Hi Did you find out what was the problem of the car
It was 20 months ago - OP may no longer be reading these posts. The one technician at our local Ford dealership who really seems to know his TDCI's reckons that from late 2004 the TDCI engines in Mondeos have been a lot more reliable.
|
It was 20 months ago - OP may no longer be reading these posts.
PatriciaX - Last visited forum: Sun 25 Nov 2007. From memory, she still drops in occasionally. If not, then I'm sure someone else will be along shortly that can help.
|
|
Thanks very much for the advice. I have currently got the 2004 model, i love the car.
|
|
|
|
blay
What's wrong with yours? [And what year/engine is it?]
|
|
The glow plug light flashed for some few minutes and stopped. I just took it to the Nationwide garage but could not detect any fault. It is the 2004 model and 2.0litre engine TDCI
|
I have had perhaps half a dozen occasions in 124,000 miles where the glowplug light flashes when trying to start, on each occasion it has cleared after a couple of tries.
On one occasion, about 70k miles, the glowplug light came on while driving combined with a loss of power, one injector was reprogrammed, goodwill by the dealer because it was out of warranty on mileage, took about 20mins.
|
|
|
The glow light flashing just indicates that the ECU has noted a problem. If the power didn't drop, then it didn't consider it serious enough to use limp mode to protect the engine.
The fault-code should be readable for quite a time after it was logged; but it will need some quite sophisticated equipment to access it on these - of a sort [and cost] not often found at generalist garages.
A diesel specialist, or a dealer, would be your best bet.
|
|
What are the common problems with the TDCI's .Have had mine for two weeks now.
|
Injector coding; various catastrophic fuelling failures and massive mechanical damage without obvious cause.
The engine was a lemon; it's history - good riddance.
|
The engine was a lemon; it's history - good riddance.
>>
With the greatest respect Screwloose, and I mean that because I normally respect your opinions and advise, however that is simply tosh!
The TDCi is so numerous there are inevitably a number of issues reported on a site like this however most give reliable service to very high mileages, they benefit from being chain cam and are at the top of the tree for for economy, refinement (for a 4cyl diesel) and torque, the 2.0 130 is underated normaly producing just under 150 bhp in std form according to the tuners as well as useable torque at much lower revs than most of its rivals.
Lastly it is not history, the 2.0 130 and 2.2 155 live on in the X-Type and also the same unit exists in various forms in the Transit.
|
Ford must bitterly regret ever deciding to use it. It has single-handedly destroyed their quite astonishing recent reliability record and the actions of their dealers over it's numerous warranty claims has brought their name into disrepute.
If it was so good - with only isolated failures - why have they dropped it like a hot potato and gone to Peugeot for the far-from-perfect HDi?
|
I've not been following developments too closely so have lost track on what's in teh new Ford diesels.
Is the new Ford PSA diesel an entirely new engine, or is it just a PSA fuel system on an existing engine.
Has this been done as the cheapest development route to Cat IV Euro compliance?
|
Is the new Ford PSA diesel an entirely new engine or is it just a PSA fuel system on an existing engine. Has this been done as the cheapest development route to Cat IV Euro compliance?
The Ford/Jag engine is EuroIV as fitted to current X-Types and Mondeo since 2004.
The Ford/PSA engine is a joint development though Ford and PSA use a different particulate system AFAIAA.
|
|
People with problems gravitate to a site like this, Google "TDCi problems" and this is where you get. So this site is not one of many reporting such issues.
No, there are a vast number of perfectly happy owners/drivers out there with no problems with car and/or dealer.
Furthermore according to Warranty Direct figures Fords suffer fewer fuel system issues than, for instance, Toyota.
There have been a few Accord CTDi issues reported on here recently which due to the Mondeo being far more numerous must (if you use the problems reported on this site as a bench mark) make the Honda even more of a lemon, eh! ;-)
The only thing wrong with the Ford/PSA unit is that it is belt cam increasing running costs, the fact is both the Ford/Jag and Ford/PSA units are vastly more refined than any VW/Audi 4 cyl diesel including the 2.0 as well as being just as efficient and, it seems, no less reliable.
So rather than Ford having regrets I reckon VAG would like be able to to do as good a job!
EDIT: The 1.6, 2.0 and 2.2 are joint developments with PSA offering reduced development costs, reduced manufacturing costs and more compact packaging, the chain cam engine would not fit in a Focus engine or be practical to make in a smaller capacity.
Edited by cheddar on 29/12/2007 at 19:33
|
True; the old TDCi probably was no worse for reliability than the VAG TDi 2.0; but before it came along, Ford were fighting for the top place in reliability, not disputing the title of least reliable.
Chain-driven cams are something of a mixed blessing. In the rush to return to them for marketing reasons, it was forgotten how fragile OHC versions [BMW/Merc] had proved to be and why belts had virtually replaced them.
Nearly all the newly released chain cam engines have serious chain-life problems and the TDCi is no exception - particularly in the Transit. When chains ruled, a 100,000mile engine was a rarity; making long, highly-stressed, chains last twice that time is proving very difficult.
