+James Nicholls Yes but the Sierra, until it got the 1.8 CVH engine, were thirsty cars. The aerodynamic miracle didn't mean good mpg as the old Pinto engines, while strong, were way out of date in comparison to what GM, Toyota and most other manufacturers were making at the time. The early Sierras had a 1.3 and 1.6 Pinto fed with the Ford VV carburetor which was Ford trying to make a downdraught variable choke carburetor with also an accelerator pump. The consumption was terrible, 25mpg at best. You might as well have bought the 2.0 Pinto which had Weber twin chokes and enjoyed the extra power because the 2.0 gave the same, if not better on a run, consumption than the 1.3 or 1.6. The 1985-on 1.6 got the so-called 'E-Max' Pinto with a Weber twin but it was thirsty too.I can't understand why Ford were famous for bad carburation as all they had to do was bolt a side-draught SU or Stromberg carburetor on to the Pinto or x-flow and they then gave decent consumption. You could buy a SU conversion manifold for the X-flow and fit a Morris Minor SU HS2 (1.25'') to slacken the thirst of a MK1/2 Escort and reduce wear on the engine which some people did. Just why Ford didn't fit SU HS4 or Stromberg CD150 (1.5'') to their engines in the 1970's and 80's is hard to understand, ''..can you afford to feed a Ford..'' Was often said.For some reason the 1.8 Pinto was really hard on fuel and was replaced in mid-1988 with the 1.8CVH and finally the Sierra had decent consumption.
One of my earliest motoring memories as a kid was riding around in the back of my dad's '89 Sierra Estate in 1999. This car survived just about everything the environment could throw at it, including when my mum accidentally drove it into a flooded dip in the road ner the house and drowned the engine! Although it was sold in 2004, it would seem that it's still going today, according to a number plate check. This is the car that just wouldn't quit.
Always thought the Sapphire looked best, including the cossie. My grandad had an F reg facelifts 1.6 L in blue. Bought brand new, I loved that car, playing with the speaker “joystick”😆He never had any issues with it.
There really is something about the ford sierra, always been a big fan of them, my father had the sierra sapphire in that bright red colour like in this vid, was a special edition model, loved it
After watching this my dad went out and bought a chestnut brown 1.8 GL sierra sapphire E216 MVH. Think this in 1993. Had it until 2000. Best car he's ever bought.
I bought a very well used Sapphire in the late 1990s. The water pump corroded and (with the temperature gauge not working when I bought it), unaware, I drove it for several days in winter with no water. The mechanic change the pump, refilled the water and it started fine. He told me you basically needed to shoot a hold in the cylinders to stop them.
I've always loved the Sierra. Especially the Sapphire. I believe its 'radical' design was because it was the first computer generated designed car for aerodynamics.
My parents had an H plate Sierra. They had it for about 7 years and never once had any major problems with it. I think it did around 125,000 miles when they (unfortunately) sold it. It was the best car they ever owned.
I had two Sierra estates,first one was a 1.6 L and the second a 1.8 Chassuer Estate, brilliant cars,only ever let me down once when a fuel pump broke,did'nt think i'd get that fixed on a New Years eve at 8pm Wrong!!!.By 9:30 it was back on the road.Happy Days!
My dad had three Sierra blue 1.6 A-Reg, E-Reg Silver 2.0 GLS and J-Reg 2.0 GLX. All were brilliant. Endlessly reliable and quicker than you think (2.0 of course)
This was the first generation of mass produced UK cars that you had decent change of lasting that long. Back in the 90s I had one that had 120,000 miles on it. Modern cars post 2006 seem to be going the other way with either the electronics failing, blowing turbos or ingestion swirl flaps.
Mine ran to 150k without any real trouble. Rust was a bigger issue than mileage. The front TCA bushes on the Sierra were made of cheese and needed replacing every couple of years. Once this was done and the alignment set, they felt sharp as a tack again, even with big mileage on them. For a year or two until the replacement bushes fell apart at least.
