7th Feb 2005, 10:28
Does any body know why my st24 eats front drivers side springs One at 25000 and again at 33000.thanks
28th Aug 2005, 00:36
I have owned my 1999 ST24 for a year now and found it to be reliable and reasonably comfortable, economical. MPG averages 27 to the gallon although has been down to 24mpg and as high as 34mpg on a motorway trip. I do find the suspension to be a bit crashy, especially if I haven't much fuel on board. I must admit that the performance isn't as good as I expected, but reading others comments I may have to adjust my driving habits to remedy this. Overall, the cars done everything that's been asked of it, whilst providing reasonable economy (for a V6) and comfort.
24th Nov 2005, 07:22
Why don't you all get yourself a st220 then it would urine all over the st24 and st200!
27th Mar 2006, 17:59
I own a 2.0L Mondeo '97. There is no way it can make less than 9 seconds to 60mph. Probably 9.5sec, and in my dreams 9.2.
How can you compare a 170 BHP engine with a 250 BHP turbo engine? It's wrong.
I've never heard about secondaries?! What are they?
16th Apr 2006, 13:42
2000 ST24 with 95,000 miles. I've always driven this car hard thinking that eventually it'll die and I can get a ST220. But it hasn't died, has never needed anything more than front bushes (@ 27,000 miles) and tyres, pads etc. It hasn't required any engine work of any sort and still runs like a dream. I just love the engine note as you push towards the redline, that's why I'll always drive a V6. The ST24 and ST200 are decent size cars with loads of extras and lovely engines and a joy to own, but mine needs to die soon as I want my ST220 - (Panther Black, Should I get full leather Recaros or not?) Ps. The 3-Series BMW is now more common on British roads than the Mondeo so we can all be badge snobs now!
12th May 2006, 18:43
I don't know where these people are from saying that a 2000cc mondeo is nearly as quick as a 2500I v6 24 valve mondeo, but it must be from a different planet to me ha ha I have had my st24 for a year now its totally standard apart from 17" antera wheels... and it does 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds with the traction control off... its fast for a big family car. i would love someone trying to race me in a 2.0L mondeo ha ha
10th Dec 2006, 07:40
I own a 1998 v6 ghia x and I'm not impressed with the pulling power in 1st gear. Seriously thinking of buying a st24 but can anyone advise me if it would be worth it?, as my v6 has been lowered and has a serious exhaust on it - already on when I bought it. thanks.
21st Dec 2006, 08:41
It's true. BMW's are way to popular now they are beyond annoying, the only one i'd ever want is the M6 and that's not exactly in the same league as an ST24.
Anyway to compare the two, my 98 ST24 runs rings around my mates '01 320ci and I don't think I'm that much of a better driver than him. 0-60, 0-100 and on MPG the ST24 is better, not to mention I can get 4 people and luggage in mine far more comfortably.
I used to love BMW's, but then I realised they just aren't worth it. Although (changing slightly) Audi's are something I can relate to.
19th Jan 2007, 05:42
Some of the comments here crack me up.
ST24s are decent enough cars, but NOT fast in the real world, 80mph terminals is nothing to be proud of.
Saying they genuinley faster than a T5 volvo or similar is laughable too.
BMW guy is a goon too calling a ST24 overweight, they a lot lighter than a modern 3series BMW!
But to be honest, BM's are better in every way, esp handling, as FWD totally sucks.
6th Apr 2007, 15:48
I bought my mondeo ,st24 one month ago its great I love it. I need help on how to get more cold air to my air filter can anyone help me?
13th Jul 2007, 06:15
The St24 isn't at all quick, very similar in performance when compared to my 2003 2.0 ghia mondeo. All the car is is a family run around NOT a sports car.
24th Jul 2007, 05:44
Saying that a 2.0 Mk3 will keep up with an ST24 is a load rubbish. In saying that, my 200 estate has been rolling roaded at just over 240bhp with some fairly serious mods, and WILL keep up with many BMWs and Volvos that you lot think they won't.
A lot of the time, you don't beat the car, you beat the driver!!!
20th Feb 2008, 15:28
Had my ST24 1999 for a few months now and I love it. The V6 24 valve sounds gorgeous, cool looking 5 door. I've always loved them; it looks amazing from the back, a real mans car. Diss it, do 1!
1st May 2008, 20:24
I brought a Spanking clean 1999 T reg ST24 a few days ago, what a car!, Only done 73k with full History in Radiant red and only cost £1850 from a dealer.
It runs ring round my old 04 Reg Focus TDCi, They engine sounds beautiful and it feels as well built as my Audi A4 I once had.
Highly Recommend for the money.
23rd Dec 2008, 17:32
A 2.0L Mondeo does do 0-60 in 8.7 seconds, just not the face lift, the pre 97 ones do.
31st Jan 2009, 18:30
Any T5 will smoke the ST24. No arguments - I have the V6, and my Dad has a T5.
The Mondeo wasn't made to be a real road racer. It's a nicely made, well-equipped fairly large car with a few sporty tweaks.
A BMW is better made, and often they ultimately offer the better driving experience. However, they are big, expensive to buy, expensive to repair, and most folks perceive you as a merchant banker. And they, just like the Mondeo, are nothing more than a glorified repmobile.
As for the 2.0 to V6 comments... the V6 is the better engine, by a long shot. However, the ST24 is heavier than the earlier mk1 cars, in which the 2.0 made 136bhp, the engine was lighter, as was the rest of the car. The Si had a close ratio gearbox, and would give the ST24 a fair run. It would ultimately lose, but it would give you a harder battle than you expected.
Even the 200 and 220 - they aren't fast cars. A Scooby would obliterate them in all performance areas. I've owned the mk1 2.0, the mk2 2.5, and a Scooby (amongst many other cars, I just want to make the point that I do have real-world experience in what I am saying on here).
I currently have the V6. They're a very good overall package. Nicer to live with than a Scoob, make more financial sense than a beemer, and have the wide spread of torque and smooth engine that the 2.0 just can't compete with.
16th Jun 2010, 00:10
I have an ST24 1998 (S) that returns 30-35mpg on a run, and 27mpg around town. It has covered 117,000 miles, and still runs great. I can't believe some of the comments on 17-20 mpg; something wrong there, that's not normal. It's not mega quick, but does pull nice and strong over 70mph. Overall I'm very happy with it.
1st Sep 2010, 14:26
I had an ST24, but managed to park it at high speed into a bush one night, so I got an ST200.
The engine sounds really good with the twin exhaust, compared to the ST24, but the power is better too.
Recently had a problem where the acceleration would hang around 3000 - 3500 rpm, then kick in when the secondaries open. I've read a couple of posts here to say it may be the spark plugs, as I've had the exhaust checked and also a tune up, but nothing found. My IMRC was relocated as they overheat, and the secondaries do work fine. I've also tried carburettor cleaner, but it made no difference. Any other ideas? Cheers.
Glen.
2nd Dec 2004, 08:29
I find the majority of these comments very amusing - I don't doubt the ST24 is a terrific car in its own right - but lets remember it is a breathed over family saloon - which was priced for a majority market.
It was not made to be raced up and down 1/4 mile strips, it was not made to produce blisteringly fast 0-60 times (those who argue over 1 sec differences when your looking at a 0-60 time of 7sec+ - that is simply not that quick, you would hardly notice the difference!) - the car was produced to be a fast, smooth, affordable cruiser that is as happy being hustled around a B road - as it is cruising down the M1 at 90mph, all of which you could do with a boot full of shopping and a car full of kids.
It's a practical, reliable sports saloon, not a Porsche or Ferrari.
Take it for what it is and enjoy it! -