slow Mondeo STd yet the Mondeo 2.5T which was the same engine as the Focus ST, as quick as the outgoing ST and massively different to the cooking models gets nothing. Instead we get no official name for it, the full name on the V5 for mine is the long winded "Mondeo Titanium X Turbo Estate".Mildly interestingly in Australia Ford badged it as the "XR5 Turbo" which is the same "badge" as the Focus ST225 received (ie called the Focus XR5 Turbo).
The Mk4 is ~100kg more than the Mk3 though as well as wider, longer and higher which while it's a better chassis will hurt handling, although as it's turbocharged you can of course remap it easily at which point it will have a *lot* more power than an ST220.
Jonsen said:
2000rpm - 60 vs 90bhp (+30)
3000rpm - 100 vs 165bhp (+65!!)
4000rpm - 140 vs 220bhp (+80!!)
5000rpm - 190 vs 250bhp (+60!!)
6000rpm - 230 vs 260bhp (+30)
3000rpm - 100 vs 165bhp (+65!!)
4000rpm - 140 vs 220bhp (+80!!)
5000rpm - 190 vs 250bhp (+60!!)
6000rpm - 230 vs 260bhp (+30)
Garymac147 said:
Nice motor,but modern day cars like my 320d are nicer to drive and more fuel efficient,and a lot cheaper to tax,and just as fast !!!
You’re basically bang on purely from a performance point of view. That’s turbocharging for you, everything low down/ mid range. It’s progress and it’s efficient, but kinda missing the point.A poster above implied that if you take one for a quick test drive, you would probably be a little underwhelmed by the amount of go on offer. I would agree entirely, especially if you are used to newer turbocharged engines. Any bog standard 2.0 turbo diesel will feel equally to substantially more punchy below 4K rpm or so.
Check out the graph below ( stolen from google, nothing to do with me). They don’t really get going until you have real engine speed. It doesn’t crest 150bhp until almost 5k, my 2.0 tdci does that at 3,100 and makes 100+ from 2k. Guess which one is more fun to drive...
It’s a requires a different, old school way of extracting the performance by actually driving the car, rather than just stamping on the throttle and going “tada”
. Objectively worse, but way, way more fun.Walshenham said:
You’re basically bang on purely from a performance point of view. That’s turbocharging for you, everything low down/ mid range. It’s progress and it’s efficient, but kinda missing the point.
A poster above implied that if you take one for a quick test drive, you would probably be a little underwhelmed by the amount of go on offer. I would agree entirely, especially if you are used to newer turbocharged engines. Any bog standard 2.0 turbo diesel will feel equally to substantially more punchy below 4K rpm or so.
Check out the graph below ( stolen from google, nothing to do with me). They don’t really get going until you have real engine speed. It doesn’t crest 150bhp until almost 5k, my 2.0 tdci does that at 3,100 and makes 100+ from 2k. Guess which one is more...
It’s a requires a different, old school way of extracting the performance by actually driving the car, rather than just stamping on the throttle and going “tada” . Objectively worse, but way, way more fun.
I can confirm the engine is an utter peach. You need to rev it to get the best out of it, and in that rev range it sounds fantastic. Well worth the fuel cost. You find yourself turning off the radio and opening the windows to listen. A poster above implied that if you take one for a quick test drive, you would probably be a little underwhelmed by the amount of go on offer. I would agree entirely, especially if you are used to newer turbocharged engines. Any bog standard 2.0 turbo diesel will feel equally to substantially more punchy below 4K rpm or so.
Check out the graph below ( stolen from google, nothing to do with me). They don’t really get going until you have real engine speed. It doesn’t crest 150bhp until almost 5k, my 2.0 tdci does that at 3,100 and makes 100+ from 2k. Guess which one is more...
It’s a requires a different, old school way of extracting the performance by actually driving the car, rather than just stamping on the throttle and going “tada”
. Objectively worse, but way, way more fun.Don't get that in a 320d.
Garymac147 said:
Nice motor,but modern day cars like my 320d are nicer to drive and more fuel efficient,and a lot cheaper to tax,and just as fast !!!
I'm afraid I have to disagree here on all but running costs. I did 60k miles in my ST220 and have driven a selection of 320Ds. The 220 is faster. I know the 0-60 time is similar to the 320 but as we all know, 0-60 is not the best gauge for performance. The 220 also has a much nicer manual than the current 3 series (and this isn't ex-owner bias, I'm a big BMW fan!) and the 220 is a much much better handling car than a standard 320D (and this from someone who thinks RWD is correct wheel drive). The comment in the article on wheel and suspension mods isn't entirely accurate. When one of my 220s springs failed I swapped the car to Eibachs. The result, a slightly lower better stance with a better ride and a nicer turn in. The Eibachs that were options you could get from Ford for the MK3 (although officially not for the 220) were a progressive spring rather than the standard linear ones and managed to improve comfort and handling.
As an all round car the 220 was fantastic. Took my mountain bikes with ease with the back seats down and the handling really was amazing for a car of its price and size. I'd love to have another!
PaulD86 said:
Garymac147 said:
Nice motor,but modern day cars like my 320d are nicer to drive and more fuel efficient,and a lot cheaper to tax,and just as fast !!!
I'm afraid I have to disagree here on all but running costs. I did 60k miles in my ST220 and have driven a selection of 320Ds. The 220 is faster. I know the 0-60 time is similar to the 320 but as we all know, 0-60 is not the best gauge for performance. The 220 also has a much nicer manual than the current 3 series (and this isn't ex-owner bias, I'm a big BMW fan!) and the 220 is a much much better handling car than a standard 320D (and this from someone who thinks RWD is correct wheel drive). The comment in the article on wheel and suspension mods isn't entirely accurate. When one of my 220s springs failed I swapped the car to Eibachs. The result, a slightly lower better stance with a better ride and a nicer turn in. The Eibachs that were options you could get from Ford for the MK3 (although officially not for the 220) were a progressive spring rather than the standard linear ones and managed to improve comfort and handling.
As an all round car the 220 was fantastic. Took my mountain bikes with ease with the back seats down and the handling really was amazing for a car of its price and size. I'd love to have another!
The 220 was a cracking car but anyone with £3.5k to spend will need to think about running costs very carefully as they drink and the tax is horrific. Also, as a Ford, it will need maintained but at least parts should be cheap?
The VED is only horrendous on post 1/3/2006 cars.
As usual people only looking at MPG and VED as a measure of running costs.
The Mondeo is almost certainly at the bottom of its deprecation curve. It may even start to gently appreciate. A modern diesel like the 320d will continue to shed hundreds if not thousands of pounds in value each year.
The Mondeo will need parts replacing, but then a 320d may need a new timing chain at some point before the engine goes pop.
Let's not forget the wonder that is the Nseries timing chain.
RWD is naturally better in most applications, but this FWD set up and a V6 trumps a 4 cylinder diesel BMW. And I am a bit of a fan of BMWs.
I learned the hard way that torque is fun for a bit, revs and sound are much more satisfying and fulfilling ways to motoring happiness, even at the expense of speed.
That is is why I have my eye on 2.5 Boxsters. Cheap and can drive them hard without loosing the licence.
RWD is naturally better in most applications, but this FWD set up and a V6 trumps a 4 cylinder diesel BMW. And I am a bit of a fan of BMWs.
I learned the hard way that torque is fun for a bit, revs and sound are much more satisfying and fulfilling ways to motoring happiness, even at the expense of speed.
That is is why I have my eye on 2.5 Boxsters. Cheap and can drive them hard without loosing the licence.
Great car - very practical, lovely noise, superb engine and nicely balanced handling. Why on earth did they fit them with the standard brakes from the rest of the mk3 range? As standard, they’re fine for a 1.6 but comically lacking for the 3.0; although a relatively common upgrade is the system from a Focus ST.
Loved mine, would have had it longer, but a V8 Merc SL entered my life, so it had to go!
Loved mine, would have had it longer, but a V8 Merc SL entered my life, so it had to go!
mrfunex said:
. Why on earth did they fit them with the standard brakes from the rest of the mk3 range? As standard, they’re fine for a 1.6 but comically lacking for the 3.0; although a relatively common upgrade is the system from a Focus ST.
How did I forget the brakes?!?! The standard ones were absolutely hopeless in a car of its pace. The Focus ST brake upgrade was the first thing I did to mine. Transformed the car. I remember black smoke billowing from the originals after a particularly twisty B road. That's when I knew they were getting upgraded!greenarrow said:
The VED is only horrendous on post 1/3/2006 cars.
As usual people only looking at MPG and VED as a measure of running costs.
The Mondeo is almost certainly at the bottom of its deprecation curve. It may even start to gently appreciate. A modern diesel like the 320d will continue to shed hundreds if not thousands of pounds in value each year.
The Mondeo will need parts replacing, but then a 320d may need a new timing chain at some point before the engine goes pop.
The ST220 stopped depreciating a good year or so ago and this year has seen a small price increase on any with under 80k miles on. As usual people only looking at MPG and VED as a measure of running costs.
The Mondeo is almost certainly at the bottom of its deprecation curve. It may even start to gently appreciate. A modern diesel like the 320d will continue to shed hundreds if not thousands of pounds in value each year.
The Mondeo will need parts replacing, but then a 320d may need a new timing chain at some point before the engine goes pop.
My first 220 I sold approaching 3 years ago has just recently sold for nearly the same price on eBay despite the fact it had 25k more miles on and is now nearly 3 years older than when I had it.
And I paid £2750 16 months ago for my current one which is the same price they were selling for 2-3 years ago. It’s also been the most reliable car I’ve ever owned.
For a car with over 200bhp they only require basic services unlike other Turbo cars with similar power that require expensive cam belt and water pump jobs.
In 16 months of hard driving I have spent £0 on maintenance and put it through its Mot which it passed with 0 advisory’s.
Most of the 2006/7 models sell for nearly the same price as the 04/05’s because of the tax difference.
greenarrow said:
The Mondeo is almost certainly at the bottom of its deprecation curve. It may even start to gently appreciate.
Given long enough and kept in good condition it will definitely appreciate. Even s
t old Fords (which this isn't) seem to reach high values about 30 years from release.I came very close to an ST 220, (Admittedly it was diesel as the running costs scared me )but the car we looked at wouldn't unlock properly and looked very tired . We bought a Mazda 6 Sport 2.2 instead from the same dealer, which then threw up a DPF fault, which when plugged in showed a stretched cam chain.
Took some haggling to finally get our money back (costs were £1000+ to replace), and we settled on the 2.5 petrol of the Mazda 6 Sport. Owned it for 2 years, and its been a brilliant family bus.
However, every time I see an ST 220 I do have a pang of want. It's a great looking car and I want a V6 in my life at some point.
Took some haggling to finally get our money back (costs were £1000+ to replace), and we settled on the 2.5 petrol of the Mazda 6 Sport. Owned it for 2 years, and its been a brilliant family bus.
However, every time I see an ST 220 I do have a pang of want. It's a great looking car and I want a V6 in my life at some point.
As a current owner, this is all very interesting! I bought mine a little over two years ago because I wanted a daily driver that would
a) be cheap to buy
b) cost little in depreciation
c) had a decent turn of speed, an interesting drive train and a good chassis
d) was comfortable
e) was roomy enough to carry substantial loads for my wife's antiques habit
Given these requirements, the ST220 stood out. Mine is covering 20,000 miles per year and is now on 127k. I spent some money first thing on new (Ford supplied) dampers and an aircon service and the brake master cylinder needed replacing shortly after I bought it. Otherwise, though, the only spend has been on service items, including discs and pads. I do the routine service jobs myself - an oil and filter change is almost ridiculously straight forward. The daily grind is a mix of motorways and London traffic so it is not the most sensible car in terms of fuel consumption. My best is around 33mpg but a daily average is more like 26mpg. But in other respects, the ST meets my needs very well. It's refined, as quick as it needs to be, has plenty of toys, (e.g heated screen, seats and washer nozzles) and is plenty roomy enough. And as it was so cheap and is worth so little, I really don't need to worry about the odd imperfection in the paintwork. Oh yes, I also rate the sound quality of the standard stereo, even if it is technically out of date.
As others have said, it will be a hard car to replace.
a) be cheap to buy
b) cost little in depreciation
c) had a decent turn of speed, an interesting drive train and a good chassis
d) was comfortable
e) was roomy enough to carry substantial loads for my wife's antiques habit
Given these requirements, the ST220 stood out. Mine is covering 20,000 miles per year and is now on 127k. I spent some money first thing on new (Ford supplied) dampers and an aircon service and the brake master cylinder needed replacing shortly after I bought it. Otherwise, though, the only spend has been on service items, including discs and pads. I do the routine service jobs myself - an oil and filter change is almost ridiculously straight forward. The daily grind is a mix of motorways and London traffic so it is not the most sensible car in terms of fuel consumption. My best is around 33mpg but a daily average is more like 26mpg. But in other respects, the ST meets my needs very well. It's refined, as quick as it needs to be, has plenty of toys, (e.g heated screen, seats and washer nozzles) and is plenty roomy enough. And as it was so cheap and is worth so little, I really don't need to worry about the odd imperfection in the paintwork. Oh yes, I also rate the sound quality of the standard stereo, even if it is technically out of date.
As others have said, it will be a hard car to replace.
J4CKO said:
Funny how Sierra Cosworths are feted and worth a fortune, yet these are worth not very much, its a better car in most ways, just not valued.
Strange thing the car market.
Goes on with almost all marques though reallyStrange thing the car market.
For example E30 M3 -> E36 328i , Porsche 964 -> 996, Merc 190 EVO 2.5 -> C32 AMG,, RS2000 Mk1 -> RS2000 Mk5, Ferrari Dino -> F360 etc etc
A lot of it on here is badge snobbery but across the board of car manufacturers a lot is to do with rarity and the 'imagine'
In 15 years time (assuming we can still drive petrol cars) the ST220 will probably be in the position of the Cosworth and PH will be championing some 10 year old Mondeo
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff