Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OOF

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Ford st220 estate  (Read 506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nick W

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Chatham, Kent
  • Posts: 7646
  • Rover Metro 1.8VVC
    • 3.0l Elite estate
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #15 on: 13 December 2019, 11:19:40 »


Remember the 3.2 is a penny pinched, knobbled version of the superior 30yr old 3.0l.

That said, I'd much rather have a 30yr old NA V6 than a modern, nasty small engine petrol turbo.


Agreed. Ford's 1.0l triple is particularly nasty.
Logged

Sir Tigger QC

  • Omega Queen
  • ********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • West Dorset
  • Posts: 16808
    • 2 Fords
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #16 on: 13 December 2019, 11:51:37 »


Remember the 3.2 is a penny pinched, knobbled version of the superior 30yr old 3.0l.

That said, I'd much rather have a 30yr old NA V6 than a modern, nasty small engine petrol turbo.


Agreed. Ford's 1.0l triple is particularly nasty.

Sounds throaty and powerful and then you realise you're only doing 15mph!  ;D
Logged
RIP Paul 'Luvvie' Lovejoy

JC is not The Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!!

STEMO

  • Omega Queen
  • ********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Up North
  • Posts: 13845
    • Astra 2.0 diesel
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #17 on: 13 December 2019, 12:22:52 »


Remember the 3.2 is a penny pinched, knobbled version of the superior 30yr old 3.0l.

That said, I'd much rather have a 30yr old NA V6 than a modern, nasty small engine petrol turbo.


Agreed. Ford's 1.0l triple is particularly nasty.
Can't see the point of that engine. The mpg is nothing to write home about and the emissions aren't that great. The 1.0 viva I had last week was £145 road tax, wifey's diesel astra is only £30.
Logged
If you are offended by anything I post, sorry. Just thought I'd get that in now.

henryd

  • Moaning Haddock Head
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • west cornwall
  • Posts: 8243
  • VW Touareg R5 tdi Auto
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #18 on: 13 December 2019, 12:33:33 »


Remember the 3.2 is a penny pinched, knobbled version of the superior 30yr old 3.0l.

That said, I'd much rather have a 30yr old NA V6 than a modern, nasty small engine petrol turbo.


Agreed. Ford's 1.0l triple is particularly nasty.

Sounds throaty and powerful and then you realise you're only doing 15mph!  ;D

Try a Fiesta with the 1.0 3 pot that churns out 140bhp,its proper nippy that one although I do wonder for how long ::)
Logged
other rides 
  Saab 9-5 Aero HOT estate,Focus 1.6 mk2,Pug 306 cabriolet
  Sterling elite trekker pikey wagon

biggriffin

  • Moaning Haddock Head
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • huntingdon, Hoof'land
  • Posts: 8251
    • Vectra in a posh frock.
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #19 on: 13 December 2019, 13:33:54 »

Surprising that the 220 only gave out 226BHP, as my 2.0 Ecoboost is, reputedly, 236.6!

Don't forget the mighty 3.2 V6 Omega, 211BHP!

Any modern Turbo 2.0 4 pot has more power than older 3.0 6 pots.

Aye,My posh Vectra pushes out 260bhp and it'll chip to close on 300 without any other mods :y
.
 I would change the Intercooler, as they start getting upset near 300bhp,. Evo, 5;6;7 intercooler is the mod to have.
Logged
Hoof'land storeman.

Eboy.com

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 273
  • Bring back the starting handle
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #20 on: 13 December 2019, 16:27:31 »


Remember the 3.2 is a penny pinched, knobbled version of the superior 30yr old 3.0l.

That said, I'd much rather have a 30yr old NA V6 than a modern, nasty small engine petrol turbo.


Agreed. Ford's 1.0l triple is particularly nasty.
I can't vouch for its longevity*, but its a decent enough engine in a Fifi, and "OK" in a Focus (whos chassis is so shite, its pointless giving it more than 100bhp).

I think modern ones are 125bhp and are perfectly drivable, and can get close to mph=bhp ;).  Some Fifis, might be ST Line (not to be confuddled with real ST) come with 140bhp version that is quite nippy really.

Utter shite in a Mundano though ;D


I have only driven modern ones as hire cars. And any hire car goes faster than Imbers worlds fastest 2.6 ;).  I drove a colleague's older 1l Focus several years back, and it was less drivable and had to absolutely be kept on boost.  Then he bought a 1l Mundano, oh dear, that was utter shite.


I genuinely rate the modern 1l Fifi far higher than the 1.4T Corsa or Astra.  I don't rate the Focus, as the size of those front bushes mean it doesn't matter where you point it, it'll go somewhere random.
Logged
I own a Zafira, I'm allowed to feel depressed.

BazaJT

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • SLady bitshorpe N.Lincs.
  • Posts: 6796
    • Omega 3 litre Elite
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #21 on: 13 December 2019, 17:08:18 »

I know Ford used to have a bit of a tie-in with Yamaha for developing their smaller engines,is this still the case? Having driven examples of every model of Fiesta from the Mk1 up to and including the present iteration I can say that for some reason I've never been able to get comfy in any of them.The ST is so bone jarring it's like riding on the end of a shovel and I was always glad to get out of any that I had to drive.They do a Ford approved[having it done keeps the factory warranty] Mountune kit for the engines which adds a little more bhp.
Logged

Webby the Bear

  • Omega Queen
  • ********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Northampton
  • Posts: 12467
    • 2000 (W Reg.) 2.5 V6 CD
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #22 on: 13 December 2019, 19:54:54 »

I couldn’t agree more: give me an NA v6 omega over an ecowank Ford any day.

What I love most of all is that at 70 the engine is for all intents and purposes still asleep! 🤣 the ecowanks are the other end of that scale therefore I really couldn’t see you getting shed loads of miles out of one.

Having said that they’re probably ok if the majority of folk are HPing cars and swapping them every three years for something brand new 🤔
Logged
RIP Paul Lovejoy

Nick W

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Chatham, Kent
  • Posts: 7646
  • Rover Metro 1.8VVC
    • 3.0l Elite estate
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 11:42:16 »


Remember the 3.2 is a penny pinched, knobbled version of the superior 30yr old 3.0l.

That said, I'd much rather have a 30yr old NA V6 than a modern, nasty small engine petrol turbo.


Agreed. Ford's 1.0l triple is particularly nasty.
I can't vouch for its longevity*, but its a decent enough engine in a Fifi, and "OK" in a Focus (whos chassis is so shite, its pointless giving it more than 100bhp).

I think modern ones are 125bhp and are perfectly drivable, and can get close to mph=bhp ;) .  Some Fifis, might be ST Line (not to be confuddled with real ST) come with 140bhp version that is quite nippy really.


my mother's Focus has the 125hp motor. It clearly has a tiny turbo and a heavy flywheel. It pretends to have torque until the turbo runs out of puff at about 4500rpm - this pretence is obvious as the minimal performance diasappears with more than two people in it. Accelerating from 50 to 80, a real everyday requirement, is painful. The flywheel doesn't help this, but really makes itself known when you lift off: the bloody thing doesn't slow down at all. It's rough as hell at all times. This all adds up to a car that is difficult to drive smoothly. Economy is no better than a mk1 Focus either, and it's still ugly as sin inside and out. It does handle and ride better as they've dialed out all of the tedious harshness and nervousness that seems to make a "driver's car".


 I've not driven the Fiesta, but have been in several which are just as ugly and rough; the lower weight should make it drive better. I have tried my aunt's Rapid which has a similar 1.0 turbo triple, and that drives like a proper car. Looks better too
Logged

YZ250

  • Omega Baron
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Oxford/Bucks border
  • Posts: 2888
    • Black 3.2 Elite Estate
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #24 on: Yesterday at 18:17:22 »

my mother's Focus has the 125hp motor. It clearly has a tiny turbo and a heavy flywheel. It pretends to have torque until the turbo runs out of puff at about 4500rpm - this pretence is obvious as the minimal performance diasappears with more than two people in it. Accelerating from 50 to 80, a real everyday requirement, is painful. The flywheel doesn't help this, but really makes itself known when you lift off: the bloody thing doesn't slow down at all. It's rough as hell at all times. This all adds up to a car that is difficult to drive smoothly. Economy is no better than a mk1 Focus either, and it's still ugly as sin inside and out. It does handle and ride better as they've dialed out all of the tedious harshness and nervousness that seems to make a "driver's car".
.....

But apart from all that, they're alright yeh.  :y ;D
Logged
My fun car is a 2019 Bmw F32 430d M Sport with indicators.
My cruiser is an Audi A6 Avant Black Edition with indicators.

Eboy.com

  • Administrator
  • *********
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Brackley, Northants
  • Posts: 273
  • Bring back the starting handle
    • The missus mad
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #25 on: Yesterday at 20:43:01 »

my mother's Focus has the 125hp motor. It clearly has a tiny turbo and a heavy flywheel. It pretends to have torque until the turbo runs out of puff at about 4500rpm - this pretence is obvious as the minimal performance diasappears with more than two people in it. Accelerating from 50 to 80, a real everyday requirement, is painful. The flywheel doesn't help this, but really makes itself known when you lift off: the bloody thing doesn't slow down at all. It's rough as hell at all times. This all adds up to a car that is difficult to drive smoothly. Economy is no better than a mk1 Focus either, and it's still ugly as sin inside and out. It does handle and ride better as they've dialed out all of the tedious harshness and nervousness that seems to make a "driver's car".
As said, its "OK" in the Focus. Its certainly not a performance option, more the minimum you can get away with. And a number of them as hire cars, and every single one was a damn sight more sprightly that the utter shite 1.6 Mk1 we owned for a bit.

Like any small petrol turbo, economy is woeful when thrashed, which in a small family car, they have to be.


The Focus has never had precise handling or harshness. The original didn't, and the latest still hasn't. The enormous rubber bushes mean that you can never be sure exactly where any wheel is pointing.
Logged
I own a Zafira, I'm allowed to feel depressed.

henryd

  • Moaning Haddock Head
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • west cornwall
  • Posts: 8243
  • VW Touareg R5 tdi Auto
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #26 on: Today at 10:49:10 »

Surprising that the 220 only gave out 226BHP, as my 2.0 Ecoboost is, reputedly, 236.6!

Don't forget the mighty 3.2 V6 Omega, 211BHP!

Any modern Turbo 2.0 4 pot has more power than older 3.0 6 pots.

Aye,My posh Vectra pushes out 260bhp and it'll chip to close on 300 without any other mods :y
.
 I would change the Intercooler, as they start getting upset near 300bhp,. Evo, 5;6;7 intercooler is the mod to have.

I've no plans to mess about with it,plenty fast enough as it is :y
Logged
other rides 
  Saab 9-5 Aero HOT estate,Focus 1.6 mk2,Pug 306 cabriolet
  Sterling elite trekker pikey wagon

Nick W

  • Omega Lord
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Chatham, Kent
  • Posts: 7646
  • Rover Metro 1.8VVC
    • 3.0l Elite estate
    • View Profile
Re: Ford st220 estate
« Reply #27 on: Today at 11:19:37 »



The Focus has never had precise handling or harshness. The original didn't, and the latest still hasn't. The enormous rubber bushes mean that you can never be sure exactly where any wheel is pointing.


mk1 Focus always remind me of a Cortina/Dolomite/Avenger/Mustang/etc with knackered void bushes. Those were curable by fitting new bushes; the Focus was intended to be like it. The ride was barely any better than the uprated(by far less than any other one I knew of) Capri  I was driving when mum bought her first Focus.


Any car needs to be predictable to be considered to have good handling; ordinary dailies have to be comfortable with plenty of well-controlled suspension travel too. That was Jaguar's approach before they fell into the make it as hard as practical idea.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.163 seconds with 23 queries.