I currently have an 08 focus 1.6 zetec, it's been a great car and I had some fun with the modifications, but I'll be changing workplace soon which will involve a much longer commute. In my mind this gives me a perfect excuse to start car shopping.

I really like the look and feel of the mondeo, having test driven an 09 titanium x sport 2.2l, really enjoyed the car but unfortunately that specific car simply had too many niggling issues for me to be happy with the price.

Now that I'm shopping around and having a closer look, I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations as to how much better the 2.2 titanium x sport is versus the 2.0l titanium x. Obviously the gadgets should be the same being the same trim spec, just losing the red accents to the leather etc. But performance and reliability wise, is there a massive difference? I realise there will be a drop in overall power which comes with 20 less BHP but is it massively noticeable?

Like I said the main purpose of the new car is for comfort and mpg due to the new commute (roughly 100 miles a day) would I be sacrificing decent mileage going for the 2.2 sport if it was driven responsibly?

Also can someone explain the pros and cons of timing chain vs. cam belt?

Lots of questions I know, any insight would be appreciated.

Which 2.2 are you comparing with which 2.0?

Chains vs Belts: Chains are usually considered to be 'for life' and belts 125k. Some people want to change belts before that, but I haven't seen any reliable evidence that changing the belt before that really does anything useful (if there is a constant failure rate and a wear out, then changing the belt early just changes which vehicles have the failure, rather than the overall number of failures).

Belts can make the cam timing more reliable and more repeatable, I think, which has more of an effect on economy and emissions than power output.

A failure is a bad thing, of course. Usually, you might as well consider the engine to be wrecked, as the price to repair will be quite high.

Sorry, I was comparing the 2.2L and 2.0L diesels, 175 and 155 bhp respectively I think. Mostly looking at 2009 titanium x models with roughly 70,000 miles which usually lands right in my price range. Just wondering whether the 2.2 titanium x sport is worth the money over the 2.0 titanium x. The sport seems a lot more rare.

There is a significant difference in "on the road/ real life" performance between the 2.2 and 2.0L, the mk4 is a big car, and quite heavy, the extra torque of the 2.2 really helps to make it shift

Some say the 140PS pulls better than the 163PS from low revs, (both identical 2.0L engines apart from the factory map) and the 163 is not exactly "gutless" but needs to be kept in the power, which can be difficult with the high gearing

All versions can be remapped, which can transform the cars, power-wise, even then, the 2.2 will have more potential and will have significantly more torque than the 2.0 (eg - don't just look at the peak power figures, they are not the whole story)

2.0L 140ps -

http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/curves/FordTDCI140.pdf

2.0L 163PS -

http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/curves/2.0%20TDCI%20163PS.pdf

2.2 172HP -

http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/curves/Mondeo2.2TDCi2008on.pdf

2.2 200PS

http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/curves/22tdci200psNEW.pdf

talking about the shape of the power/ torque curve being more important than the peak figures, the 172HP has a much better shape than the 200PS, both 2.2L and will be quicker on the road pre and post remap (like for like)

to be honest, I have the MK4 with a 1.8 TDCi engine (125 horses) and I find that it still shifts very well (granted its in need of some TLC to make it better!) but if your lugging you and a bag day to day, I dont see why the 2.0 wouldnt be perfect for you, even the 1.8 but as thats not what your considering :p....

The extra torque of the 2.2 is a bonus, MPG wont differ too greatly in real life, it all depends how you drive it. I got 450 miles out of a tank when I was just driving it myself, not particularly economically, 70 to slightly more than 70 on average and it was great, After that I decided to see how far I could push it, the best I have had estimated out of the tank was 1025 miles to go, but having disconnected the battery and reset things, the best I have achieved out of a tank so far is 783 miles! thats by driving motorways, cruise control on at 60 and just taking it easy.

I've had my titanium x business edition 2.0 163 for a couple of months now and clocked up just shy of 6000 miles.

To date the best I have got out of a tank is 680 something miles.

That was a mix of motorway and rural stuff.

My car certainly has enough poke for today's traffic, it's not what I would call fast, but then what diesel car is?

It's has loads of torque and is therefore a fantastic drive.

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC mobile app

I've had my titanium x business edition 2.0 163 for a couple of months now and clocked up just shy of 6000 miles.

To date the best I have got out of a tank is 680 something miles.

That was a mix of motorway and rural stuff.

My car certainly has enough poke for today's traffic, it's not what I would call fast, but then what diesel car is?

It's has loads of torque and is therefore a fantastic drive.

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC mobile app

There are a lot of very fast diesel cars out there - aparently, some are quicker than Ferraris!

A remapped Mondeo 2.2 with almost 500Nm of torque and 200+ Hp is proper fast and night and day to a 2.0L163Ps - there is no comparison, performance- wise

The point im making is if you look at the HP/ PS figures there does not seem to be that big a difference between the mk4 2.0 and 2.2 but in reality, there is

+ if you plan to tow - the extra torque of the 2.2 will be noticable

Sorry mate, wasn't meaning exotic type cars, just your general run of the mill stuff, and obviously this is just my opinion but I don't think diesels are "fast".

I completely take in board your points though and I agree with everything you have said.

Factually there isn't a thing you said I can argue with.

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC mobile app

Sorry, I was comparing the 2.2L and 2.0L diesels, 175 and 155 bhp respectively I think. Mostly looking at 2009 titanium x models with roughly 70,000 miles which usually lands right in my price range.

Assuming that we are talking 'out of the box' (not including re-mapped) figures.

The 2.2 will be a 175 at that age (but there is also a later 200 bhp 2.2...which seems to have come in just before the Mk 4 to Mk 4.5 transition).

There isn't a 155 2 litre. There was a 155 2.2 (?) Mk 3, but that didn't get into the Mk IV. There are 140 and 163 bhp 2.0 litres, but the 163 wasn't available from the onset, and probably came in at the same time as the 200 bhp 2.2 litre.

In essence, the revision around 2010 improved the Euro CO2/fuel economy figures. My suspicion is that the real world figures improved less than the Euro figures, but that's only a suspicion and difficult to verify.

In any case, if you believe the Euro figures, which I don't completely, having the 2.2 litre engine rather than the 2.0, makes the Urban figures worse more than it makes the Extra-urban ones. So, if you drive mostly motorway and dual carriageways, you'll probably not notice much difference and maybe a good 2.2 litre would be as good as bad 2 litre, in that case.

Just wondering whether the 2.2 titanium x sport is worth the money over the 2.0 titanium x. The sport seems a lot more rare.

Personally, I wouldn't go for the X sport, or even the X for that matter, but it depends what you want. First, you mention rarity and that makes finding the one that you want that much harder. Secondly, what are you getting that you want? The titanium is already pretty well equipped. You do get the 'power start' button, you might get half or full leather, heated or not, (actually, full leather is so rare as to be almost non-existent) and you get less comfortable tyres/suspension. Discharge lighting? But I think that's an option lower down the range. The Sat Nav is an option lower down as well (and I'd rather have a TomTom standalone, but if you are very intolerant of wires and the stick on cup, that would be a factor).

So, there has to be something there that is worth the money to you, or it isn't worth it.

Sorry mate, wasn't meaning exotic type cars, just your general run of the mill stuff, and obviously this is just my opinion but I don't think diesels are "fast".

I completely take in board your points though and I agree with everything you have said.

Factually there isn't a thing you said I can argue with.

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC mobile app

Agreed, there is now a new generation of "sporting" diesels coming out, like the new Focus ST- TDCI, it is quite quick, but still with a decent MPG

an M5 could not get away from a 530d around the top gear track and M5 is a very fast car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU4f_NwAfUs

the 530D has a 6 second 0-60 and is electronically restricted to 155mph top speed

the petrol 5-series in the video is a 4.5L V8

So its Clarkson in a 3.0L diesel and the stig in a 4.5L v8 petrol

BOF, perhaps you could clear up the difference in the trim levels for me (titanium / titanium x / titanium x sport) I can't seem to find a definitive comparison of the three. And is there a 2.2 engine option available on anything that isn't a sport? I do like the idea of the extra torque and BHP of the 2.2 simply because more is better, or at least that's my view (who likes moderation anyways?)

2.2 engine is available on non sport models. I've just bought a 2.2 TDCI Ghia. I searched for a definitive comparison of trim levels but every list I found had slight differences. ghia seems to be the more of a comfort_level model. Must admit, I really like the 2.2 engine. Should be ideal for towing our caravan

Sent from my HTC One using Ford OC mobile app

, perhaps you could clear up the difference in the trim levels for me (titanium / titanium x / titanium x sport)

That'll take some time as I'll have to find an old Mondeo brochure. I'm sure that i have one somewhere. Just be aware that it did change over time (the options were different post facelift than pre). And, also, some of the stuff that, for example, made an X sport an X Sport was also available as an individual option lower down the range.

And, for wheels and tyres you tend to be able (at least) to buy the ones from 'one up the range' as an individual option. Personally, I wouldn't really want to go 'up 'from 235/45/17s, but that's just me being old and boring, I suspect, but you shouldn't just assume that the top of the range will be what you want (and want to pay extra for) because it is top of the range.

And is there a 2.2 engine option available on anything that isn't a sport? I do like the idea of the extra torque and BHP of the 2.2 simply because more is better, or at least that's my view (who likes moderation anyways?)

As you have seen, 2.2 is available elsewhere. Unfortunately, anything above the 2 litre/140 bhp gets increasingly rare. Just have a look on, eg, Autotrader, and you'll see that 163/175/200 hp motors are not there in the same numbers that 140s are.

Titaniums are moderately common, but Sports and Sport Xs aren't that common.

So, that part depends on how hard you are prepared to work to get the car that you want. Assuming that you've also got a fairly strong preference about colour, you can make this very hard for yourself indeed. But, that's up to you, of course.

(sorry about the presentation of this post, but the web site is snafu again: can't cure it, so I have to ignore it!)

Edited July 27, 201411 yr by BOF

2.2 engine is available on non sport models. I've just bought a 2.2 TDCI Ghia. I searched for a definitive comparison of trim levels but every list I found had slight differences. ghia seems to be the more of a comfort_level model. Must admit, I really like the 2.2 engine. Should be ideal for towing our caravan

Sent from my HTC One using Ford OC mobile app

The 2006 2.2L is a mk3, it is a completely different engine from the 2.2L in the mk4 09 tit-x sport the OP mentions in his 1st post

Best not to confuse the mk3 Mondeo with the mk4 - different cars with very different engines (cam chain vs cam belt, DPF/ non DPF/ Ford designed/ PSA etc etc)

I think I've set my heart on the 2.2 tit x sport. While the 2.0 L would be more economic, the difference in diesel and tax cost should only work out to be £300 a year more expensive (not factoring in the initial cost of the car) which I realise isn't an insignificant amount but I can afford it.

I appreciate the help guys, looking forward to starting my infuriating search for what's seems to be a relatively elusive car. Hopefully I'll have some pictures to put up on here soon.

Sent from my iPad using Ford OC

I would also be kicking myself down the line if I'd bought the 2.0L and pulled up next to a 2.2 sport at the lights :p

Sent from my iPad using Ford OC

Thanks for all your help guys, thought I'd let you know that I should be picking up my 59 plate 2.2 titanium x sport on Monday. Very, very excited.

Sent from my iPad using Ford OC

Great result, looking forward to the pictures!

Here's a few pictures I took after I took it for a test drive. The last picture is of the peeling rear badge which the dealer has agreed to replace for me.

Sent from my iPad using Ford OC