|
Model year? Condition? Councours? That mileage in that time is probably more harm than good. Even a true concours, price is on steep side.
|
|
|
Which engine? Keep us posted how you get on with it. A bashed about (but rust-free) 91J Sierra GT sold for £150 at auction on Monday. I mention this because it was unusually rust-free.
HJ
|
For me to part with over 2 grand for a Sierra the car would have to meet my critera.
1: A years MOT and tax
2: Absolutly rust free.
3: Paintwork must be perfect, in fact the car would need to be virtually concours condition
4: Unused and alloy spare.
5: No modifications anywhere it must be original.
6: Mint interior.
If it is in concours condition then it's worth buying and the important thing is though to keep it original and keep it many years as you'll be unlikely to get your money back. Any other condition then i'm afraid over the odds has been paid. The Sierra although a fine car in it's day,(I indeed have owned 3) It's day is now done and it's fading into history, The £150 GT proves the point. One or three models are collectable though, a XR4 being one of them. But a future classic? Not yet but in 20 years? Maybe..
|
|
|
Which engine? Keep us posted how you get on with it. A bashed about (but rust-free) 91J Sierra GT sold for £150 at auction on Monday. I mention this because it was unusually rust-free. HJ
>>
>>
That was cheap then, you should of snapped it up.
|
|
|
Yes, I did just sign up for this thread, but I'll promice I'll have a look around aswell ;)
I was just wondering why HJ keeps mentioning the GT as a 'good model'. Is it just the sight of a GT badge that means it's safe to assume it's a better model without ACTULLY knowing anything about it?
Whilst the GT has a couple of asthetic face lifts, it's pretty much an LX spec 2L DOHC. Whilst I'm not knocking the owners, it's just a pretty end of line sell off. Not even got rear disc breaks.
I'd also like to point out that the compliance ARB bush set is avaliable for a very low price......
And whilst the sierra was launched round 82/82(?) Vauxhall just about managed to match it for engineering in 95 with the vectra (can't you hear those knackered 94 16V vaux units now? And solid tie bar rear sus! ha!)
|
|
The 2.0l in the '95 vectra was based on the previous 16v Cav engine though had variable length inlet manifold, quite advanced, much more gutsy in the midrange than any other 2.0 4cyl at the time, very crisp all the way to 6500rpm.
|
|
|
|
|
Ref "why only drive it 12500 miles........."
Probably for the same sort of reasons that someone buys a Lamborghini and drives it round London all the time!
I'd have paid that for it. The late model XR's were a well equiped and capable car at a fraction of the cost of comparable ironmongery
|
The car was bought by an average guy and he just kept it in a garage as he just enjoyed keeping a clean car and driving it on long runs occasionally.
I would say it is concourse. In fact, I would not mind taking it to Honest John so he can drive it and see what he thinks. I know that a lot of ultra low mileage cars are pretty rubbish. This one isn't. I know he does not rate Sierras, but perhaps this may change his mind. They were rated when new, so if kept well, why not now?
Say we rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, I will give £25 to any charity of Honest Johns choice for every point it gets below a 9 out of 10 for car perfection and driving satisfaction. I will trust his judgement. i.e. If he says condition is 5 and driving impressions 4 I will give him 9x£25 (£225).
Us Sierra owners have a reputation to keep up!
|
Retro
I know of one thats just sold for more then that, same low mileage, he got well over 3 grand for it.
|
|
|
So, Retro, are you really the 'dojj' whose e-mail address does not work and who is obviously into hyping this minimum 14 year old car just because he has bought one? I'm neither for or against Sierras, but the fact is that 95% of them have now been scrapped so they are hardly very relevant. If you have found a really good V6 4x4 then good luck to you. But I have been driving Sierras since they were born. Our original 2.0 litre 4-speeder was a really good car in its day and my brother eventually took it to around 200k, but that was 16 years ago. My brother's later 2.8 4x4 was a great car in its day (1989). In the mid 1990s BBR was still restoring Cosworths and Cosworth 4x4s into new shells, but that was mid 1990s. And, back when I was dealing in them, as long as the transmission tunnel was not bent, a two year old Sierra that had been front-ended and re-buit could drive better than one that hadn't been simply because it sat on new front suspension. ust in the doors was a near scandalous problem that even resulted in a book on the subject, which is why I mentioned it in relation to the 131 mile £150 GT at Monday's auction.
HJ
|
|
Think if you knew your Sierra's you would know that it was only the very early ones that had tunnel trouble before Ford put the fault right HJ and to say that a bent one rebuilt drove better the one that went bent, what short of statement is that, the same could be said about any car out there, dont need to have been bent first just new bushes against worn.
|
This is getting very annoying. FACT is that Sierra reaction arm bushes softened very quickly, often in as little as 30k miles. But the fleets never spent money fixing them. So a sure way to buy a two year old Sierra with decent front suspension was to buy one that had been whacked and rebuilt.
HJ
|
|
HJ, yes the anti roll bar track control arm bushes ford fitted werent up to lasting that long same as all the other cars Ford fitted them to, but this was easy dealt with by fitting Heavy Duty bushes something Ford never got round to but the after market did.
|
|
|
|
1) No I am not "dojj"
2) Most classic cars go through a banger phase before being re-discovered. Ford are a really good case in point. A very low mileage Capri 280 went for £12000 plus premium yesterday at Bonhams. Witness the way early Escort prices are going. With most mainstream cars, a high death rate in the first ten years means rarity at 15 years.
3) I have read your column for years. You offer good sensible advice normally. Try a search on Autotrader for any car over 10 years old with less than 20000 miles on the clock and costing less than £2000. You will be amazed at the selection of cars you find. In my opinion, this is a good way to buy mint low mileage cars for little money.
|
Retro, Taps, & willum,
It is obvious you have come over here for a wind up. You even boast about doing so on the interford forum.
If this continues, I'll simply remove this thread and cancel your registrations.
DD. BR Moderator.
|
I can't see what is unsensible about my posts in this or other forums.
|
|
|
Strange all 3 are newbies today.
Dave and HJ i thought i was offering sensible advice been caught out too it seems. To coin a phrase 'The sierras day is done' and so is this my contribution to this thread.
|
|
I am here, becuase I read the good and bad points about the Sierra and you are wrong. Your own articles prove you are wrong, so why don't you change the Sierra advice page? Please.
|
It isn't an advice page for people who go out and pay £2,250 for a Sierra, then try to hype its value. The £50 value was based on the £20 Mondeo the previous week, so I was a bit surprised to see the 91J Sierra GT make £150. However, as soon as it did I revised the value.
HJ
|
Go and start your own site and forum and write whatever the hell you like about Sierras! Until then, be quiet! It's a Sierra! Great car in it's day but as has been said...it's day was a long long time ago.
Now - where's that Capri Brooklands....
--
Adam
|
That of course wasn't directed at you HJ!
--
Adam
|
Go and start your own site and forum ....
They already have. The handful of individuals you see here are as a direct result of dojji's deleted message. They all beong to the same forum.
|
As I have no intention of selling it, the value is irrelevant.
I had an M3 and the engine blew. I reported it to your site and within 24 hours you had amended the BMW 3 series section regarding this. Subsequently, it became apparent that M3's had an oil circulation problem near the crank. That was good reporting and you were the first to mention it. Hopefully, that helped lots of people out.
Do you not think that saying that Sierras are worth a maximum of £50 is a bit harsh when your further reporting says one that was not in massively good condition went for £150 at auction? This is not good reporting and does not give the right idea to prospective purchasers.
OK my car cost £2250. Lets say its real worth is £500. I don't mind, because I tried to find an as new Sierra for months with no luck. This car came along and I bought it. If I paid over the odds fair enough. Check out the Bonhams auction yesterday, where low mileage Patrick Collection cars went for daft money. An XJS for £20K or a MK1 Golf GTi for £6K anyone? Forget about my car. Overall it is unfair to say the max value of a Sierra is £50.
|
|
|
Good grief, why all this nonsense about updating the Sierra page all of a sudden? You swear they are still in large numbers on our roads, when in reality they have mostly been scrapped! If youve got a good one then fine, go out and drive it instead of whinging that it is given a hard time in the CBCB.
|
|
|
|
|
Retro, Taps, & willum,
It is obvious you have come over here for a wind
up. You even boast about doing so on the interford forum.
If this continues, I'll simply remove this thread and cancel your registrations.
DD. BR Moderator.
Not a wind up DD, you see some of us know Sierra's very well, I myself have worked on them since the day they came out and am still working on them now all these years later, yes it was pointed out on the site you mention and on the Ford Sierra Owners club site Honest Johns Car by Car Break down on the Sierra, gave more then a few a good laugh, £50 indeed, see its been changed some what now though. Think someone needs to do a little more research on there infomation before posting Car by Car break downs mind, the Sierra may well be old now but there's still a lot out there so for those thinking of perhaps getting one correct information is needed.
|
>>Go and start your own site and forum<<
Oh...you have.
--
Adam
|
Okay, the way to stop all this crap is to give the Sierra lovers a link to their club or their site in the cbcb entry so that anyone who likes these cars can link straight into the fan club. So what is it, Retro?
HJ
|
The links are now in and working. Have offered dojj the chance to re-write the whole entry and keep everyone happy. Which is really how we should ahve started.
HJ
|
Well the Sierra site is nothing to do with me, but that is very nice thank you.
If you could remove the value limit on the CBCB it would be appreciated. Even if it says anyone that spends more then X is a lunatic I do not mind.
Whatever you decide it is up to you. I will not mention the S***RA again!
Thanks for allowing me to post on the forum. Free speech is appreciated.
|
|
The only criticism I have of the Sierra was the lack of headroom. Having driven from Oxfordshire to Warrington and back in a 1.8LX hire car, the only way I could get comfortable was to tilt my head left and use the void where the sunroof was to stop my head hitting the roof lining. I'm not excessively tall, (5'11") either. A 10 hour round trip in this position doesn't do your neck many favours.
|
The only criticism I have of the Sierra was the lack
of headroom. Having driven from Oxfordshire to Warrington and back in a 1.8LX hire car, the only way I could get comfortable
was to tilt my head left and use the void where the sunroof was to stop my head hitting the roof lining. I'm not excessively tall, (5'11") either. A 10 hour round trip in this position doesn't do your neck many favours.
You could have wound the seat down DD hehe, Im 6ft and a bit and me heads nowhere near the roof.
|
You could have wound the seat down DD hehe, Im 6ft and a bit and me heads nowhere near the roof.
I should have mentioned earlier that it was right down. Have the same problem in my mates mint condition Orion Ghia. Must be a Ford thing, as well as me having a lardy rear end ;o) Never had a problem with Vauxhalls though. Perhaps that'ss why I prefer them.
|
|
|
|
Oh apart from this subject the rest of the site seems very good, well set up.
|
|
|
"Sierra's very...."
Sierra's what ?
|
|
Man and Machine in perfect harmony
|
Forgot to add that I test drove a Sierra "Azure" about six years ago. It was a J or K plate run out model with blue met paint and alloys - looked good but the worst feature was the cat equipped 1.6 engine that couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.
If I remember rightly the Sierra was no match for the then new Vauxhall Cavalier MkIII - it took Ford a further four years to catch up with the Mondeo.
The Sierra was fresh in its day however (1982) when its jellymould looks were revolutionary compared to the competition and the boxy Cortina Mk V. My dad bought a six month old 85B 2.0GL
|
james_60 - you're a fool and, as usual, an irritating fool. I have disabled your registration.
Mark.
|
On the subject of free speech, am I allowed to say the Sierra is a pile of poo?
|
On the subject of free speech, am I allowed to say the Sierra is a pile of poo?
Yes.
No Do$h - Alfa-driving Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
Well most of the were r.w.d (as always leaping to the defence of the underdog - dog being the operative word !)
|
I quite liked the XR4i, A friend had one. Didn't seem to mind hills, or even notice them - at all actually.
In Cornwall that is saying something (Were twinned with the Alps BTW).
H
|
Yes, I did just sign up for this thread, but I'll promice I'll have a look around aswell ;)
I was just wondering why HJ keeps mentioning the GT as a 'good model'. Is it just the sight of a GT badge that means it's safe to assume it's a better model without ACTULLY knowing anything about it?
Whilst the GT has a couple of asthetic face lifts, it's pretty much an LX spec 2L DOHC. Whilst I'm not knocking the owners, it's just a pretty end of line sell off. Not even got rear disc breaks.
I'd also like to point out that the compliance ARB bush set is avaliable for a very low price......
And whilst the sierra was launched round 82/82(?) Vauxhall just about managed to match it for engineering in 95 with the vectra (can't you hear those knackered 94 16V vaux units now? And solid tie bar rear sus! ha!)
p.s. Sorry, posted this further up - not used to this threaded structure withouth the overview!)
|
I just had to sell the things for a living. Still, it paid the mortgage if I discounted them enough to fleet buyers.....
No Dosh. Moderator and ex Ford Motor Company employee, ex Ford Main Dealer employee........ So no mileage in me contributing to this at all. Oh no. ;o)
|
Not even got rear disc break
Neither had the Puma, which was whole different kettle of fish performance wise and two if not three generations later.
|
Puma? That's the fiesta with a bubble top isn't it. Think the local hairdresser's gont one ;)
Joking aside, I wasn't knocking the GT as such, just pointing out it's a base model in disguise. It fools a lot of fools into saying it's better because of it's GT badge...... and ford knows how to sell to us fools!
In the spirit of keeping that article correct.... A lot of the engine info is off, the 1.3 was NEVER one of those blasted CVH things.
|
Yes, I did just sign up for this thread, but I'll promice I'll have a look around aswell ;)
Please do, you'll find a whole host of information here plus pointers to other sites that can offer loads of useful info.
I have saved myself hundreds here on buying and insuring vehicles thanks to some of the contributors.
Get a good feel for this site. I'm not saying it's better than any other motoring site on the web, but it's a non specialist motoring site so offers different things and in a different way than some of the specialists sites out there.
There is a huge cross section of motorists from the souped up Saxo driving 21 year old to the 75 year old classic car driver - all are most welcome!
Hugo - BR Moderator
|
to the 75 year old classic car driver
I wouldn't have said the Toyota Landcruiser was a classic. Mind you, you're right about it's owner cracking on a bit ;o)
|
|
|
|
Retro, Taps, & willum, It is obvious you have come over here for a wind up. You even boast about doing so on the interford forum........... DD. BR Moderator.
That article about Sierras touched quite a few nerves, especially in view of some of the awful inaccuracies. Surely you aren't surprised at a reaction from an enthusiasts forum. Enthusiasts are what make for a bit of variety in motoring life. We'd all be driving under 5 year old Euro-boxes otherwise......and will be if the Government and DVLA get their way
|
Never in the field of forum conflict has a car of which there are so few generated so many posts!
Nought to fify in less than five hours.
Blimey!
|
Never in the field of forum conflict has a car of which there are so few generated so many posts! Nought to fify in less than five hours. Blimey!
Show's how little you know, but as you drive a Old Man's car(Volvo) I'm sure the Sierra Boys will forgive you for your ignorance
|
Well I haven't been this childish since school but:
* I think the well respected member of the forum SJB was referring to the number and speed of replies rather than the speed of the Sierra
* SJB's car is anything but an old man's car - scout the forum and you will see just why
* Hmmm 15 year old Sierra or brand new 2.4 Turbo V70 - that's a tough one - really it is.
--
Adam
|
|
Remember a 15 year old Sierra could be an RS500 or a Cosworth 4x4 that had a very sophisticated 4x4 system.
|
|
That article about Sierras touched quite a few nerves, especially in view of some of the awful inaccuracies. Surely you aren't surprised at a reaction from an enthusiasts forum. Enthusiasts are what make for a bit of variety in motoring life. We'd all be driving under 5 year old Euro-boxes otherwise......and will be if the Government and DVLA get their way
I think it's the inaccuracies that swing it. If you're going to slate something (and the £50 is slating it), is it not best to try and sort some kind of facts out?
In all the garages my sierra's been worked on, I've never had a mechanic swear at it like they do at other cars. I have to say, when you ask someone who actually knows what they're talking about (not a clarkson, the bloke down the pub or a jumped up second hand car dealer), they won't knock a sierra for what it is.
Just think of all the Escrot cossie owners that'd have a heart attack if they knew they where driving a car based on a sierra ;)
|
Sierras were normally making £10 - £50 in the part-exchange auction halls until that rust-free 91J came along on Monday and made all of £150. It does seem that enthusiasm for spiffed up Sierra 4x4s is being applied to Sierras generally. Nevertheless, dojj has agreed to update the cbcb entry. I expect it will be the TR7 owners club next. Don't worry. No cbcb entry for that dreadful piece of junk (a statement again made from personal very painful experience).
HJ
|
>>I expect it will be the TR7 owners club next. Don't worry. No cbcb entry for that dreadful piece of junk>>
I would be genuinely interested to know how Triumph could make a car with the engine nicely back in the chassis handle so badly!
Live and let live etc, so if anyone wants to find a nice example of an old car and run it, go for it. But please no stories about how 1 example of a 1980s car is reliable and my mate's new car broke down therefore....
|
Err, lets not rewrite history here....
I've loads of UK & US road tests of TR7s & 8s and at the time they were regarded as having good handling. In fact most of our club members with 2 litre 7s are happy with the handling PROVIDING the bushes (of which their are lots) are all in good condition.
Don't forget the 7 was primarily a car for the US market and they run softer cars than the UK.
The brakes were mildly criticised in its day and today are very poor to the point where a lot of people have uprated them.
TR8s were criticised in the US for the brakes and some US road tests would have preferred stiffer suspension.
As regards reliability well I knew people who ran new ones and some were a pain, mine in 10K miles
Mine has uprated lower springs, poly bushes all round and Spax adjustables and now its on a solid chassis corners dead flat. In fact in spirited road use with 220BHP, I haven't managed to loose the rear at all, so its handling limits are such that I could only probably find them on a circuit.....
Jim
|
I've loads of UK & US road tests of TR7s & 8s and at the time they were regarded as having good handling.>>
Compared to other US cars of the time? Wow.... Not exactly in the Alfasud category though?
>>In fact most of our club members with 2 litre 7s are happy with the handling PROVIDING the bushes (of which their are lots) are all in good condition.>>
Like HJ's comment about Sierra supension?
>>Mine has uprated lower springs, poly bushes all round and Spax
adjustables and now its on a solid chassis corners dead flat.>>
True, and if you modify a 1.1 Fiesta you can make it do 0-60 in 6 seconds, but I don't think that's a reason to call it a high performance car (which if course it wasn't meant to be) unlike the TR7 which was supposed to be sporty.
|
>>Compared to other US cars of the time? Wow.... Not exactly in the Alfasud category though?
Err my line says UK & US, this was magazines like Motor, Autosport etc. Yup Alfasud was streets ahead of everything sports or saloon. The competition for the 7 at the time was miniscule because most manufacturers had dropped coupes from their range. Comparable cars were Capri 2 litre, Lancia Beta coupe etc.
>>Like HJ's comment about Sierra supension?
To certain extent, however 7 bushes last lots longer than Sierras. I used to have Sierra compliance bushes done every MOT because they'd have gone soggy.
As regards the Fiesta yes you're right but just proves that the chassis is basically right and as a basic design was used for a very long time but lots of manufacturers.
Also don't forget that a V8 7 is actually a production car and as a TR8 was 0-60 in around 7ish sec & 135MPH which at the time was serious Porsche performance for a lot less money.
So it was a high performance car which the 7 wasn't and was never meant to be. It was designed as a comfortable, affordable sports car and that is something it fulfilled at the time selling 120,000 cars in around 4-5 years.
The only reason it was dropped was that its market (the US) experienced a stronger dollar and it was no longer cost effective. However by 1981 reliability was vastly better having had its product developed by the buying public, as BL always did.
Jim
|
a V8 7 is actually a production car and as a TR8 was 0-60 in around 7ish sec & 135MPH which at the time was serious Porsche performance for a lot less money.>>
After a quick search I thought 0-60 was more like 8 or 8.5 seconds for the TR8, but I'm open to offers.
My original point was why the handling of the TR7 was so poor compared to the theoretically good layout rather than the straight line performance of the V8. You'll have to ask HJ why he thinks they're rubbish too.
|
|
Just think of all the Escort cossie owners that'd have a heart attack if they knew they where driving a car based on a sierra ;)
I think you'll find most of them already know.
::shrugs::
Still if you're going to hold up the performance versions that owe little but body panels to the run-of-the-mill repmobiles most of us drove, the Lotus Carlton was an absolute hooligan of a car and very desirable. Doesn't mean I'm going to get all misty-eyed and dash out to buy a Carlton 1.8GL.
|
Lets try and keep it non-personal please.
