There are an awful lot of ford TDCi engines thundering along our rooads in various ford cars, so the majority of them are probably doing stirling service.
|
I think you have hit the nail on the head AE. Most of them don't go wrong so we never hear about them. It's more a case of when they do it can be relatively expensive to fix so we do hear about that.
My view is that they are a good bet.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 31/10/2009 at 09:28
|
I think you have hit the nail on the head AE. Most of them don't go wrong so we never hear about them. It's more a case of when they do it can be relatively expensive to fix so we do hear about that.
I agree, and I think that applies to all common rails.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply just what i was after...
I know what your saying about a petrol but just want a oil burner 4 a change.
|
I appreciate your desire for an oil burner, however I ran a 2.0l petrol estate for 4 years and averaged around 35mpg, easily hitting 38+mpg on a run. Required a reversing light switch and new heated screen outside normal servicing and both were replaced by Ford under warrantee.
I think the 2.0l petrol is related to a Mazda engine and with 145PS and 145ish lbft (I can't remember exactly) of torque it was able to pull the large car around with some gusto. Whilst it was reasonably refined when revved it could be driven on the torque in a relaxed manner, in fact it had much better 'pickup' from low revs than the A4 B7 170PD which replaced it - a criticism I've seen levelled at a few modern diesels and I've also experienced in the 2.0L TDCi in an S-Max.
Maybe I'm mistaken but I rarely see posts with people complaining about the petrol Mondys, I've a feeling they're also cheaper too?
Edited by idle_chatterer on 31/10/2009 at 09:59
|
|
|
I have had mine from new, 2002 TDCi 130 Ghia X, 139k miles and still drives like new, stonking torque from 1500 rpm and frankly still the most refined 4 cyl diesel I have driven/been in - in that when you put your foot down it just pulls without any gruffness or rumbling at all.
However it is true to say that IF they go wrong it can be expensive.
Mine is 5 speed, better gear ratios than the 6 speed IMO, the top gear on the 6 speed is a little high needing a change down at around 50mph.
My FocuST has 6 gears though they are closer, even so such a flexible engine does not need so many ratios, it is fashion.
|
Sold my 52 plate Mondeo Tdci Ghia Estate earlier this year with 112K, having owned it from new. Performance and economy were hard to fault - felt quicker than the figures suggest and I always managed 45mpg, occasionally 50. The only engine faults were quite trivial and all happened whilst towing a caravan; EGR failed (common but not expensive fault), intercooler pipe blew off, induction hose split (another common but not expensive fault) and a mysterious ECU fault, causing the engine to go into limp-home mode (reset without explanation by Ford dealer, cost £140!). Overall, a very good car, sold for peanuts. By the way, this car had the best seats I've ever come across.
However, I tend to agree that a petrol version is likely to more reliable at high mileages.
|
Regarding the petrol engined Mondy, see the HJ car by car guide
-----------------------------------
www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=119
WARNING An engine rattle from 4 - 5 year old 2.0i petrol engines might indicate wearing of the shaft of the injection air inlet manifold flaps. If these come off they are then ingested by the engine, wrecking it. This is beoming increasingly common.
-----------------------------------
Despite which it's probably a better bet for low mileage use.
|
I often buy high mileage cars, as long as the service history is good. I find the saving in purchase price more than pays for the extra maintenance, if any. I am selling a Volvo S60 which has now done 190K which I bought five years ago at 140K for £4,000. So far it has only needed normal servicing but the expensive cambelt change is coming up, so I'm selling it. I'm now buying a BMW 525d which has done 170K but is imaculate and going for a song (relatively speaking, in BMW terms!)
I appreciate that with a high mileage car, very expensive failures are more likely so there is an element of gamble here. I might have been lucky so far. There is also another area of probability which works to your advantage. Any manufacturing defects will almost certainly have been sorted by the time a car gets to high mileage, you are more likely to be left with just wear and tear type problems which are a bit more predictable.