They call it not very excitable, but they haven't tried a 2.0 DOHC now, have they? Even in the carbed version, the car can give quite some sensations on backroads. Dat 7.5k rev limit tho.
Here in NZ, the station wagons were very popular. I remember growing up as a kid and thinking....Darn these are Fugly! The sedans and hatches weren't soo popular here, though they are mildly better looking. I am a fan of the Cosworth versions though.
First car I ever own back in 1995 as a student, it was a 1986 Sierra mark one 1800 L lol I paid £50 for it because the seals wear screwed, replaced them and had a good little runner well that was until 4 star was replaced by unleaded these engines hated it even if you set the timing or used the lead replacement it didn't run no where near the same.
The Sierra may have initially failed in the then conservative UK but on the continent it was pretty successful. One of the reasons sales were sluggish was that Ford had lots of cortinas to sell and were heavily discounted to shift
By performance I am referring to the whole shebang. Find me another 4-wheel drive saloon with "enough" torque and power to do much more than the job for so little money that you can get them for these days. You can also easily boost performance with simple tweaks and they still look good!
I guess cars were at their most reliable in the 80s and then from the 90s onwards devolved again. Nowadays cars come with lots of electrics that go wrong, all the time...
+FrightfulAccountant You are 100% correct. The 1990's and early 2000's cars were the most reliable/least bother cars ever made, or ever will be made. If you have the space folks look for a half decent 2001-4 car (as has the banded tax - only 120pound a year on an Octavia SDi for example) and with the 1990's robustness and ease of servicing. If you have the space folks get an early 200's car and on a dry week waxoil it and leave it in your shed with redex in the cylinders, the hand brake off and throw a dust cover or sheet over the car. Because believe me, in 10-15 years time you will be the only person on the road not paying a never ending mortgage to run a car.
Yes indeed. Old cars met their demise through rust but new cars will be scrapped due to electronic failure as it will cost a lot to repair electronic systems.
I had a late 1990 1.8LX Sierra hatch. It was good on the motorway. Not as good overall as my brother's mk3 Cavalier 1.8GLS though. The Sierra was let down by the old pinto engines initially, the 1.3 litre was a joke, even the 1.6 was under powered. The latter 2 litre twin cam, despite some reliabilty issues, was a decent power of 125bhp for the size of car. As for the Cosworth, class of its own.
+piston head 1243 Yes but the Sierra would understeer badly. Unless there were seriously modified they were not a great rallying car. As you likely know the early 2.0DOHC had a weak propshaft cured later on by the fitting of the Cosworth prop.
well im from america and own a 1989 Merkur XR4Ti, our version of a sierra.. and its the 2.3l turbo rwd 2 door.. 175hp stock... and its rare here and also fun to drive.. to many wrx and imprezas here.. would be boring.
+Foxy_The_Pooper And I thought You captained the Iron Vulture, Yes no! I had the 89 1.8 CVH Sapphire in rosso red, one of the best cars I've ever had, certainly the most memorable, it was comfortable and flew like the Sea Duck!
Hey not all of them are boring you have the Xr4x4 with a 2.8 or 2.9 V6 which with a Turbo can produce well over 200 Hp and ofcourse the Cosworth which can get to 600 Hp with a built engine, the V6 is really a bargain you have 160 ish Hp out of the box, the Cosworth has 200 Hp standard but the prices are over 50k now meanwhile you can get a Xr4x4 for 1/5 of that. The Sierra was, and IS an excellent car.
have you seen the prices of sierras here in northern ireland. you can get a clean one for about £1600, anything under that is probably rotten or just fucked
***** No didn't know that. That is very expensive indeed. I've checked out some German ads, you can get a very cheap Sierra from there too. Meanwhile I did get another one for 350 € with MOT. It needs some work though and it's bodywork isn't really perfect either. But for 600 and above you can get a very good one already here in Estonia but I aimed for lower end.
love those cars, too bad they dont make them anymore.my first car was a ford Sierra 92 mod clx mangenta red. best car i ever had and still have,fast and reliable was never a major problem With it and easy to fix. i drove my sierra 420,000 kilometer and even to this day it starts With no problem. butt now it just stands behind my house :( its too much rust on it and i dont have the heart to sent it to the scrapyard .maybe some day it will be ready to hit the road again ;)
+johnny holthe Thing to look out for is that the '92 Sierra with the coloured bumpers and a cheaper dashboard had a thicker anti-roll bar. That late bar is a good fit to an earlier Sierra esp' a 1.6 or 1.8 CVH as they were not too well anchored on the front as the weight of a Pinto, DOHC or V6 kept the front on the road.
I have a 1992 3.0 my daily driver not the most fuel efficient vehicle but I wouldn't trade it for anything only thing that's gone wrong was a water pump which was a 30min job to replace love the car she still does 220kph
still chose the cortina over the sierra there's a man in my town MFW442Y had it from new the wheel arches have rusted a bit but its in great condition. sierra was a good taxi
Quentin you fogor the diesels. The 2.3D Peugeot motor was one of the most common taxis back in the day then there was the 1.8 Ford designed Turbodiesel.
+Samthebam4044 Father owned the 1995 or 96 1st generation Sierra 3-door hatchback (coupe?) with 2.3D. He bought it clocked (few service sheets showed higher km's than seller claimed. It wasn't actually clocked, the odometer only showed 5 digits (Someone at Ford had really bright idea as this same odometer was in Transits as well). The car totalled with 550,000 km's with deteriorating interior from sunshine, one seat slightly broken, holes in seat fabrics, rust on body panels and sideskirts. But there was nothing with it wrong. Only clutch cable snapped few times, fixed for pennies. And tranny was refurbished at 450,000km. Since 470-480,000, it was unlisted and was used as car driven as "tractor" in fields or forrest roads as it had huge boot with huge loading space. It was most dependable 300,000 km's my dad ever driven in single car. I was thinking about purchasing one in good condition few years back as gift to my father but that would only remind him how old he is.
+Samthebam4044 Yeah, and the 1.8TD was no good ... knew few people with Escorts from around 1998 and they were far less reliable than the 2.3D and when turbo broke, it was 1500+ EUR at that period to replace.
+El Shuwix They used that engine in the Ford Escort Transit van. It might've been nippier than the 2.3 though as I read the Peugeot motor was very very slow as it only had 66BHP and it was noisy, but reliable. I've seen one person commenting that the only good diesel Ford ever made was the York/DI engine despite it's lack of power unless you got the rare turbo model. Even the older 1.6 in the Escort and Fiesta (from which the 1.8 was developed I think) wasn't that well regarded.
Samthebam4044 Yes, it was noisy :D but I loved the vibrations as a kid, I just fell asleep like nowhere else. The French diesel was great choice from Ford as those were the time when French did make bulletproof diesels (unlike today). BTW, the engine had 69HP but it still had decent kick for a Sierra (in that period). But in Transit, it was .like slow-mo. But it didn't matter as in 80's and early 90's, Vans were supposed not to go over 90km/s, to have fuel economy, reliability, running costs next to zero ... and no gadgets and no creature comforts :)
Yeah I think they got it just about right with the 2.5 DI engine in the Transit, the modern Duratorq is still a good engine though. I think Ford are only respected now for their diesels because Peugeot/Citroen are helping them out now. The MCW Metrocab also used the DI engine there are still loads doing a daily shift around here in Clydebank and they're well over 20 years old and still going feart to see the mileage on the clocks now LOL. PSA diesels especially the XUD were brilliant and are still good today, dunno about the HDI engine my dad had one in his Berliingo never gave him much bother as far as I know.
this car is sooooo much better than mondeo. FR setup with 2L turbo cossie engine will beat any modern day mondeo/fusion. This was the time when Ford was a serious BMW rival.
I'm on the vauxhall side of the fence; I much prefer the Cavalier. But I can still appreciate the sharp lines and good looks of the Sierra, much better than the drab mondeo that replaced it.
I have '88 Sierra 1.8 saphire (one with the boot) . For me , it uses too much fuel . My grandfather gave it to me , and it has done just 90.000 miles , so it works as new - no rust , mechanical problems etc. I want to put in it new Ford 1.0 ecoboost engine . First is that possible ? Second - would it make it more economical ? And third - how much it would cost ?
I love that old car . It is not everything in money , but in memories . And view out in new Mondeo is rubbish . No rear headroom . I do not want touch everything , I just want simple car . I just want to make it more economical , and transplant it new Ford heart . I just finished changing thermostat (DIY) , and heating is still not working .
Maybe in five years there will be enough 1.0 3s in junkyards to make it an economical swap, but the fact is it will be a long time before your fuel savings offset the initial investment.
Double the insurance price and not as cheap to buy as the Sierra I'd wager. I paid £900 for a well cared for 1990 model with 60,000 miles on the clock. Stick a single turbo on an XR4x4 and you have better performance (without forgetting better brakes too if you value your life). The F-18 Turbo Technics kit got you 200hp with minimal fuss.
+El Shuwix You know you could get that with a 6.2 Detroit V8 Diesel or in the case of the later ones the 6.5 Turbodiesel. Some early 80's ones had the Oldsmobile 5.7 V8 Diesel. All 3 still need a petrol station LOL.
I love my two fiestas one is 1.8 non turbo it's a 00 the other is a 03 turbo diesel both ford engines won't have any other brand of car only ford would love a focus but they are very hard to find in 1.8 diesel
I guess thats all people knew. Imagine now the prospect of a motorway journey at 70 with a n/a 1.8 engine giving max 115 bhp with 5 speeds. Id rather walk.
The Sierra could have been much better if Ford had higher degrees of corrosion resistance in their range. Saab and Volvo managed it at the time, so why didn't Ford and vauxhall?
+DoomDriver32 I did, it's something You will never forget, in a good way of course. The seats are like sofas, here's a tip, change the bloody timing belt as soon as You get it and if it's the CVH engine get the gaskets and oil seals seen to. The CVH engines are quite rare now from what I've been told but they will redline for tens of miles easily, they are a very reliable and sturdy engine provided they are looked after.
Does he really say “all the pertinences of gracious living” ?! My God Too Gear was different back then... did everyone have a stick up their arses in the 90s, or were people just that dull and serious?
the best engine in the world is the 1.8 diesel ford made bomb proof they are I give my 1.8 non turbo a lot of abuse and rev the nuts off it and it begs for more I tow a 2 ton trailer with it and it pulls like a train
Come off it. It had all of 150Bhp from the 2.9 engine, barely enough to pull skin off milk. Dire numbers. Most modern respectable diesels produce more than that in basic spec.
Australians were spared these due to Everything below the Falcon range plus Fairlanes and LTD's coming from Mazda during this era.The Meteor was a size smaller to fill the gap after Cortinas were discontinued but quality wise better then came three generations of Telstars.we got the better deal when it came to the medium segment,I will admit no Wagons but that aside.The switch to Japan for this class of car was living proof all they needed was a well made 4 not a big 6.
Is it just me or did cars in 1993...not seem as hateful, badly made, and overpriced as they seem now...why did ANYONE buy a car built by Ford!!?? I mean they're dire....although saying that we used to watch this Top Gear without falling asleep, or self harming to increase the excitement levels....
Paddy075 Exactly. The British Sierra was quite good car but the Belgian and German ones were just brilliant. Dad did have 1986 (still the 82 model) with 3-door hatchback with the french 2.3D he bought with 160k km's on clock ...... till 620k (for last couple of years it didn't have MOT but was still good enough to take wood from forrest :) It was bit rusty, got broken dash from sun, it needed good battery start in cold days, it got refurbished tranny once (~450k) ... but that was about everything.
