Pretty much agree, V6 Mondeos are a bit of a let down to what you expect them to be. I think the best Mondeos were the earlier 1.8's - the 2.0 Zetec lump doesn't pick up the revs fast enough, and the V6 appears to put on too much weight at the front.

I had an MX6, which I'd put in a not too disimilar position to the ST24, it cruised really well, but it wasn't an out and out fireball, my old 2.8 Capris would have outrun it on 12 less valves and three less camshafts.

As for the diesels, the TDCi's don't seem to have the punch of the VAG PD motors, regardless of whether comparing Focuses, Mondeos vs Golfs, Fabias or Passats.

those st24s drink so much fuel!! my mate had one she was putting nearly 60quids worth to do a 100mile journy !!! she now has a rover 25 diesel lol:rolleyes:

As for the diesels, the TDCi's don't seem to have the punch of the VAG PD motors, regardless of whether comparing Focuses, Mondeos vs Golfs, Fabias or Passats.

Hmm, I've just ordered a Mondeo ST TDCI after a test drive today, it was much quicker than my Superb 130pd tuned to 170 odd bhp, so I would have to disagree with you there, it's also quieter and more refined.

Hmm, I've just ordered a Mondeo ST TDCI after a test drive today, it was much quicker than my Superb 130pd tuned to 170 odd bhp, so I would have to disagree with you there, it's also quieter and more refined.

The 1.9 Superb is a poor car in performance stakes IMHO - motorway it's ok but that's it. The weight really blunts the performance and if it's a 5-speed it's not in the same state of tune as the 6-speed 130's anyway.

The ST Tdci is supposed to be a performance motor, the Superb isn't - you're comparing chalk and cheese.

How can people seriously think a Fabia would hold its own against a ST200 ?? A remapped Fabia gets a serious beating from a remapped 208bhp Octavia Elegance.

As for the diesels, the TDCi's don't seem to have the punch of the VAG PD motors, regardless of whether comparing Focuses, Mondeos vs Golfs, Fabias or Passats.

That's because they don't have the all or nothing delivery of the PD unit, and drive more like a petrol N/A where you have a smooth delivery of torque all through the rev range.

Chris

mondeo 2.0 mk3 petrol is 145ps, quite nippy, nothing spectacular.

mondeo st24 against remapped fabia vrs = even

mondeo st24 against standard fabia vrs = st24 whips

mondeo st200 against remapped fabia vrs = st200 whips

mondeo st24 against standard fabia vrs = st200 anhilates

These are all from standing starts (i go to a lot of mondeo meets as i used to own both a zetec s tdci with a proven 160-170 bhp depending upon which rr you use and the 2.0 zetec petrol. My boss @ work also lets me drive his st 2.2 tdci which does get a beating by my vrs from starts and mid-range but not by much, also if his was remapped to make it even i've no doubt it would wee all over my car.

The clio 172 in every way beats a fabia vrs except from possibly a 30+ mph sprint, when it comes on cam though @ 5k rpm it will pull a length or 2 in each gear (my bbrother used to own both a full fat 172 and a 172 cup - the 1st being standard, the latter induction, exhaust, ecu map).

The fabia vrs doesn't put out 145 bhp. you'll actually find it puts out approximately 130 bhp give or take a few bhp. no just remapped fabia will put out more than 175 bhp even with the best tuner.

the fabia only feels fast because it's small and has a lot of torque, in reality when it comes to straight line drags it's not that quick. it's just got a good mid-range pull to make for easy overtaking.

THE END.

Chris.

That's because they don't have the all or nothing delivery of the PD unit, and drive more like a petrol N/A where you have a smooth delivery of torque all through the rev range.

Chris

I thought the TDCI engine is the 2 litre PSA/Ford engine? As used in Peugeots, Citroens, Volvos, etc? If so, then it's a 136BHP lump with overboost which gives a bit more power if you floor it. I've driven 407's with this engine and it's no-where near as quick as a VRS. It also had massive turbo lag below 2,000rpm.

That's because they don't have the all or nothing delivery of the PD unit, and drive more like a petrol N/A where you have a smooth delivery of torque all through the rev range.

Chris

Agree, the 130bhp TDCI unit I had in my X-Type was the smoothest deisel engine I've ever had, and was easily on a par with the PD130.... it may have even had the edge as it had an "over-boost" facility that pumped the torque up to 350NM for a while when you floored it, but again that was delivered very smoothly without the "shove-in-the-back" feeling of the PD130.

