The new Mondeo seems a great car but.... Five years down the line will it be starting with rust and will a clutch change be an expensive job as in the MKIII?
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 12/12/2007 at 00:56
|
It's hard to tell, but I perceive a definite downward trend in reliability with each new Mondeo model.
I know four people who ran mk1's to between 150k and 200k with no significant problems at all. Good, honest, simple cars which were built to last. My mkII is good, but at 140k is feeling a little tired, and is going to need outing, or some investment over the next year. I haven't yet decided which. A friend also owned one and said the same - that it just didn't have the same feeling of solidity as the early models. Three of the four mk1 owners above bought mkIII's and only one still owns it. His has been good, the other two have had rust, rear subframe bushes, diesel injector problems and a host of things that just didn't affect the mkI
In fairness, I think this could apply to all cars as they become more complex and advanced. Dealers are struggling to attain and retain the technical expertise to repair them which often turns small problems into big ones. I also find myself wondering where, in giving the new Mondeo its lovely new Germanic interior, the costs were cut to compensate? The Mondeo is not an expensive car.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
>>Five years down the line will it be starting with rust>>
Definately not.
and will a clutch change be an expensive job as in the MKIII?>>
Probably, though my MkIII has gone 5.5 years and 125k on its clutch (touch wood ;-) )so cost of change over the car's life is perhaps not so much of an issue.
I know four people who ran mk1's to between 150k and 200k with no significant problems at all. Good honest simple cars which were built to last. My mkII is good but at 140k is feeling a little tired and is going to need outing or some investment over the next year. I haven't yet decided which. A friend also
Strange, my MkIII is 5.5 years old and 125k miles and drives pretty much new, couldnt say the same for father-in-law's '96 MkI when he sold it in '03 at about 80k miles.
Also the MkII is actually a facelift of the MkI so there is no reason to for them to be different in that regard.
|
Hi Cheddar,
I don't claim it to be fact, just my perception based on the cars and owners I know.
My father sold his 170k mk1 2.0 to his neighbour who has since added 15k. It still runs beautifully despite the last oil change being done at 150k when I bullied dad into getting it done.
This car, between my father getting it (with FFSH) at 3yrs/ 97,000 miles old has needed an alarm sensor, a rubber T-piece (vacuum pipe) and an exhaust system. The battery has never been changed, the clutch and all mechanicals are original, and it still pulls like a train and feels taut.
I realise the similarities between mk1 and mk2, but the only explanation I can offer is that Ford had everything to prove with the mk1. The Mondeo was critical to Ford Europe's survival at the time. It had to be right.
Either that or my experiences are atypical - I certainly don't claim to have any authority or experience beyond that stated.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
Edited by DP on 12/12/2007 at 15:11
|
Just to weight in on the MK1 vs MK2 vs MK3 debate.
I've owned 4 MK1s and 2 MK2s. There was 4x 2.0 petrols and 2x 1.8 TDs.
Mileages varied from 10,000 to 110,000, ages from 1 years old to 10 years old.
Only one of them felt old and tired on the inside (at 70k miles), the rest felt new and tight right up to 100k miles and beyond. Depends on how they've been treated, I suppose.
All performed well with no mechanical troubles and just one immobiliser fault on the earliest car, despite two of them having the poorly regarded 4 speed autobox at exactly the miles HJ reckons they blow up!
No rust on any of them (even on the one that had a shabby exterior) and everything worked as it should.
IMO the MK1 (for it's time) was a better product than the MK3. I've looked at buying a MK3 on several occasions but always felt disappointed with the interior quality and felt some kind of magic spark was missing. The TDCI failures and rust problems reported here seems odd given how trouble free the MK1/MK2 was in general.
When I see the old and increasingly rare MK1 I still go misty eyed now, even though most are sheds through abuse by uncaring 6,7,8th.. owners.
|
I had a mk1 and had very little problem with it after the initial warranty work was fixed.
This was a 2 year old car with 33k miles on it when I got it.
Problems fixed under warranty:
Bonnet switch had fallen out, resulting in no alarm and double locking.
Sump was leaking, engine out to repair. I had a new clutch in whilst engine was out at parts plus 0.5 hours labour (about £100 IIRC) to save a £600 bill later.
Starter motor failed on first day after being stood overnight (a common fault apparently), the dealers first fix was a new battery, which temporarily cured the fault, but it re-appeared, so I got a new battery for nothing..
Brake discs worn out.
Door seal leaking.
Pollen filter housing leaking water into the cabin.
The only things I had to buy was a new exhaust 3 years later, new front wishbones (another common problem) at 60K and tyres, although I did change the cambelt and tensioners at 40K miles as preventitive maintenance. I had it 5 years then gave it to SWMBO who ran it for another year before trading it in at 90K miles towards a Focus.
-----------------------------------------------
2005 Ford Mondeo Zetec 2.0 TDCi 130ps
|
I've got 2 MK3's.
1 is an 02 plate, and had rusty rear doors, but to be honest does it matter? Not a lot - new doors fitted, no questions asked. Thats with no bodywork stamps and only 2 ford services.
I find the interiors much better than the MK1/MK2's (owned a MK1 for some time), the interior of the ST220 is very nice, and both cars are more rattlefree at 4 and 5yrs respectively than my E39 540 was at the same age.
|
|
|
