My Ford Mondeo ST220
Discussion
GaryST220 said:
I bought my ST220 at a young age, people said it was a weird choice but I had to disagree. Can't stand Fiestas and the likes, I need power, handling and a bit of comfort! Keep seeing good offers on large cars like the Volvo S80 and its giving me a bad craving.
Do you have any sources to backup that claim? Not dis-agreeing, just looking for some closure 
Sorry, nothing scientific to say, but back in the days of the Sierra Cosworth touring cars the Sapphire saloon shell was considered by most to be superior than the 3 door hatch shell used for the early Cosworths... so maybe the same is true for the Mondeo? BigLepton said:
joropug said:
Thoroughly recommend them, its only 20% of its RRP when new as well and not even quite 5 years old!
And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
Saloons always handle better than hatches due to the body being stiffer not having a great big hole at the back allowing the rear suspension to flex.And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
GaryST220 said:
I bought my ST220 at a young age, people said it was a weird choice but I had to disagree. Can't stand Fiestas and the likes, I need power, handling and a bit of comfort! Keep seeing good offers on large cars like the Volvo S80 and its giving me a bad craving.
Do you have any sources to backup that claim? Not dis-agreeing, just looking for some closure
That's why your ATR was a saloon not a hatch. Having a big bit of metal running between the rear window and boot lid is a lot stiffer than having a bloody great hole there. It does the same job as a rear strut brace and stops the rear end flexing on cornering which maintains the suspension geometry. Google "bodyshell saloon stiffer than hatch".BigLepton said:
joropug said:
Thoroughly recommend them, its only 20% of its RRP when new as well and not even quite 5 years old!
And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
Saloons always handle better than hatches due to the body being stiffer not having a great big hole at the back allowing the rear suspension to flex.And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
BigLepton said:
GaryST220 said:
I bought my ST220 at a young age, people said it was a weird choice but I had to disagree. Can't stand Fiestas and the likes, I need power, handling and a bit of comfort! Keep seeing good offers on large cars like the Volvo S80 and its giving me a bad craving.
Do you have any sources to backup that claim? Not dis-agreeing, just looking for some closure
That's why your ATR was a saloon not a hatch. Having a big bit of metal running between the rear window and boot lid is a lot stiffer than having a bloody great hole there. It does the same job as a rear strut brace and stops the rear end flexing on cornering which maintains the suspension geometry. Google "bodyshell saloon stiffer than hatch".BigLepton said:
joropug said:
Thoroughly recommend them, its only 20% of its RRP when new as well and not even quite 5 years old!
And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
Saloons always handle better than hatches due to the body being stiffer not having a great big hole at the back allowing the rear suspension to flex.And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
GT4 Baz said:
Nice motor mate, good choice!
Saloons are stiffer than hatches, that is the reason Mazda gave to only making saloon versions of its Mazda 6 MPS. It could not (even with additional bracing) make the hatch or estate stiff enough to justify the MPS badge.
I could be wrong, but is the Mazda 6 not on the same / similar chassis as the Mondeo?Saloons are stiffer than hatches, that is the reason Mazda gave to only making saloon versions of its Mazda 6 MPS. It could not (even with additional bracing) make the hatch or estate stiff enough to justify the MPS badge.
BigLepton said:
GaryST220 said:
I bought my ST220 at a young age, people said it was a weird choice but I had to disagree. Can't stand Fiestas and the likes, I need power, handling and a bit of comfort! Keep seeing good offers on large cars like the Volvo S80 and its giving me a bad craving.
Do you have any sources to backup that claim? Not dis-agreeing, just looking for some closure
That's why your ATR was a saloon not a hatch. Having a big bit of metal running between the rear window and boot lid is a lot stiffer than having a bloody great hole there. It does the same job as a rear strut brace and stops the rear end flexing on cornering which maintains the suspension geometry. Google "bodyshell saloon stiffer than hatch".BigLepton said:
joropug said:
Thoroughly recommend them, its only 20% of its RRP when new as well and not even quite 5 years old!
And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
Saloons always handle better than hatches due to the body being stiffer not having a great big hole at the back allowing the rear suspension to flex.And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
To be honest we used to have this discussion on Rovertech quite a lot between the 220 Turbo Hatches and Coupes, owing to the huge whole in the roof of the coupes. But to be honest it never seemed to make any difference on track. When my housemate bought his ST, we drove several both saloons and hatches (although he specifically wanted a hatch, the first one we drove was a saloon to get a feel for the car) and there wasn't anything in it on the road.
As I've always understood it, ultimate stiffness is useful on a track, it's not always so useful on the road. That's why rally cars have reasonably soft dampers for example. Drive your car hard on the road with the dampers on their stiffest setting and if it's anything like mine you'll find it gets skittish and breaks traction on the slightest of bumps, whearas with a setting somewhere in the middle it's hugely better.
Having said that I am no chassis engineer and maybe I'm understanding it all wrong
dwilkie said:
BigLepton said:
GaryST220 said:
I bought my ST220 at a young age, people said it was a weird choice but I had to disagree. Can't stand Fiestas and the likes, I need power, handling and a bit of comfort! Keep seeing good offers on large cars like the Volvo S80 and its giving me a bad craving.
Do you have any sources to backup that claim? Not dis-agreeing, just looking for some closure
That's why your ATR was a saloon not a hatch. Having a big bit of metal running between the rear window and boot lid is a lot stiffer than having a bloody great hole there. It does the same job as a rear strut brace and stops the rear end flexing on cornering which maintains the suspension geometry. Google "bodyshell saloon stiffer than hatch".BigLepton said:
joropug said:
Thoroughly recommend them, its only 20% of its RRP when new as well and not even quite 5 years old!
And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
Saloons always handle better than hatches due to the body being stiffer not having a great big hole at the back allowing the rear suspension to flex.And yeah, i wasnt really bothered on the whole saloon/hatch differences when i bought one, but now i have the saloon i cant help but think i made a bloody good choice when i see a hatch!
To be honest we used to have this discussion on Rovertech quite a lot between the 220 Turbo Hatches and Coupes, owing to the huge whole in the roof of the coupes. But to be honest it never seemed to make any difference on track. When my housemate bought his ST, we drove several both saloons and hatches (although he specifically wanted a hatch, the first one we drove was a saloon to get a feel for the car) and there wasn't anything in it on the road.
As I've always understood it, ultimate stiffness is useful on a track, it's not always so useful on the road. That's why rally cars have reasonably soft dampers for example. Drive your car hard on the road with the dampers on their stiffest setting and if it's anything like mine you'll find it gets skittish and breaks traction on the slightest of bumps, whearas with a setting somewhere in the middle it's hugely better.
Having said that I am no chassis engineer and maybe I'm understanding it all wrong
minimatt1967 said:
The ITR is only 2 door though... so you have a large rear quarter panel for strength, again no chassis rigidity specialist just a thought!
That was always what everyone figured the weak point was on the coupes though. When I came back in after a session at Castle Combe I had big dents on the rear quarters which I would imagine are from torsional flexing. It never happened on the road though, and it made no difference between the cars performance on track (although I guess my car would break in half before the hatch )dwilkie said:
As I've always understood it, ultimate stiffness is useful on a track, it's not always so useful on the road. That's why rally cars have reasonably soft dampers for example. Drive your car hard on the road with the dampers on their stiffest setting and if it's anything like mine you'll find it gets skittish and breaks traction on the slightest of bumps, whearas with a setting somewhere in the middle it's hugely better.
Having said that I am no chassis engineer and maybe I'm understanding it all wrong
You're confusing bodyshell stiffness with suspension stiffness. The stiffer the bobyshell, the better, end of, whether road, rally or track because it lets whatever suspension settings you choose work without being affected by bodyshell flex. Suspension stiffness is an entirely different matter where different softer or harder combinations of springs and dampers suit different conditions, but all settings work better, the stiffer the bodyshell. Colin Chapman always used to attribute the renowned handling of his cars to a combinations of extremely torsionally stiff chassis/bodyshell combined with relatively soft springs and relatively stiff dampers meaning suspension geometry was never compromised by chassis flex, soft springs reducing bump steer and staying in contact with bumps better and stiff dampers keeping all the unsprung weight well controlled.Having said that I am no chassis engineer and maybe I'm understanding it all wrong
BigLepton said:
You're confusing bodyshell stiffness with suspension stiffness. The stiffer the bobyshell, the better, end of, whether road, rally or track because it lets whatever suspension settings you choose work without being affected by bodyshell flex. Suspension stiffness is an entirely different matter where different softer or harder combinations of springs and dampers suit different conditions, but all settings work better, the stiffer the bodyshell. Colin Chapman always used to attribute the renowned handling of his cars to a combinations of extremely torsionally stiff chassis/bodyshell combined with relatively soft springs and relatively stiff dampers meaning suspension geometry was never compromised by chassis flex, soft springs reducing bump steer and staying in contact with bumps better and stiff dampers keeping all the unsprung weight well controlled.
Gotcha. That makes sense thinking about it. None the less, I still think that the amount of stiffness you're talking about between a hatchback Mondeo and a saloon is going to be marginal. If you compare an ATR with a normal Accord there's a huge difference in chassis stiffness (take the dash off and you'll see part of the reason why), but with the Mondeo you're talking the rear screen, and the thin strip of metal between the bottom of the screen and the start of the boot.The ATR just has massive bracing welded in everywhere, the bit behind the dash is like a scaffold pole!
dwilkie said:
BigLepton said:
You're confusing bodyshell stiffness with suspension stiffness. The stiffer the bobyshell, the better, end of, whether road, rally or track because it lets whatever suspension settings you choose work without being affected by bodyshell flex. Suspension stiffness is an entirely different matter where different softer or harder combinations of springs and dampers suit different conditions, but all settings work better, the stiffer the bodyshell. Colin Chapman always used to attribute the renowned handling of his cars to a combinations of extremely torsionally stiff chassis/bodyshell combined with relatively soft springs and relatively stiff dampers meaning suspension geometry was never compromised by chassis flex, soft springs reducing bump steer and staying in contact with bumps better and stiff dampers keeping all the unsprung weight well controlled.
Gotcha. That makes sense thinking about it. None the less, I still think that the amount of stiffness you're talking about between a hatchback Mondeo and a saloon is going to be marginal. If you compare an ATR with a normal Accord there's a huge difference in chassis stiffness (take the dash off and you'll see part of the reason why), but with the Mondeo you're talking the rear screen, and the thin strip of metal between the bottom of the screen and the start of the boot.The ATR just has massive bracing welded in everywhere, the bit behind the dash is like a scaffold pole!
I seem to remember that, back in the olden days, the Mk3 Orion was prized for CVH turbo conversions over its Escort hatch siblings as the bodyshell design allowed for slightly improved handling.
As my very crude drawing illustrates, with much exaggeration, heavy conering in the Escort causes the body to distort trapezoidally, altering the suspension geometry and eventually causin damage. In the Orion, where there is a solid panel between the seats and the boot, the effect does not occur as the shell is inherently stronger.
Handling is sacrificed for the ability to carry a flatpacked wardrobe. Long live the saloon in all of its uselessness!
As my very crude drawing illustrates, with much exaggeration, heavy conering in the Escort causes the body to distort trapezoidally, altering the suspension geometry and eventually causin damage. In the Orion, where there is a solid panel between the seats and the boot, the effect does not occur as the shell is inherently stronger.
Handling is sacrificed for the ability to carry a flatpacked wardrobe. Long live the saloon in all of its uselessness!
love the drawing...
Interesting discussion! When you removed the ATR's rear seats (They didnt just fold down) you could see a massive X brace across the hole from the boot to the cabin used for bracing.
The one thing that really does let the ST down though is the brakes! Awful for the size weight and potential speed of the thing! They didnt uprate them from the standard Mondeo brakes!
I would go down the suspension kit/Asbo ST Brake conversion if i drove the car quite hard on the roads, but to be honest in my area i dont really need them, and im looking to build a track car with a friend if i sort out my monies a bit better before the summer !
The one thing that really does let the ST down though is the brakes! Awful for the size weight and potential speed of the thing! They didnt uprate them from the standard Mondeo brakes!
I would go down the suspension kit/Asbo ST Brake conversion if i drove the car quite hard on the roads, but to be honest in my area i dont really need them, and im looking to build a track car with a friend if i sort out my monies a bit better before the summer !
joropug said:
Interesting discussion! When you removed the ATR's rear seats (They didnt just fold down) you could see a massive X brace across the hole from the boot to the cabin used for bracing.
The one thing that really does let the ST down though is the brakes! Awful for the size weight and potential speed of the thing! They didnt uprate them from the standard Mondeo brakes!
I would go down the suspension kit/Asbo ST Brake conversion if i drove the car quite hard on the roads, but to be honest in my area i dont really need them, and im looking to build a track car with a friend if i sort out my monies a bit better before the summer !
I read this an awful lot about the brakes... I've had the calipers cleaned, braided hoses (see profile for details) and decent fluid fitted and it hauls up nicely.The one thing that really does let the ST down though is the brakes! Awful for the size weight and potential speed of the thing! They didnt uprate them from the standard Mondeo brakes!
I would go down the suspension kit/Asbo ST Brake conversion if i drove the car quite hard on the roads, but to be honest in my area i dont really need them, and im looking to build a track car with a friend if i sort out my monies a bit better before the summer !
When the time comes to replace the discs and pads, I'll probably go for the Focus ST "ASBO" calipers and discs - just as I upgraded my ST200 to Mk3 calipers and discs.
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff