RE: Ford Mondeo ST220 | Shed of the Week

[MC Bodge]

Jon_S_Rally said:

Had one of these about 10 years ago. Probably one of the best all-round cars I've owned. Not the fastest, but it sound great and the engine revved pretty well. Chassis was the stand-out though. I don't think I have driven a car that inspired such confidence. I've owned cars that could cover ground faster, but there was something about the ST220 that made you fearless. It was just so easy to press on.

I went from a re-mapped Mk1 Octavia VRS to a MK3 Mondeo Ghia X TDCi Estate, both on 17" wheels.

The acceleration was much slower, and the TDCI 130 engine not great, but the chassis of the Mondeo was in a completely different league to the crude Octavia. It was vastly better in every aspect, very impressive on all types of road -and a big, usefully square boot.

Going from the Mk3 to the Mk4 estate, it did feel much heavier and larger when changing direction, although still very good for its bulk and very quick and confidence-inspiring cross country. The Mk5 estate is similarly-sized to the Mk4 and does also drive very well.

Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 19th March 09:32

[Jon_S_Rally]

MC Bodge said:

I went from a re-mapped Mk1 Octavia VRS to a MK3 Mondeo Ghia X TDCi Estate, both on 17" wheels.

The acceleration was much slower, and the TDCI 130 engine not great, but the chassis of the Mondeo was in a completely different league to the crude Octavia. It was vastly better in every aspect, very impressive on all types of road -and a big, usefully square boot.

Going from the Mk3 to the Mk4 estate, it did feel much heavier and larger when changing direction, although still very good for its bulk and very quick and confidence-inspiring cross country. The Mk5 estate is similarly-sized to the Mk4 and does also drive very well.

Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 19th March 09:32

The thing that really bugged me about the MK4 was the seating position. The backrest of the seat seemed really low, like the top of it was sitting almost at the bottom of my shoulder blades. The steering column also felt too low. The angle was ok, but it just felt a few inches too low, like I was sitting above it. It all felt very disjointed after the MK3 in that respect.

[MC Bodge]

Jon_S_Rally said:

The thing that really bugged me about the MK4 was the seating position. The backrest of the seat seemed really low, like the top of it was sitting almost at the bottom of my shoulder blades. The steering column also felt too low. The angle was ok, but it just felt a few inches too low, like I was sitting above it. It all felt very disjointed after the MK3 in that respect.

Fair point. The MK3 leather seats were very comfortable, and very supportive, in my car. The Mk4 cloth ones didn't offer much lateral support when pressing on. The Mk5 seats are fine.

Seating position itself is obviously personal.

[joropug]

I had a relatively rare saloon back in 2008. It was a relative bargain, was 5 years old, £5400 on 31k miles. Was probably what, £25-30k new?

Came with no history and one key, from a pretty ropey garage in Wales, but it had the original number plates on so off I trot to Southampton Ford down the road and got a full print out of the full ford service history and an extra key!

It looked nice, was comfy and was relatively quick.

All this hullabaloo about it being good at handling (top gear video for one) is horse sh** though - it was the worst handling saloon I have owned, so much understeer at any speed. Maybe, tyres, maybe alignment, but for me it was terrible. On an open track perhaps it is more fun but on the road it wasn't.

The brakes were the worst bit, same as the crap thrown on the 1.8 - They faded on me 2-3 times in mildly spirited road driving, really dangerous. Had new pads, decent discs and a fluid change too.

Was also terrible on fuel, don't think I ever beat 22mpg on the OBC in my ownership.

Overall, crap in my opinion, and I was 19/20 at the time so would have had rose tinted glasses on. I had an E46 330ci M Sport shortly afterwards which was 10x the car despite being a bit older and on double the miles.

[MC Bodge]

joropug said:

All this hullabaloo about it being good at handling (top gear video for one) is horse sh** though - it was the worst handling saloon I have owned, so much understeer at any speed. Maybe, tyres, maybe alignment, but for me it was terrible.

You appear to be in a very small minority.

Your car was presumably knackered.

I wonder what fading brake pads and old fluid were fitted to your car?

[Jon_S_Rally]

joropug said:

I had a relatively rare saloon back in 2008. It was a relative bargain, was 5 years old, £5400 on 31k miles. Was probably what, £25-30k new?

Came with no history and one key, from a pretty ropey garage in Wales, but it had the original number plates on so off I trot to Southampton Ford down the road and got a full print out of the full ford service history and an extra key!

It looked nice, was comfy and was relatively quick.

All this hullabaloo about it being good at handling (top gear video for one) is horse sh** though - it was the worst handling saloon I have owned, so much understeer at any speed. Maybe, tyres, maybe alignment, but for me it was terrible. On an open track perhaps it is more fun but on the road it wasn't.

The brakes were the worst bit, same as the crap thrown on the 1.8 - They faded on me 2-3 times in mildly spirited road driving, really dangerous. Had new pads, decent discs and a fluid change too.

Was also terrible on fuel, don't think I ever beat 22mpg on the OBC in my ownership.

Overall, crap in my opinion, and I was 19/20 at the time so would have had rose tinted glasses on. I had an E46 330ci M Sport shortly afterwards which was 10x the car despite being a bit older and on double the miles.

The brakes are definitely not the best, but I don't recall ever suffering from fade, even with pretty hard use. If I was every to revisit one, I would definitely fit Focus ST bits, but the standard ones were hardly dangerous. As for the comments about handling, I suspect your car was broken, or your inputs were!

[joropug]

MC Bodge said:

You appear to be in a very small minority.

Your car was presumably knackered.

I wonder what fading brake pads and old fluid were fitted to your car?

I know - and perhaps so, but it was my experience in it. I got it after my Accord Type R so maybe that spoiled the experience. To me it was rubbish.

[Howard-]

Jon_S_Rally said:

MC Bodge said:

I went from a re-mapped Mk1 Octavia VRS to a MK3 Mondeo Ghia X TDCi Estate, both on 17" wheels.

The acceleration was much slower, and the TDCI 130 engine not great, but the chassis of the Mondeo was in a completely different league to the crude Octavia. It was vastly better in every aspect, very impressive on all types of road -and a big, usefully square boot.

Going from the Mk3 to the Mk4 estate, it did feel much heavier and larger when changing direction, although still very good for its bulk and very quick and confidence-inspiring cross country. The Mk5 estate is similarly-sized to the Mk4 and does also drive very well.

Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 19th March 09:32

The thing that really bugged me about the MK4 was the seating position. The backrest of the seat seemed really low, like the top of it was sitting almost at the bottom of my shoulder blades. The steering column also felt too low. The angle was ok, but it just felt a few inches too low, like I was sitting above it. It all felt very disjointed after the MK3 in that respect.

I went from an ST220 to a mk4 Titanium X Sport Ecoboost (2.0 turbo with 240bhp) and it was a lovely car and drove exceedingly well, but the seats weren't a patch on the ST220's Recaros. They just felt like leather/alcantara covered versions of the same seats you'd see in a base model Mondeo Edge, but with electric adjustment.

[M22s]

I’m a bit of a fast ford guy, and always keeping an eye out ‘for a bargain’ ST220 at a time where I am in SWMBO’s good books. I’m sure the stars shall align one day… on day.

[okenemem]

had one around 10 years ago. was thirsty back then so would hate to have it now

[nismo48]

Great shed and write up..

[Blackpuddin]

No bargepoles appear to have touched it yet, it's still for sale.

[GhiaInjection]

njw1 said:

My ST had the optional 'special suspension' which is the same set up as the ST220...

"Special Suspension" is another name for Sports suspension that was fitted to early Zetecs, Zetec-S and ST TDCI (and optional on other trims). It is not the same as "ST220" suspension. There are a number of chassis items that were unique to the ST220 (Front Shock, Spring, Arm, Stabiliser, Bushes & Knuckle + Rear Spring, Shock & drop link) See https://ford.7zap.com/en/car/99/no/

joropug said:

All this hullabaloo about it being good at handling (top gear video for one) is horse sh** though - it was the worst handling saloon I have owned, so much understeer at any speed.Maybe, Definitely tyres, maybe alignment, but for me it was terrible. On an open track perhaps it is more fun but on the road it wasn't.

The brakes were the worst bit, same as the crap thrown on the 1.8 - They faded on me 2-3 times in mildly spirited road driving, really dangerous. Had new pads, decent discs and a fluid change too.

The chassis setup on these cars really leans on the tyres. Poor tyres ruin them. I've owned a new 2001 2.5 V6 Zetec-S, 3 year old 2002 2.0 TDCi Zetec-S & 9 months old 2006 ST TDCi. The Zetec-S & ST TDCi had original Continental Sport Contact 2s still fitted. Understeer was not an issue on these and they resisted it really well for a FWD car. The TDCi Zetec-S was a different matter, the previous owner had stuck the cheapest 18" tyres he could find to get it through a MOT. That thing understeered at will, especially in the wet. Those tyres didn't stay fitted for long!

300mm front and 280mm rear discs was pretty decent for an early 2000 saloon and the braking system was one of the few things that was taken over from Mondeo to the Jaguar X-Type unmodified. So Jaguar thought they were good enough for a 230hp X-Type. I never had an issue on the road, although issues on track were reported (see 2002 Handling Test below - Although they weren't as bad as the Alfa 156 GTA, one of the reasons the Alfa came last in this Test) - Confused as to why you think an understeering & brake fading car on the road, would be better on the track !?

joropug said:

I had an E46 330ci M Sport shortly afterwards which was 10x the car despite being a bit older and on double the miles.

I know - and perhaps so, but it was my experience in it. I got it after my Accord Type R so maybe that spoiled the experience. To me it was rubbish.

6 pot FWD, 4 pot FWD & 6 pot RWD all have different characteristics and you have to adjust your driving style to get the best from each.

But clearly your car's chassis (or inputs?!) wasn't up to "spec" in one or more areas, judging by what the motoring press reported on in the day .....

Here is the EVO Road Test and 2002 Handling Test scans from 2002

[ScoobyChris]

In my humble diesel Ghia X, I found the Conti SC2’s awful (and expensive!). In fact, putting Michelins on the front made the car positively oversteery on the limit!

Chris

[Fastdruid]

GhiaInjection said:

The chassis setup on these cars really leans on the tyres. Poor tyres ruin them. I've owned a new 2001 2.5 V6 Zetec-S, 3 year old 2002 2.0 TDCi Zetec-S & 9 months old 2006 ST TDCi. The Zetec-S & ST TDCi had original Continental Sport Contact 2s still fitted. Understeer was not an issue on these and they resisted it really well for a FWD car. The TDCi Zetec-S was a different matter, the previous owner had stuck the cheapest 18" tyres he could find to get it through a MOT. That thing understeered at will, especially in the wet. Those tyres didn't stay fitted for long!

While I've never had the pleasure of trying an ST220 I was never impressed by the Mk3 Mondeo in general, but all the examples I drove were company "pool" cars with the cheapest nastiest tyres on (rarely even matching[1]) and barely maintained. My leggy Mk2 was *much* nicer to drive. I wonder if I'd think better of the Mk3 if they'd been fitted with decent tyres!



[1] I even spun one once on a wet roundabout! I realised afterwards just how shockingly bad the tyres fitted were and refused to drive that one again!

[GhiaInjection]

ScoobyChris said:

In my humble diesel Ghia X, I found the Conti SC2’s awful (and expensive!). In fact, putting Michelins on the front made the car positively oversteery on the limit!

Chris

Putting new tyres on the front and leaving worns on the rear will always increase the risk of oversteer in a FWD car. Should of moved the rear SC2 to front and put new Michelins on the rear. Then when the Front Contis were worn repeat - worn Michelins to Front and new Michelins on rear..

Ford recommend switching front and rear every 6000 miles which keeps the wear even. But does mean eventually having to replace all 4 at once.

I owned the ST TDCi for 11 years and tried various tyres based on the reviews of the day. I found the original SC2s fine for grip, but were expensive and wore quickly. Tried Michelin PS2 as it was suggested they wear better. They didn't and were more expensive than the SC2s and not noticeable better.

Gave Vredesteins a go, but regretted it! The only time the rear stepped out, was on them.

The best tyres I found were the Goodyear F1 Asymmetrics. The first time I had them fitted, I required all 4 and I also did a 4 wheel re-alignment. It was like a new car! Grip in all conditions was great.

I stuck with the F1 Assys through the 2nd and 3rd interations. The later variants seemed to trade outright dry grip and steering feel for economy and refinement. Although they were all still great in the wet.

Special mention for the Michelin PS4 S tyres I'm currently running on my 2019 Focus ST ! They are fantastic in all wet/dry conditions (if a little noisy)

Fastdruid said:

My leggy Mk2 was *much* nicer to drive. I wonder if I'd think better of the Mk3 if they'd been fitted with decent tyres!

I came from a 1993 Mk1 Mondeo 2.0 Si to the 2001 Mk3 V6 Zetec-S. The Mk1 was a bit nimbler as it was smaller/lighter. But the Mk3 had much better steering and ride plus the chassis felt more rounded.

It's ironic that Ford put so much effort into the chassis, of which the tyres are a key element, only for most people to put any old tyres on, as they think all tyres are the same !!

[greenarrow]

GhiaInjection said:

Here is the EVO Road Test and 2002 Handling Test scans from 2002

I've got the autocar issue and always impressed that the ST220 lapped only 0.4 secs behind the highly rated Clio 172 cup which I'm fairly sure had a better power to weight ratio. Not far behind the Alfa GTA either. Agree the mk3 Mondeo brakes were a weak point.

[ScoobyChris]

GhiaInjection said:

Putting new tyres on the front and leaving worns on the rear will always increase the risk of oversteer in a FWD car. Should have moved the rear SC2 to front and put new Michelins on the rear. Then when the Front Contis were worn repeat - worn Michelins to Front and new Michelins on rear..

Thanks for patronising … much appreciated. The contis were new (and went on the rear) and the part worn Michelins from the rear went on the front. Let me reiterate in case it’s not clear … they were rubbish.

Chris

[MC Bodge]

GhiaInjection said:

It's ironic that Ford put so much effort into the chassis, of which the tyres are a key element, only for most people to put any old tyres on, as they think all tyres are the same !!

Agreed. Most cars, even fairly potent ones, have the cheapest tyres fitted because most drivers are ham-fisted (fast or slow), with no mechanical/dynamic knowledge or sympathy, and wouldn't know the difference.

They might wish they were better tyres in the event of a collision avoidance manoeuvre, though.

[MC Bodge]

greenarrow said:

Agree the mk3 Mondeo brakes were a weak point.

Mine weren't bad. I fitted decent discs and Ferodo Premier pads when mine needed them.

The Mk4 Mondeo had "sharper" brakes, but with less feel.

The Mk5 brakes are fairly good for road use