Both engines were a joy to use however and I'd be hard pushed to choose a favourite

try taking the back seats out of your mondeo/x-type like I did and the TDCi engine becomes a hoot to drive

So light it's crazy

I thought the TDCI engine is the 2 litre PSA/Ford engine? As used in Peugeots, Citroens, Volvos, etc? If so, then it's a 136BHP lump with overboost which gives a bit more power if you floor it. I've driven 407's with this engine and it's no-where near as quick as a VRS. It also had massive turbo lag below 2,000rpm.

The TDCI in the Focus is the 136bhp PSA/Ford engine. The TDCI in the Mondeo is a 130bhp Ford unit. Both have overboost

Chris

try taking the back seats out of your mondeo/x-type like I did and the TDCi engine becomes a hoot to drive

I'm not sure my little daughter would be best pleased if I did that :rofl:

Chris

I can keep up with the traffic in SWMBOs Kia Picanto on the road.. And that's a 1.1 petrol with very little bhp/torque, up to about 85ish.

Takes forever to get up to that speed so you end up doing a lot more looking ahead+behind to make sure you're not holding up people and/or are able to get past safely.

Of course most cars would p*ss all over that if I tried to race anything over a push bike :P

The standard Fabia vRS is an enjoyable drive when you are not using it as a hot hatch, it has sufficient grunt and as a package it is decent enough (I know Chris' car had tons of problems when he had his, but that happens with most manufacturers) - once remapped & modded to get handling in check it becomes a warmer hatch then before, but it is and always remains a diesel with therefore a restricted hot hatch use for that reason alone.

Once remapped the Fabia IS quite nippy in getting up to speeds of 3 digits, but if you rev the nutz of a petrol, be it N/A or turbo assisted, it WILL have the advantage eventually. If nothing else it may be able to put the power down more readily when driving off. Also it will get up to 3 digits in 3rd or 4th, which I doubt is a wise move in the PD powered Fabia

Just enjoy the car, works for me

The 1.9 Superb is a poor car in performance stakes IMHO - motorway it's ok but that's it. The weight really blunts the performance and if it's a 5-speed it's not in the same state of tune as the 6-speed 130's anyway.

The ST Tdci is supposed to be a performance motor, the Superb isn't - you're comparing chalk and cheese.

To be honest my Superb is actually pretty quick, I dont find the weight an issue and the 5 speed Vs 6 speed state of tune thing is rubbish, it's 130 bhp in the Fabia and 130 bhp in the Superb:confused:

As I said, mine is tuned to 170bhp and the mondeo at only 155bhp with overboost (dont know what that takes it to bhp wise, I know it takes torque to 400Lb/ft) was quicker. I'd fancy my chances against a Fabia VRs in the Mondeo any day, I know I've beaten them in the Superb before.

That's because they don't have the all or nothing delivery of the PD unit, and drive more like a petrol N/A where you have a smooth delivery of torque all through the rev range.

Chris

Indeed, the mondeo doesn't rely on the traction control to get it moving like all skodas do, and yes even the Fabia is **** at putting the power down to the road and it's nothing to do with 'so much torque' Skoda suspension setup is just very poor at putting power down, the mondeo wasn't wheelspinning in 3rd like the Superb does:rolleyes:

Bear in mind a lot of these Fabias seem to be putting out 140-145hp stock too

Load of balls :P :rofl:

Chris

Mine has been tested on 2 lots of RR since I bought it to test this theory and it got 142bhp and 319nm torque standard, my mates garage has one and they replaced it then I had another go and it was a simlar result.

so no it's not complete balls.

but still I think the ford will give it a good run

so no it's not complete balls.

This was on an accurate engine-bench dyno I assume?

Chris

:orb_sleep

those st24s drink so much fuel!! my mate had one she was putting nearly 60quids worth to do a 100mile journy

Thats 7mpg. ???? No way.

2 things.

I used to lurv my V6 Mondeo (Ghia X, not ST24) and I was disappointed when I got my first 1.8T Octavia at how much slower and less agile it was (actually I came from a 2.0 Mondeo which although harsh was still no slouch especially on B roads).

People who floor it when I go to overtake them and then slow down are the nearest thing to a red rag to me that there is on the road. Can I just plead with you "racer" types to stop and think. Do you really want to go faster than me, or are you just being an @rse? If you want to go faster, fine, get out of the way. If not, swallow your pride, and carry on at whatever speed you were doing. DON'T, please DON'T be a t1t and try and turn road driving into a race. Learn to accept that there are people who

a) want to drive faster than you (and unless you're a policeman, that's their business, not yours) and

have both the ability and the vehicle to do it in (again, if they don't have the ability and end up in the hedge 2 miles down the road, that's their problem, not yours)

Thanks

PS yes I do try and practise what I preach.

Mine has been tested on 2 lots of RR since I bought it to test this theory and it got 142bhp and 319nm torque standard, my mates garage has one and they replaced it then I had another go and it was a simlar result.

so no it's not complete balls.

but still I think the ford will give it a good run

No sorry it is a load of balls, otherwise Skoda could get sued for mis-quoting the engine power output, insurance companies certainly wouldn't be happy, but if your happy believing your completely unmodified i.e. no pd160 intake, no green filter and definately no remap has 142bhp then who am I to say your wrong . This has been covered many a time before.

The ST TDCi would outrun a standard Fabia vRS but it would be close, a remapped Fabia vrs would outrun an ST TDCi on a simple power to weight ratio, doesn't take a genius to work that out. However a remapped ST TDCi vs a remapped vRS would again be close but I reckon the 2.2 ST would have the edge

To be honest my Superb is actually pretty quick, I dont find the weight an issue and the 5 speed Vs 6 speed state of tune thing is rubbish, it's 130 bhp in the Fabia and 130 bhp in the Superb:confused:

The 5 speed is detuned to produce less torque than the 6 speed.

And I drive a 130 5 speed Superb pretty often at work so I know exactly how fast they are - with a remap I'm sure it's different but standard to standard there's a fair difference, remapped to remapped you're gonna get the same difference.

And don't even DARE go near a country lane in one :eek:

No sorry it is a load of balls, otherwise Skoda could get sued for mis-quoting the engine power output, insurance companies certainly wouldn't be happy, but if your happy believing your completely unmodified i.e. no pd160 intake, no green filter and definately no remap has 142bhp then who am I to say your wrong . This has been covered many a time before.

The ST TDCi would outrun a standard Fabia vRS but it would be close, a remapped Fabia vrs would outrun an ST TDCi on a simple power to weight ratio, doesn't take a genius to work that out. However a remapped ST TDCi vs a remapped vRS would again be close but I reckon the 2.2 ST would have the edge

There is nothing wrong when underquoting power, it's only when overquoting that trouble could occur. I don't think insurance companies would cry over a 12bhp difference as well.

The 5 speed is detuned to produce less torque than the 6 speed.

And I drive a 130 5 speed Superb pretty often at work so I know exactly how fast they are - with a remap I'm sure it's different but standard to standard there's a fair difference, remapped to remapped you're gonna get the same difference.

And don't even DARE go near a country lane in one :eek:

Funny, I thought the power/torque figures for the Fabia VRS were exactly the same as for the 130 Superb?

So if anything, the fact the Superb has 1 less gear resulting in less changing means it'd be faster if it wasn't heavier.

Also the fact the engine is mounted longitudinaly in the superb results in less transmission losses to.

I'm not saying a standard Superb would be quicker than a standard VRS as that would be silly, but the torque of a diesel overcomes weight better than you'd expect, you would be suprised how little you'd gain in a straight line drag.

:rolleyes:OK.

First off a Mondeo st200 weighs 1410kg's, 0-60 in 7.32 & 0-100 in 19.26.

Renault clio 172 mk2 weigh's 1110kg's,0-60 in 6.96 & 0-100 in 18.52.

A Ford Mondeo ST TDCI (Remapped) weighs 1484kg's,lets say the remap takes the bhp to 180bhp (which is above what bluefin quote),0-60 in 8.49,0-100 in 23.96.

Now look at the Fabia VRS (pushing out 172bhp) remapped of course, 0-60 in 7.55,0-100 in 20.50.

Now compared to my old 306 rallye the fabia is very close performance wise. The 306 rallye is on par with a clio 172.

So a 172 is quicker in all respects than an ST200. Guess i must have had one heavy Driver in the 172!! :rubchin:

Of course stats on paper dont mean everything but gives you a rough idea. The ST TDCI is way out in comparison to the others.

ST TDCI - 0-60 mph 8.7 seconds Max speed 137mph.