its new, its tight, come back in 5000 miles and tell us then.
Its big becuase you bought a big car. Please dont be the first on on here to post:
"MY car has grown since I bought it, Ford wont cover it under warranty, can I sue them"
|
its new its tight come back in 5000 miles and tell us then.
Not much use to me, it's being collected tommorrow!
Its big becuase you bought a big car.
No, it's big becuase the hire company gave it to me. You dont honestly think I'd buy a brand new Mondeo?
|
just this once, I will let you off then. Dont do it again.
|
|
|
|
I've just brimmed the tank on this one .........
How do you judge that it's "brimmed"? Is it when the pump first shuts off or do you keep pressing the trigger and putting in ever decreasing amounts until the filler neck starts to overflow?
|
Hi Michael - Good to read an impartial view on the new Mondy. Everything I have seen up to now has been mainly journalese. I really hope it is good, as I will need to replace my Mk3 estate at some point and the increase in loadspace would suit me even better.
Probably superstition on my part, but I am disappointed that they chose to fit belt cam engines. Notwithstanding any reliability issues this may confer, it just adds quite a lot of cost if you cover a high mileage which many Mondeos will.
Prompted by this and another couple of other threads on servicing costs, I dug out my car file and totted up the service and maintenance costs so far on my current car. The quick numbers are as follows. Total mileage 135k ( 100k in my hands ) During the time I have had it, I have kept it serviced as per the schedule requirements albeit at a good local indy. "My" 100k have so far cost less than £850 in service and general maintenance costs if you exclude tyres. Quite good it would seem when you read what some others are paying for servicing / repairs. Adding belt changes into the equation would probably make quite a difference I should think.
|
Not as much as you may expect with Fords as they all tend to be on 100K change intervals now (and that actually does seem sufficient judging by the very low failure rate!)
|
|
100k Blue ? Interesting. That would make me feel a bit more confident.
|
|
Oh yes. The 1.25 Yamaha Zetec engine is on 100,000 changes or ten years so I changed the one in a family Fiesta at ten years and 40,000 miles.
|
|
|
|
Not as much as you may expect with Fords as they all tend to be on 100K change intervals now (and that actually does seem sufficient judging by the very low failure rate!)
Yep. When I asked my Ford dealer whether my car's belt should be changed at less than 100k they said it wasn't necessary and that the lowest mileage at which they had seen failure occur was 125k.
|
|
Might be worth reading a few discussion sites Pumapeople are pretty dubious of letting them go to the specified mileage.
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 20/01/2008 at 14:42
|
|
Other than the fuel economy, this is a very, very good car. And thats high praise indeed given what I usually drive and my normal opinion on run of the mill stuff. The centre console is a bit cheap but the rest of the dashboard is very well built, lots of high quality materials. Handles very well, performance is acceptable although the engine sounds like a wasp in a biscuit tin.
|
|
By 10,000 miles it will have improved a lot.
|
|
i seriously hope mine does , only getting high 20's back and forwards to work !!!!!!
|
I'm collecting my Mondeo IV 2.0 diesel estate next week, so I've been lurking on a couple of Mondeo forums.
The general feeling seems to be that owners are disappointed with fuel consumption, although some have done 10 - 15K miles and reported that economy has improved with mileage, as much as 10% in some cases.
Admittedly, that's mostly diesel cars rather than petrol.
|
"Currently got a new shape Mondeo for a couple of days and am finding the fuel consumption is absolutely apalling. I don't drive like my trousers are on fire so to find that it returned just 32mpg from London to Devon just now (Empty roads and cruise control the whole way) is hugely suprising as I get more than that from my 530.
"Even over 10 miles with the cruise set to 68mph, reset with the car already travelling, it returned only 33.8mpg average.
"It's a 2 litre petrol manual. I've never driven a car with fuel economy this poor and that includes a Mk2 2 litre Mondeo which over the same trip would have returned closer to 37mpg and my 530i which I'd have got about 34mpg out of.
"Is this one broken? It's only done 2000 miles! It's otherwise excellent, btw."
I drive a J-reg Sierra which has done 260k miles and it has averaged 39mpg over the course of it's life. It's a 2-litre petrol manual, carb not fuel injection. Just pre-cat I guess. Strong bias towards motorway journeys with me and the one previous keeper.
So under 35 on a long run seems very disappointing, whether run in or not, given 17 years of engine development. Even if the new Mondeo has a cat and is more Granada than Sierra sized and especially at your steady pace.
I do find economy varies quite a lot for no readily apparent reason. Mine has dropped below 35 and risen to 45+ on long runs. Economy does seem to have improved a bit with age.** There is something of a seasonal pattern.***
Co-incidentally I also drive from London to Devon (more accurately from Devon to London and back). No cruise control but maintaining 65-70. Is it possible that a strong headwind could have been a factor in your recent journeys Michael R? I drove straight into a southerly gale last Sunday on the M4/M5 and only returned 37 for that tankfull over 400 odd miles instead of the 40 or so I would have hoped for.
** (The annual average mpg in 1991 was 38 point something, whereas in 2005 I managed 41 point something).
*** (It also seems to be getting thirstier on shorter runs as it gets older, possibly temperamental carb, tho' I'm going to try having the thermostat changed to be sure it is warming up properly. The temp gauge still settles in 'Norm' but only just).
|
Quick update - new thermostat in Sierra, settling nicely in the middle of NORM now, but struggling to get above 35mpg on 15 mile round trips. Then I did the Devon-London & rtn trip last weekend and over 363 miles brimful to brimful got ... 44.67mpg. Averaged 65mph-ish, some time at 60, a little at 70.
So, if a banger with a slightly dodgy carb can do that, 32mpg on a new Mondeo seems shamefully poor.
I learnt today that the car's previous owner has passed away, so I hope you'll forgive my indulgence.
|
|
|
Yep. When I asked my Ford dealer whether my car's belt should be changed at less than 100k they said it wasn't necessary and that the lowest mileage at which they had seen failure occur was 125k.
A colleague's Focus belt failed at 5 years and 50,000 miles, so they aren't all bomb proof. Once out of warranty I doubt many Ford dealers carry out failed cam belt repair jobs. My colleague was quoted nearly £1,000, a local indie did it for £400.
|
Michael,
Have you measured using the trip or actual fuel economy? The trip on these machines is known to be wildly inaccurate.
Carse
|
Wind direction and speed have an appreciable effect on fuel consumption at motorway speeds especially when cruise is engaged. The cruise control feedback loop is nowhere near as sparing with the fuel as I would be when resistance to motion increases, as in an uphill stretch.
Last weekend's weather was fairly steady with a southerly breeze. I did the return trip London to Nottingham using a blissfully clear M40/42, A42, M1 route. With the cruise set to precisely 70 mph on my VAG (1.9 litre PD 130) diesel, it returned an indicated 62 mpg going North and 57 mpg returning South. I know from careful measurements that the absolute values are a bit optimistic but the difference is interesting and will be nearly correct.
Pity I can't now buy another Cat III diesel.
659.
Edited by 659FBE on 05/02/2008 at 18:11
|
I brimmed it before the hire company collected it - 29.8mpg average for the entire tank.
I drove it from Southampton to St Albans, St Albans to Plymouth at 10pm-2.30am, then popped into town (10 mile round trip).
The same driving with my 530i Sport would return about 32-34mpg, and my Mk2 2.0 Mondeo 35-40mpg.
|
But are you sure they brimmed the tank for you?
My S-Max can go over 100 miles before the needle starts to fall from the 'full' tank mark.
|
a900ss is right - it might not have been full when you got it but it only appeared to be.
I've had hire cars before now and had to send them back without topping up the fuel (with their agreement) because I had done so few miles. Most garages have a minimum spend of £5 and I'll have used less than that. And the needle would not have moved.
Also had a hire car where the needle never got to full when it was brimmed.
I bet they all know how little to put in to make it look full :-) Probably saves them a fortune.
|
I tok a Pug 207 out on hire for the day in Glasgow. I did 35 miles only.
I brimmed the tank with 3.5 litre at the station less than 100 metres from the rent return deport. The needle did not move. I took to the return station where they slowly squeezed 1.2 litres in and said that if they can't get 2 litres in there is no charge, as the BP station is cheap and 100 metres away so no excuse for not filling car. They also said that modern cars do not register small amounts of fuel and they would have to disconnect the battery to make the guage recognise a full tank.
|
SWMBO hires cars quite frequently for work use and I've never seen the drivers collecting them do any more than turn on the ignition and glance at the gauge before we sign the return documentation.
Cheers
DP
|
MichaelR, thanks for giving us that impression/snippet of experience.
Sounds about right to me as its still new and has to bed in a little bit. Its a shame you havent got it for another 10000 miles but it all helps to give us an idea of what its like.
Still think that blinged up new fords look like they spent a million pounds at Woolworths though.
|
With a big car like that, I would only go for a manual diesel. With big heavy cars, petrol consumption would be awful. It\'s basically a very good car though.
|
After driving it I did wonder why you\'d ever want anything other than the diesel at this pricepoint. Ok clearly the best car in the range is the 2.5T, but in the abscence of that I really cannot see why you would chose the 2.0 petrol.
I like petrol cars. I didnt like the 2 litre petrol Mondeo.
|
Understandably the automatics would be also terrible with fuel consumpsion. The 2.0 litre diesel 140bhp manual would surely be best? I would love to hire one for a few days, long distance and daily city stop start snarl ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
