Jump to content
Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Is there any real difference in mpg between different 2.0 TDCI engines (Mk4/4.5 Mondeo)


Recommended Posts


I've noticed that the 2.0 TDCI engine is available in various states of tune. Earlier on in the Mk4 production, the 138bhp version was listed as being more fuel efficient than the 160bhp version.. makes sense. However, towards the end of the production, the Business Edition models seem to get a 160bhp version of the engine with £30 road tax and a claimed 62mpg... the same as the 138bhp version. 

Has anyone got any experience of these late production 160bhp engines to say whether they are actually more efficient than the earlier ones? I wouldn't expect it to actually manage 62mpg, but I am interested whether it would nonetheless be more efficient than the earlier year 160bhp engines. I'm very tempted by the £30 road tax, but if they're not actually going to do any more mpg than the models a couple of years earlier, then I might just save some money and buy a slightly older car. Most discussion I've found online seems to related to earlier production years.


Thanks in advance. The data below was lifted from Parkers. https://www.parkers.co.uk/ford/mondeo/hatchback-2007/specs/ All apply to hatchbacks with manual gearbox. 

    BHP Torque (ft-lb) MPG Road tax 0-60 (s)
2007-2010 Titanium X 138 236 53 £155 9.2
2010-2013 Titanium X 138 236 62 £30 9.2
2010-2013 Titanium X 160 251 57 £130 8.6
2013-2014 Titanium X Business Edition 138 236 62 £30 9.2
2013-2014 Titanium X Business Edition 160 251 62 £30 8.6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no experience of either engine but it won't achieve 62mpg. Mpg estimates were way off back then. It will all depend on how you drive and type of driving (town/motorways etc)

My friend recently bought a 2013 Zetec Business Edition 138 and he will never achieve 62mpg as he only drives a few miles to work. I've not asked to see what he gets but would be hard for him to calculate accurately as he will never fill it completely to allow for a brim to brim type calculation.

Another friend has a 2010 Kuga with the 160 engine, they live in the countryside and don't do massive miles, but have to drive reasonably far to towns and cities, from memory the trip computer was always around 44mpg...They've never calculated manually though.

Parkers show my 2.2 as 47mpg but I'm averaging 40mpg over the last 8 years, best was around 45mpg and worst was 32mpg. I actually went for the 2.2 (198) over the 2.0 (160) because, at the time, people were reporting that the 2.0 wasn't much better on fuel than the 2.2 (plus the 2.2 has twin exhausts!)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Frembrit. Thanks for your reply. Your 2.2 sounds like a good engine.

I wouldn't expect a real mpg of 62 in the 2.0, I'm just curious if the real mpg will be better in the 160 Business Edition model than in the earlier 2010-13 Titanium X 160. If one claims 62mpg and the other 57mpg, perhaps in the real world one could achieve 48mpg and 44mpg respectively (just making that up). Or maybe both would get 44mpg... I'm wondering whether the improvements that Ford made in 2013 are relevant in the real world, if they just were only for sneaking it into lower emissions band.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. 

Something must have been changed to get the emissions in to a lower tax band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I like the £20 road tax on my Mk5 Mondeo 2.0tdci and up to 68-70mpg going to work 14 miles each way on b roads taking it easy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest Deals

Ford UK Shop for genuine Ford parts & accessories

Disclaimer: As the club is an eBay Partner, The club may be compensated if you make a purchase via the club

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...