Buying a high mileage car is a gamble, there's no doubt, but in my experience I'm all for it!
|
Ive never been a high mileage lover and have always gone for lowest mileages possible.
I had a high mileage (in my book 110,000) focus last month and as is typical with stuff like this it needed 3 anti roll bar repairs discs all round plus pads and half a handbrake cable and all the other usual clean and adjusts
A lower mileage example is rarely a bother at purchase and betterment time and so im not convinced and never was that high mileage is better, unfortunately im now finding to buy stock im having to go up in the mileages and im not happy to be frank (or dave)
|
|
I enquired as to the value of my Mondeo yesterday, £2000 ish, though would be £3000 in the same condition at 70k, half the mileage.
|
I find high mileage purchases very much depend on the car. I brought my 306 td at 140k, was fine at 186k - only replaced due to an incident. My xsara however, brought with just 50k on the clock at 5yrs, was another matter altogether, clearly during an era of penny pinching at PSA!
So yeah it can work, just need to do a little research beforehand.
|
Never mind the DMFs, the DPFs or the EGRs......check out the DMI.
An acronym I've just invented in case you were wondering. A car with a DMI of less than 20 or greater than 100 when you buy it is more likely to be a risk by Humph's first law. The DMI or "Daily Mileage Indicator" is arrived at as follows....
My DMI assumes that cars are averagely used 48 weeks of the year on 5.5 days a week.
Take the total mileage on the odometer, divide it by the age of the car in years, divide that by 48 and finally divide that by 5.5.
If it shows that the average journey that vehicle has been used for is less than a 20 miles round trip it may well be tired. Probably rarely warmed through and highly likely to have been in stop start conditions for most of its life. A DMI of greater than 100 might indicate a car which has been hard used and may have had a workhorse identity to its previous user/s.
Not failsafe or indeed accurate of course but it can help in the purchase decision.
|
An interesting calculation... I bought a five year old FIAT two years ago with 215k on the clock. It's now got 262k on the clock - so the DMI has gone from around 163 when I bought it to 142 now.
Clutching onto every piece of wood possible, the only costs have been regular services, an EGR (at 235k) and a new alternator (at 257k). It has just flown through the MoT so I shall be asking my tamed mechanic to replace the cam belt and everything remotely connected to it with the aim of keeping it running for another two years / 50k.
I agree that high mileage cars can be a risk, but like many very high milers, this one was well serviced and had already had everything replaced the first time round..! I always reckon that age and poor maintenance are far bigger killers than mileage.
|
No issues with my 150,000 mile S60 either. I would drive it across Europe tomorrow without even thinking twice about it. Starts on the key in all weathers, near zero oil consumption, everything works, still feels like it was built out of solid granite.
Some wear on the centre console and "arm rest" area of the door capping, a couple of minor creaks, the odd faint clonk from the rear somewhere on sharp bumps, but other than that it drives lovely. Worth peanuts now (£1500 on a good day with a favourable wind), so might as well hang on to it.
It has a DMI of 71 by the way. Probably about right as I knew the last owner (who'd had it since 3 yrs old) :-)
Edited by DP on 02/11/2009 at 13:25
|
high mileage 2004 Mondeo TDCI with 101,000
As long as it's not this one after it's had a haircut ;-)
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/item.htm?id=23511
|
Very useful rule-of-thumb DMI algorithm Humph..
It has a DMI of 71 by the way. Probably about right as I knew the last owner (who'd had it since 3 yrs old) :-
Strewth DP, I thought they started early round my way - no doubt your acquaintance was married at 4, with his own nippers before he went to primary school!
|
there is an even higher mileage M on BCA this week.
DMI fails sometimes: I use my Megan to drive Durham to Luton (Monday) and back (friday), but during the week I walk to work and back, so the car doesn't even get out of the garage. Low-ish DMI, but average miles, but 230miles each trip. (Except when I go by train and no car miles at all)
|
|
|
|
|
