Ford Mondeo 2003 vs Ford Mondeo 1996
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 177 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo 2003 is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo 2003 engine produces 40 HP more power than Ford Mondeo 1996, whereas torque is 153 NM more than Ford Mondeo 1996. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo 2003 reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo 1996 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo 2003 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo 1996, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Mondeo 2003 could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo 2003 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo 1996. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Mondeo 1996 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Ford Mondeo 2003 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Escort | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Mondeo 1996 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Ford Mondeo 2003 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo 2003 is larger. Ford Mondeo 2003 is 13 cm longer than the Ford Mondeo 1996, 6 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo 2003 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1700 litres | 1610 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo 2003 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Ford Mondeo 1996, which means Ford Mondeo 2003 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`165 kg | 2`010 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`495 kg | 1`416 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 670 kg | 594 kg | |
| Ford Mondeo 2003 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 11 procentiem more than Ford Mondeo 1996. Therefore, Ford Mondeo 2003 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Ford Mondeo 2003 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo 1996 has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Ford Mondeo 2003, so Ford Mondeo 2003 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |