The 1982 Ford Sierra and it's competitors

[trigger]

Your not wrong!

[trigger]

Your not wrong!

[ChinaTom]

Did a Passat GL5 really accelerate that well? 7.3 secs to 60?

[ChinaTom]

Did a Passat GL5 really accelerate that well? 7.3 secs to 60?

[Junkman]

Did a Passat GL5 really accelerate that well? 7.3 secs to 60?

 

Depended on the height of the cliff...

 

No, it didn't. 10.9 seconds according to my 1982 Auto-Katalog. Which in those days even in scientific terms was fucking quick.

Interestingly, the five-cylinder Passats were initially only available as Variant (estate), I just learned from the same reference source.

[Junkman]

Did a Passat GL5 really accelerate that well? 7.3 secs to 60?

 

Depended on the height of the cliff...

 

No, it didn't. 10.9 seconds according to my 1982 Auto-Katalog. Which in those days even in scientific terms was fucking quick.

Interestingly, the five-cylinder Passats were initially only available as Variant (estate), I just learned from the same reference source.

[RichardMoss]

The Sierra was lucky in that most of its "British" competitors were reaching the end of their lifecycle at the time of launch or (in the case of the Japanese models) were niche models. The exception was the Cavalier - also a new product and it outsold the Ford. The upcoming Maestro and Montego were better cars, too - although thanks to BL's confused model pacement no-one knew which class they were in.

 

People say that the Sierra looked modern - that may be true but the lower spec models also looked cheap and felt cheap. Model for model, the Cavalier felt more upmarket, even if it wasn't. I also recall that across the board the Vauxhall engines punched aove their weght - the 1.3 was as powerful as the 1.6 Ford unit, the 1.6 eclipsed the Ford 1.8 and so on.

[RichardMoss]

The Sierra was lucky in that most of its "British" competitors were reaching the end of their lifecycle at the time of launch or (in the case of the Japanese models) were niche models. The exception was the Cavalier - also a new product and it outsold the Ford. The upcoming Maestro and Montego were better cars, too - although thanks to BL's confused model pacement no-one knew which class they were in.

 

People say that the Sierra looked modern - that may be true but the lower spec models also looked cheap and felt cheap. Model for model, the Cavalier felt more upmarket, even if it wasn't. I also recall that across the board the Vauxhall engines punched aove their weght - the 1.3 was as powerful as the 1.6 Ford unit, the 1.6 eclipsed the Ford 1.8 and so on.

[Ben_L]

I think it's important to remember that this booklet was meant for the salesman to be able to say "Well, you know the Cavalier doesn't have a Seat Belt warning light" etc etc... Doesn't matter how much of a pile of crap the base model was, this would be the ammo for the salesman to try and convince people to not buy a Cavalier.

 

I must say though, Vauxhall made impressive work with their engines in the 80's... 90BHP from a 1.6 8v when Mercedes were only just nursing that from 2000cc... The 1.3 wasn't as advanced, but the magic seemed to continue as the 1.6 and later on, the 2.0 16v (Redtop) were well known for power outputs... Putting the Ital, Ambassador and NOT the Austin Maestro in the mix probably blurred results a bit, but I s'pose the Maestro wasn't quite ready yet and not in the same class of car...

 

Got no problem with Sierra, I just think that the front end looks fugging awful with the plastic front and the interior was haphazard to say the least, with all that dead space in the centre which could have been more creatively used.

 

In Ghia V6 4x4 Estate form on the other hand, well, I may well be persuaded!

[Ben_L]

I think it's important to remember that this booklet was meant for the salesman to be able to say "Well, you know the Cavalier doesn't have a Seat Belt warning light" etc etc... Doesn't matter how much of a pile of crap the base model was, this would be the ammo for the salesman to try and convince people to not buy a Cavalier.

 

I must say though, Vauxhall made impressive work with their engines in the 80's... 90BHP from a 1.6 8v when Mercedes were only just nursing that from 2000cc... The 1.3 wasn't as advanced, but the magic seemed to continue as the 1.6 and later on, the 2.0 16v (Redtop) were well known for power outputs... Putting the Ital, Ambassador and NOT the Austin Maestro in the mix probably blurred results a bit, but I s'pose the Maestro wasn't quite ready yet and not in the same class of car...

 

Got no problem with Sierra, I just think that the front end looks fugging awful with the plastic front and the interior was haphazard to say the least, with all that dead space in the centre which could have been more creatively used.

 

In Ghia V6 4x4 Estate form on the other hand, well, I may well be persuaded!

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

The original Sierra was a great car for it's time. It handled and steered very well, and the ride was excellent. Add a great driving position, nice gearchange and that fifth gear and it was well away. The Cavalier was a worthy rival. It was always a bit more harsh with regards to noise and ride but they went so well and handled crisply. They both ran rings around the rest of that stuff - the Ambassador should have been drowned at birth and the rest were antiques in comparison. Audis were not considered premium back then nd neither were VW. They were just foreign cars.

 

As for the Montego. No. Just no. A rot prone pile of shit that pissed oil from every orifice.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

The original Sierra was a great car for it's time. It handled and steered very well, and the ride was excellent. Add a great driving position, nice gearchange and that fifth gear and it was well away. The Cavalier was a worthy rival. It was always a bit more harsh with regards to noise and ride but they went so well and handled crisply. They both ran rings around the rest of that stuff - the Ambassador should have been drowned at birth and the rest were antiques in comparison. Audis were not considered premium back then nd neither were VW. They were just foreign cars.

 

As for the Montego. No. Just no. A rot prone pile of shit that pissed oil from every orifice.

[dollywobbler]

The main thing you notice is how individual the different cars are. A Cavalier viewed next to a Sierra is incredible! The Cavalier being boxy and conventional-looking, but pretty advanced for the mainstream at the time, the Sierra looking futuristic but being pretty olde worlde under the blobby skin.

[dollywobbler]

The main thing you notice is how individual the different cars are. A Cavalier viewed next to a Sierra is incredible! The Cavalier being boxy and conventional-looking, but pretty advanced for the mainstream at the time, the Sierra looking futuristic but being pretty olde worlde under the blobby skin.

[messerschmitt owner]

interestingly, the only one with hubcaps is the Sierra.

 

I prefer the cav, personally, but the Mazda 626 would be the one on my shopping list today!

[messerschmitt owner]

interestingly, the only one with hubcaps is the Sierra.

 

I prefer the cav, personally, but the Mazda 626 would be the one on my shopping list today!

[richardthestag]

top thread

 

dad had a company 2.0 ghia sierra in 82. proper jelly mould but a nice place to be. Very comfy and very quiet.

 

The market at that time was in a huge comfort zone. the market liked square straight lines and the market liked the name Cortina. Sierra came as a huge blow to both!! Probably stand corrected but the last jellymould before the sierra would have been the Moggie Minor?

 

Vauxhall owe Ford a huge debt of gratitude for ongoing good sales of the Cavalier. I had one of the last of these type Cavailers in 1988 and even then it felt quicker, handled better and was more economical than the equivelent Sierra.

 

I do also like the Sierra though. Dad replaced the early 2.0 Ghia with a Granada 1.8lx auto which then got replaced with an e reg 2.0s sierra. Now that was a larf BUT the SRi Cavalier was even more of a larf.

 

Goes to prove that nostalgia aint what it used to be eh.

[richardthestag]

top thread

 

dad had a company 2.0 ghia sierra in 82. proper jelly mould but a nice place to be. Very comfy and very quiet.

 

The market at that time was in a huge comfort zone. the market liked square straight lines and the market liked the name Cortina. Sierra came as a huge blow to both!! Probably stand corrected but the last jellymould before the sierra would have been the Moggie Minor?

 

Vauxhall owe Ford a huge debt of gratitude for ongoing good sales of the Cavalier. I had one of the last of these type Cavailers in 1988 and even then it felt quicker, handled better and was more economical than the equivelent Sierra.

 

I do also like the Sierra though. Dad replaced the early 2.0 Ghia with a Granada 1.8lx auto which then got replaced with an e reg 2.0s sierra. Now that was a larf BUT the SRi Cavalier was even more of a larf.

 

Goes to prove that nostalgia aint what it used to be eh.

[Junkman]

People say that the Sierra looked modern - that may be true but the lower spec models also looked cheap and felt cheap. Model for model, the Cavalier felt more upmarket, even if it wasn't. I also recall that across the board the Vauxhall engines punched aove their weght - the 1.3 was as powerful as the 1.6 Ford unit, the 1.6 eclipsed the Ford 1.8 and so on.

 

Do you by any chance know how they compared price-wise?

In Germany, where the Vauxhall Cavalier was then still called Opel Ascona, it cost a considerable gulp from the bottle more than a Sierra, model for model. However, Opels being more expensive than Fords had a long tradition in Germany and the two makes would attract completely different clienteles.

 

The Vauxhall/Opel was also considered more technically advanced, since the Sierra had RWD. Many people saw the Sierra as formally trendsetting, but technically out of date, a Taunus with UFO coachwork. I also remember that for many people the Sierra's shape was too outlandish and thus many ex-Taunus customers went for a C31 Laurel or X50/60 Cresta, which suddenly became very abundant on German roads. And were those two cars not sold in the UK, since they are conspicuously missing on the comparison sheets?

[Junkman]

People say that the Sierra looked modern - that may be true but the lower spec models also looked cheap and felt cheap. Model for model, the Cavalier felt more upmarket, even if it wasn't. I also recall that across the board the Vauxhall engines punched aove their weght - the 1.3 was as powerful as the 1.6 Ford unit, the 1.6 eclipsed the Ford 1.8 and so on.

 

Do you by any chance know how they compared price-wise?

In Germany, where the Vauxhall Cavalier was then still called Opel Ascona, it cost a considerable gulp from the bottle more than a Sierra, model for model. However, Opels being more expensive than Fords had a long tradition in Germany and the two makes would attract completely different clienteles.

 

The Vauxhall/Opel was also considered more technically advanced, since the Sierra had RWD. Many people saw the Sierra as formally trendsetting, but technically out of date, a Taunus with UFO coachwork. I also remember that for many people the Sierra's shape was too outlandish and thus many ex-Taunus customers went for a C31 Laurel or X50/60 Cresta, which suddenly became very abundant on German roads. And were those two cars not sold in the UK, since they are conspicuously missing on the comparison sheets?

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

The 'Cortina' Taunus was never a big seller in Germany - very few Fords were because GM stuff was about 20 times better. The Sierra was far from outdated; in 1982 it used an IRS system that worked pretty well, and convenional stuff like McPherson struts and a steering rack were used by just about everything RWD. It had some nice touches like an all alloy diff housing when everything else used cast iron. The oldest bit was the engine at 12 years old. But BMW were still making the M10 4 cyls, a full 20 years old in '82. The Sierra wasn't as advanced as it looked, but was pretty much up to date and more than good enough for its intended market.

 

If someone was to drive a nice low mileage 1983 1.6L Sierra today, they'd be surprised at how well it drives/rides and how good it is on fuel for a 30 year old car.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

The 'Cortina' Taunus was never a big seller in Germany - very few Fords were because GM stuff was about 20 times better. The Sierra was far from outdated; in 1982 it used an IRS system that worked pretty well, and convenional stuff like McPherson struts and a steering rack were used by just about everything RWD. It had some nice touches like an all alloy diff housing when everything else used cast iron. The oldest bit was the engine at 12 years old. But BMW were still making the M10 4 cyls, a full 20 years old in '82. The Sierra wasn't as advanced as it looked, but was pretty much up to date and more than good enough for its intended market.

 

If someone was to drive a nice low mileage 1983 1.6L Sierra today, they'd be surprised at how well it drives/rides and how good it is on fuel for a 30 year old car.

[richardthestag]

If someone was to drive a nice low mileage 1983 1.6L Sierra today, they'd be surprised at how well it drives/rides and how good it is on fuel for a 30 year old car.

 

And if you could find a 1.3 or even a 1.6 Cavalier of similar vintage that hadnt been recycled into a washing machine then you might find it even better.

 

That said both sierra and cav were leagues ahead of the competition and their predecessors BUT it was the Sierra that led the fashion / market into a fresh less boxy look in general for the stuff we buy these days.

[richardthestag]

If someone was to drive a nice low mileage 1983 1.6L Sierra today, they'd be surprised at how well it drives/rides and how good it is on fuel for a 30 year old car.

 

And if you could find a 1.3 or even a 1.6 Cavalier of similar vintage that hadnt been recycled into a washing machine then you might find it even better.

 

That said both sierra and cav were leagues ahead of the competition and their predecessors BUT it was the Sierra that led the fashion / market into a fresh less boxy look in general for the stuff we buy these days.

[freebird]

My dad bought a brand new 1.3 Cavalier back in 1985. To be honest, having owned a 1.6 Cavalier myself, i thought the 1.6 was a bit pointless,although I assume it was a case of having one to compete directly engine size to engine size.

The 1.3 felt quicker, revvier and was probably no worse on fuel. I used to see 115 MPH on the speedo of the 1.3 ( on the autobahn ) and while i know that the speedo couldnt have been bang on accurate my Dads business partner who owned an identical 1.3 at that time got clocked by the old bill doing 106 MPH when he was already slowing down after seeing them.

Ive owned all Mks of Cavalier, including a red top and, tbh, the best of the bunch was a 2.0 8v CDi manual, to me, thats the "perfect" Cavalier.

Ive owned a few Sierras, 2 1.6 GLs and a 2.0 Ghia. I think they actually drove no different to Cortinas, very good and comfortable cars but nowhere near as good as Cavaliers.

Can anybody remember all the fuss when the Sierra was launched? Anybody would have though that Ford had started manufacturing a fucking space ship.

Mind you, things havent changed much, my son is a salesman at a Skoda dealer and had to go to MIRA the other week to drive the new Octavia and compare it to its "rivals". My lad isnt one to get to impressed about cars ( unfortunately) but he thought the new Skoda wiped the floor with the opposition.

I shall have to see if he got a comparrison pack......

[freebird]

My dad bought a brand new 1.3 Cavalier back in 1985. To be honest, having owned a 1.6 Cavalier myself, i thought the 1.6 was a bit pointless,although I assume it was a case of having one to compete directly engine size to engine size.

The 1.3 felt quicker, revvier and was probably no worse on fuel. I used to see 115 MPH on the speedo of the 1.3 ( on the autobahn ) and while i know that the speedo couldnt have been bang on accurate my Dads business partner who owned an identical 1.3 at that time got clocked by the old bill doing 106 MPH when he was already slowing down after seeing them.

Ive owned all Mks of Cavalier, including a red top and, tbh, the best of the bunch was a 2.0 8v CDi manual, to me, thats the "perfect" Cavalier.

Ive owned a few Sierras, 2 1.6 GLs and a 2.0 Ghia. I think they actually drove no different to Cortinas, very good and comfortable cars but nowhere near as good as Cavaliers.

Can anybody remember all the fuss when the Sierra was launched? Anybody would have though that Ford had started manufacturing a fucking space ship.

Mind you, things havent changed much, my son is a salesman at a Skoda dealer and had to go to MIRA the other week to drive the new Octavia and compare it to its "rivals". My lad isnt one to get to impressed about cars ( unfortunately) but he thought the new Skoda wiped the floor with the opposition.

I shall have to see if he got a comparrison pack......

[Junkman]

The 'Cortina' Taunus was never a big seller in Germany - very few Fords were because GM stuff was about 20 times better. The Sierra was far from outdated; in 1982 it used an IRS system that worked pretty well, and convenional stuff like McPherson struts and a steering rack were used by just about everything RWD. It had some nice touches like an all alloy diff housing when everything else used cast iron. The oldest bit was the engine at 12 years old. But BMW were still making the M10 4 cyls, a full 20 years old in '82. The Sierra wasn't as advanced as it looked, but was pretty much up to date and more than good enough for its intended market.

 

The Sierra was considered technically outdated just because it was RWD, no matter how advanced its suspension system was. Everyone expected a post-Taunus to be FWD, like many of its competitors already were and this was also blown well out of proportion in the contemporary motoring press.

 

If someone was to drive a nice low mileage 1983 1.6L Sierra today, they'd be surprised at how well it drives/rides and how good it is on fuel for a 30 year old car.

 

Absolutely. They'd be as well if they drive an Ital, an Ambassador, a Cavalier/Ascona, a Passat, an Audi 80, a Renault 18, etc. etc.

It never ceases to amaze me how much better those cars were to drive compared with this newfangled shit.

[Junkman]

The 'Cortina' Taunus was never a big seller in Germany - very few Fords were because GM stuff was about 20 times better. The Sierra was far from outdated; in 1982 it used an IRS system that worked pretty well, and convenional stuff like McPherson struts and a steering rack were used by just about everything RWD. It had some nice touches like an all alloy diff housing when everything else used cast iron. The oldest bit was the engine at 12 years old. But BMW were still making the M10 4 cyls, a full 20 years old in '82. The Sierra wasn't as advanced as it looked, but was pretty much up to date and more than good enough for its intended market.

 

The Sierra was considered technically outdated just because it was RWD, no matter how advanced its suspension system was. Everyone expected a post-Taunus to be FWD, like many of its competitors already were and this was also blown well out of proportion in the contemporary motoring press.

 

If someone was to drive a nice low mileage 1983 1.6L Sierra today, they'd be surprised at how well it drives/rides and how good it is on fuel for a 30 year old car.

 

Absolutely. They'd be as well if they drive an Ital, an Ambassador, a Cavalier/Ascona, a Passat, an Audi 80, a Renault 18, etc. etc.

It never ceases to amaze me how much better those cars were to drive compared with this newfangled shit.

[shedvan]

Excellent post man I love these contemporary reports and car comparisons.

 

I know hindsight is a load of old toss and so forth but it does highlight for me how much was right about the Ambassador package, had they been able to get it right first off in '76 - eg with a hatchback, five speed gearbox and some less ponderous engines it could have been a big seller and probably lived a bit longer ultimately. It was nice and roomy and rode well, but by the time it came out the Princess had poisoned it's own chances so thoroughly with crappy build quality, poor reliability and old-fart image that the refreshed range - effective as the cut-price revision were it was ultimately so ham-strung no-one really cared that by then it was an okay - a very cheap - option.

[shedvan]

Excellent post man I love these contemporary reports and car comparisons.

 

I know hindsight is a load of old toss and so forth but it does highlight for me how much was right about the Ambassador package, had they been able to get it right first off in '76 - eg with a hatchback, five speed gearbox and some less ponderous engines it could have been a big seller and probably lived a bit longer ultimately. It was nice and roomy and rode well, but by the time it came out the Princess had poisoned it's own chances so thoroughly with crappy build quality, poor reliability and old-fart image that the refreshed range - effective as the cut-price revision were it was ultimately so ham-strung no-one really cared that by then it was an okay - a very cheap - option.