It would be interesting to know exactly which bit of the new HDi/TDCi is Ford-derived - apart from the badge, or course. Let's hope it doesn't mirror their ill-starred collusion with VAG; introducing totally alien engines to their under-trained dealer network has often proved a disaster - they should stick to making their own and just constantly develop them.
Edited by Screwloose on 29/12/2007 at 20:11
|
|
Ford must bitterly regret ever deciding to use it. It has single-handedly destroyed their quite astonishing recent reliability record and the actions of their dealers over it's numerous warranty claims has brought their name into disrepute.
The second bit of what you say is the bit that is more concerning. The thing breaking down is one thing; the manufacturer then trying to wriggle out of it by blaming fuel contamination etc instead of saying "Oops, sorry, our bad, have some free repairs" makes it ten times worse. If BMW had taken that approach when they had their little bit of bother with the Nikasil (sp?) bore liners 10/12 years ago they would have ended up in all sorts of trouble (Watchdog, OFT, etc).
I would be interested to know how many of these failures have stemmed from people thinking they could abuse the car in the manner that they might have done with (say) a Sierra and it would keep going, and how many were exacerbated by inept Ford mechanics, who reached their Peter principle with the MkIV Escort, replacing random parts in the hope that they would cure the problem.
My own view as a layman FWLIW is that this is a highly complicated piece of machinery requiring careful maintenance by people who know what they're doing. Mess around with it and you're asking for trouble.
If it was so good - with only isolated failures - why have they dropped it like a hot potato and gone to Peugeot for the far-from-perfect HDi?
I don't know the answer to this, but would imagine that PSA having shouldered the vast majority of the R&D costs might be significant. And let's face it, didn't GM do exactly the same with the Fiat/Alfa Multijet engines? Strong whiff of "can't be bothered to develop this engine any further, let's buy in from someone else who's done the hard bit already" about it.
One other thing, though, Screwloose - didn't you reckon that the Mazda version was even worse?
|
This sort of thread has been repeated many times over on this site. Cheddar, as always, comes to the rescue of the Mondeo, others go in for a bit of gratuitous Ford-bashing. The truth is probably harder to fathom since none of us is in possession of the real facts concerning exactly what proportion of these cars suffer problems in comparison with other marques. Until we see these figures, I suspect that Cheddar has the more balanced viewpoint.
As a previous TDCi owner who, after post-warranty woes costing in excess of £2K, sold up and bought the equivalent 2 litre petrol, I feel, the need to add further clarification to this discussion: CR diesels cost an arm and a leg to mend when they break down. If you can keep your car within warranty, then its the diesel every time. If you're looking to keep a car for 8-10 years (like me) then (I'm hoping) the petrol will work out cheaper. I base this on the premise that all cars will break at some stage - because I've never owned a car that didn't at some time need some serious work doing. CR diesels are stupidly complex to expect to finance through this pain barrier.
Splodgeface
|
>>Strong whiff of "can't be bothered to develop this engine any further....
Strong whiff of sensible caution being used in the face of the massive costs of developing a modern engine and fuel system. If manufacturers can share an engine, and spread their costs over a larger number of vehicles, it makes sense.
Truck manufacturers used to do this frequently with cabs - especially the steel cabs, where the number of cabs made by one truck maker wouldn't justify the investment in press tooling. The cheaper, plastics cabs used by the likes of ERF and Foden were more affordable to tool up for, and hence could be used without sharing over a relatively small number of trucks.
Also, don't GM have a stake in Fiat?
Number_Cruncher
|
I think it may be more to do with "who shoulders the warranty costs of the third year" that created the "contaminated fuel" scandal. That smacks more of dealers getting fed up with design faults that only become apparent when they're paying.
I doubt that it's possible to abuse an ECU-controlled car sufficiently badly to twist the con-rods or crack the head? Some dealers' staff did indeed run out of diagnostic abilities around the Mk IV Escort level and have been flannelling or "winging it" ever since.
The HDI is undeniably mechanically bullet-proof [it's still got the DMF problem - what hasn't?] but it suffers an amazing range of fuelling faults that are just getting weirder as more and more emission rubbish gets hung on it's burgeoning range of versions. [The Ford dealers won't know what's hit them... Still; if it brings me in a crust....]
Yes; however distantly related; there have been similar, or worse, problems with the Mazda MZR-CD and their dealers have been just as reluctant to shoulder the blame - at the cost of their good name too.
|
>>there have been similar, or worse, problems with the Mazda MZR-CD and their dealers have been just as reluctant to shoulder the blame - at the cost of their good name too>>
Which is a shame - the TD in my 323 Mazda has been flawless over 80k miles from new. Does Mazda produce its own engines?
|
Galad
Fortunately; you've got the older and better RF unit, not the common-rail one.
I'd expect it to keep on running flawlessly; because I've never, ever, seen or heard of one going wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
