Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Ford Mondeo 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 131 HP | 145 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo 2003 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo 1996 engine produces 14 HP less power than Ford Mondeo 2003, whereas torque is 14 NM less than Ford Mondeo 2003. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo 1996 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Mondeo 1996 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo 2003, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Mondeo 1996 could require 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Mondeo 1996 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo 2003. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 560'000 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 also on Ford Scorpio | Used only for this car | |
| 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 1996 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: | 4.67 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo 1996 is smaller. Ford Mondeo 1996 is 13 cm shorter than the Ford Mondeo 2003, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Mondeo 1996 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1610 litres | 1700 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo 1996 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Ford Mondeo 2003, which means Ford Mondeo 1996 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`955 kg | 2`030 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`373 kg | 1`435 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 582 kg | 595 kg | |
| 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 (€): | 2000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.3/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |