Change final drive ratio...

Thank you for your input.

Actually it wasn't a troll, it was a serious question. I *never* complained that it was doing 4500rpm at 70mph.

Feel free to block me, but if you think that makes me disappear for

Then drive at 50 not 90?

Yes, basically you can change the final drive. As I understand it, all four banger Mondeos mark one and two can mix and match transmissions and what not. The mark one 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 have similar gearing, the TD is pushing

The mark two, hmm, Ford gave the 1.6 tall gearing, the 2.0 has short gearing and I can't remember what the 1.8 uses.

I have to ask why you didn't pick up on these points when looking. Steel wheels are mostly irrelevant and as for the pain of having to open your own run roof... :)

That was the old days. Modern multivalve engines have the torque much higher up the range.

That's not entirely correct. Check out those cars to have been engineered for a low 0 - 60 and some have _tall_ gearing... so as to reach 62 mph in second gear.

It's more associated with many multivalve engines' relativly disappointing torque output at low to mid range engine speeds and wanting mix-range flexibility.

You may not. Actually you might improve it if you lengthen it such that it'll reach 62 mph in second gear.

Do you know the relevance of this?

Taller gearing doesn't make it a better car!

That's because it'll be a relatively modern petrol four cylinder Ford. "They all do that, sir." Okay not _quite_ true if you drop into the smaller capacity Zetec-SE engines.

It's not that difficult at all. Find a scrapped TD...

It's around 15% taller in the gearing department.

Aye they do, but it's the area up to that point as well as the level itself.

Heh.

Hey!..... umm.... nah. Thanks.

Is the TD the same block/gearbox mounting then? I haven't been able to find any info.

I know the 2.0Si has shorter gearing than mine... must be a pig on the motorway...

It was a good offer and I needed a car that could do some serious miles. I'm not so fussed about any of it, just comparing it to similarly placed models in the Mazda/Toyota range...

Matching the HGVs at busy times saves stacks of fuel, when it's quiet you can resume normal service.

It's the same gearbox but not the same block.

But who buys the Si for motorway trips? :)

So it was cheaper than the equivalent Mazda or Toyota, then? :)

I would certainly look at the mph/1000rpm as an important criteria when deciding a car. My present car is a quiet and relaxed motorway cruiser, yes only a 2.0L petrol engine. However, it does have a turbo.

Yep.

Quite, but higher certainly isn't better.

That, erm, interesting I suppose. But not especially relevant. Cars can be great on the motorway with low gearing, conversely cars with tall gearing can suffer from "acme engine noise" versions two through seven, variations of "background annoying droning" if you take my point.

It's useful, yes, but it can easily be changed.

If it's really busy and I'm in no hurry, I do that. Have to watch for HGVs crowding me from behind though!

Hmm. Tempting!

The sort of cars I thrive on you don't necessarily choose the model...

Originally, yes, I'm sure it was.

But thanks to the Joy of Bangernomics, I paid £250 for my Mazda (323F), £550 for my Toyota (Supra 3.0) and £300 for the Mondeo (2.0 GLX).

If you do it in a smart it feels like you could reach out the window and rip the Volvo badge off the truck behind you - most disconcerting.

Wonder how much I'd get to trade my volvo for a smart - that'll reduce my costs...

Heh!

Two Smarts, in case you break one (or for Smart Racing?).

Some cars have a dreaded 'boom' resonance around 70-80 mph, that makes people drive them at 80-90mph at motorways. Probably not so much these days than in past years.