|
Give it another ten posts or so and it will be.
|
In reply to RF post about Sierra being a pile of ***.
First of all the Sierra was a hugly influential and sucessfull car for Ford, back in 1982 it was way way ahead of it's time and started the trend for all European car makers to design aerodynamic vehicles. It was arguably the first to have plastic wheeltrims and the first to have plastic bumpers. It was arguably the most controvertial car of it's generation, just look at the reaction to a 22 year old car in this thread. To my mind the only car to have such reaction from a launch was possibly the Focus. Would any Renault of 1982 vintage create such a reaction?? nah don't even know what Renault rival to the Sierra was called, 20, 21, 22? now that's forgettable. Just compare the Cortina to the Sierra. Athough using modified engines from the Cortina it was so different and bold as the Cortina was staid. What a risk for such a conservative market. For this reason the Sierra should be talked about even now. Look at the sales figures and the huge range that gradually evolved without diverting from the original design, the successful models, 3 Cosworths. XR4i XR4x4, fleet favourite the LX, etc. I remember in 1982 when my dad was given a 2.0 Ghia and as a 15yo I was blown away by the pic. of a car and seeing doors open on the dash, a red and yellow snowflake in winter for low temperatures. I'd never seen things like this before. Our family had a MK3 Cortina prior to this.
To just dismiss the car range as a pile of *** is quite frankly childish.
I'll still stick to my earler post it's still not a classic yet and in modern terms it's time 'is' done, but you can't ignore a car with so much influence.
|
Better than a MKIII Cortina ?
I'll be down there with a bar of soap for your mouth in a minute, Mr. Imagos !
I never heard such a thing. My MKIII was a thing of joy and beauty, unsurpassed by any Ford before or since.
Sierra better than a Cortina ??? Sacrilege. Probably blasphemy. The very idea of it. Hummph.
|
I think Fords sum up decades better than most cars.
The coke bottle look of the MKIII and the aerodynamic Sierra of the 80's etc.
|
"back in 1982 it was way way ahead of it's time and started the trend for all European car makers to design aerodynamic vehicles. It was arguably the first to have plastic wheeltrims and the first to have plastic bumpers."
Hmm, without even thinking about it much I remember the DS of somewhat earlier vintage being quite aerodynamic and the 1978 Renault 5 I owned had plastic bumpers.
|
>>> Hmm, without even thinking about it much I remember the DSof somewhat earlier vintage being quite aerodynamic and the 1978 Renault
I mean to sell in large numbers which these 2 most certainly did not!
I did say arguably..
|
|
|
|
imagos, you were persuading me until you mentioned plastic wheeltrims. As I speak, there is one on the pavement outside my house, where I propped it this morning up rather than bin it for today's collection. I hope that the owner might figure out where it fell of and retrieve it ... but they've probably no idea where it went, so will end up forking out for a new one.
Invention of the devil, those things!
|
imagos, you were persuading me until you mentioned plastic wheeltrims.
Yes but Ford was (possibly) the first with the Sierra and like it or not these trims are here to stay, you could say the Sierra was the innovator.
As for the Cortina it is indeed as fine car, i've owned 3 too and my ideal classic car now would be a MK5 Ghia in champange gold.. but IMO the Sierra was better in every way. Better looking, better to drive, better equipped and better interior quality in particular, even mow a 1982 Sierra Ghia has better trim Quality than many 54 reg cars i've driven.
|
"I mean to sell in large numbers which these 2 most certainly did not!"
Oh, really - comparative figures for Renault 5 and Sierra please?
|
Incidently, how much did it all cost (if you don't mind me asking that is) and what power gains are we looking at?
880 Euros = 600 quid.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=27...9
Torque and power curves at www.bsrab.se/bilder/_/ev_94_1_l.png/?PHPSESSID=9bc...7
|
|
|
|
imagos, you were persuading me until you mentioned plastic wheeltrims. As I speak, there is one on the pavement outside my house, where I propped it this morning up rather than bin it for today's collection. I hope that the owner might figure out where it fell of and retrieve it ... but they've probably no idea where it went, so will end up forking out for a new one. Invention of the devil, those things!
>>
NW. read on-
I consider that my Ford Sierra plastic wheel trims were one of the very very best ever.
They fitted well, were easy to clean and NO chance of falling off.
Do not confuse these Ford trims with the cheap after market or other makes littering the highway.
The other key features of them were that they did not bulge out and most importantly did NOT overlap the rim. This ensured that if a wheel happened to meet with a badly designed kerb, the wheel trim survived intact and a quick application of a file to the rim and a dab of silver paint restored the illusion of alloy wheels. So all the advantages of steel wheels but pretty too.
|
OK I'll quote figures myself
"Worldwide Renault produced 9.2 million Renault 5 models over the past 25 years."
"In total 2,700,500 Sierras were made, mainly manufactured in Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom, although also assembled in Argentina, Venezuela, South Africa and New Zealand."
Can't find DS production figures, doubt it would beat Sierra's but it certainly sold a few.
|
|
|
|
|
Imagos.
I didnt say it was a pile of poo, I asked If I could.!
And yes - Ford were brave, very brave to bring out that shape. I admired them but it cost them BIG BIG time. The sales figures were a disaster.
IF! you took your time to read my later post you will see that I ran one for three years. That I think gives me the right to call it a pile of poo if I want to. As It happens I didnt. I said it was forgettable. If It had been an XR4x4, cossie or maybe even an XR4I I doubt it would have. It wasnt so I did.
|
IF! you took your time to read my later post you will see that I ran one for three years. That I think gives me the right to call it a pile of poo if I want to. As It happens I didnt. I said it was forgettable. If It had been an XR4x4, cossie or maybe even an XR4I I doubt it would have. It wasnt so I did.
I have to say these are the only ones for img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/Taps56/d36e46f9.jpg although I do have a Estate and a XR4x4 as well but the looks of the 4i floats my boat.
|
|
|
|
I must agree that the Sierra was quite an influential car for Ford as it strayed from what they had pumped out for years prior.
"ahead of its time" Well, not by far. As is already mentioned, Citroen introduced the world to Aerodynamics decades ahead of Ford, and their own Visa had plastic bumpers when it was introduced in 1978. Apart from its good aerodynamics, it was pretty conventional. Simple OHC engines introduced in 1970 (?), rear wheel drive (when practically all of its competition had gone for fwd) and coil sprung suspension. But it all worked well. The Citroen BX was more advanced, quicker, faster and inwardly bigger than the Sierra.
The production figures that I have for the Sierra state 82-87 = 467900 and 87-92 = 974400. Are these just Europe?s figures perhaps?
BTW DS production was 1.45m
|
|
This is getting much too pendantic for me.
|
|
|
The Citroen BX was more advanced, quicker, faster and inwardly bigger than the Sierra.
are you sure?
it's only the fact that ford didn't produce a non-turbo'd 16V sierra that it lost out in the 4 pot perfomance stakes
while everyone else was producing 16V motors the sierra had the flagship cosworth (just recently one has done 201.8 mph!!!!!!!) with it's detuned 204-220 brake
and don't forget that the RS500 wiped the floor with everything anyone put up against it (in the dry anyway) and they changed the rules to make sure it couldn't compete, so if you want performance then the sierra had more than it's fair share of fast versions
the fact that the XR4x4 was overshadowed by it's younger sibling didn't detract from the fact that it was still a very potent Q car, and with a turbo (or twins) bolted to them they absolutly FLY, i should know, i had one and absolutly nothing could catch it.
the V6 2.8 made 150 on a good day but the 2.9 made 150 on a bad day, and with an almost flat torque curve you could use 5th all day long if you felt like it. the sure footedness of the 4wd system still makes it a very competent motor IF you can live with the thirst
|
I think the performance Sierras were and still are underrated, though I wouldn't be caught going out and spending loads of money on one, but that's my choice.
The Sierra was a good car IMO when it came out. Many individuals I knew at the time actually preferred the rear wheel drive rather than the front wheel drive the Cavaliers etc had at the time, so I don't think that staying RWD was a failure on Ford's part to step forward.
A colleague of mine had an E reg Cosworth (?) and liked it, though he didn't keep it long. He changed his cars every 6 months or so. That car though was considered a front runner in the performance stakes at the time. I don't remember the Cavalier SRI 130 being as popular or sought after.
Possibly the only mistake Ford made with the XR4is etc was to use a standard Sierra bodyshell to house them in. If they had developed a stand alone bodyshell reserved purely for their performance cars then maybe the legend would have been stronger today.
H
|
|
|
No doubting the RS and even XR versions were FAST and rapid, but I was refering to the run of the mill versions, as the performance editions made a very small contribution to the Sierras sales figures. (should have this clearer the first time ;-))
Comparing the 1.6 Sierra and BX:
Ford: 101MPH, 0-60 in 13, Legroom F/R = 40/39 (in)
Citroen: 106MPH, 0-60 in 10.7, 44/40 (in)
Comparing the 2.8 Sierra 16v to the Citroen 1.9 16v
Ford: 126MPH, 0-60 in 8.7, 30-50 in 4th = 7.5
Citroen: 132.6 MPH, 0-60 in 7.8, 30-50 in 4th = 7.5
However, the Ford was probably slightly more reliable and refined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