To whoever was struggling with working out where replies go to, then try "Threaded View". All may well become clear.
But from a personal point of view; the Sierra ? Hated it. Now my MKIII Cortina, on the other hand, was a joy.
|
And whilst I'm on a roll;
HJ has invited the FSOC to make sure that they agree with the write-up on this site. Can't say fairer than that.
In their turn, the various Sierra owners seem to be contributing valid facts.
So lets avoid poking each other with sharp sticks.
I've got a hangover, and we all know what that means about the moderating style around here for a few hours.
|
I drove a 1.8 Sierra estate for 2 years as acompany car, did 40k miles. It went well with no problems except once the carb needed adjusting.
That's all I remember of it except for the washer fluid bottle being in front of the wheels in the wheelarch and freezing when I left for work at 5am on Monday mornings.
reliable yes. Instantly forgettable yes.
A classic? Except to enthusiasts: no..imo
madf
|
First time I have looked at the site since last night and......well blimey.
Thank you for letting us Sierra owners onto your forum and allowing the debate to take place.
From my point of view, I like the car but like ultra low mileage "forgotten" cars more. I have always bought older (10+ years) cars with max 2 owners, perfect condition and less than 20,000 miles and never gone wrong. An old SRi, Xr4x4 or Jaguar is still normally good to drive. Also it is really good fun (IMO) to seek out these old sleepers and have a car that if you saw on the road, you would normally expect to look rubbish. You constantly get accosted in petrol stations by people asking questions. Yes, even in the Sierra believe it or not.
The key to this is choosing a perfect example as sorting trim and bodywork costs and can be impossible to source. Also, how it is kept and the owner you are buying from are more important than newer cars. Best source of cars is the archytypal older person, car kept in garage, loads of bills and a full dealer history.
Where do you find cars like this? With the advent of the internet it is relatively easy. Use the Autotrader or Exchange and Mart search engines and only specify cars over 10 years, less than 20000 miles and less than £2000. Quite often 200 cars come up.
Finally be open minded re what you want, as if you are looking for say a particular car it will never turn up at the right time. You will find an as new car for little money and stand out from the crowd.
|
Fords always used to get stolen a lot - especially with the somewhat dodgy door locks.
Is that still an issue, especially for the better ones ?
|
The insurers still think so, as I had to fit a Cat 2 immobiliser for theft cover to be given.
Forgot to say re ultra low mileage cars, I always get a full service done when getting the car, belts changed if necessary etc and break the car in gently for the first 1000 miles or so.
Also, as you are only paying a couple of thou max for a car, this is the most you can possibly lose.
|
i had a 1.6 lx
it did 200,000 miles before we got rid of it
it used to go from hoylake manchester airport every day and then go back sometimes as well so it was doin 200 miles some days, it never broke down once.
|
Ok fess up time. I ran one from new in 85 till 88. It was a 1.6l with the slight facelift (the bigger lights as standard, and the little ears in the c post to stop the rear end wiggling around in a side wind)
Did 50k miles, the gearbox broke (because i developed a habit of resting my hand on the gear stick). Nicolle hated it because it smelt of fish glue and made her car sick. The radio was a pile of merde.
It was a really enjoyable three years of motoring, so memorable that until now I had forgotten I had one. The colour was ..errrr errrrr - dunno.
|
* I think the well respected member of the forum SJB was referring to the number and speed of replies rather than the speed of the Sierra
Exactly, thank you. (And I appreciate the compliment ;-)
I simply made what I thought was an amusing comment on how an old car, of which relatively few remain on the road, managed to rack up fifty posts in less than five hours. I thought this was obvious!
* SJB's car is anything but an old man's car - scout the forum and you will see just why
Also exactly, thank you, Adski! I await the apology from the author. Current Volvos are no more old men's cars as ?kodas are heaps of junk made behind the Iron Curtain. Either statement would be way out of date. I'm certainly not old, but being in the priviledged position to have a large sum of cash to spend on any car I chose, with no other constraints, did so on the one that best fitted my requirements. BTW Adksi, the BSR PPC software arrived today, though the missus has confiscated it until 25th. Spoil sport! :-(
Finally, as it happens between 1992 and 1994 I ran a 1989 Sierra GL 2.0 DOHC five speed, with huge steering wheel and no power steering, after purchasing it from my father's employer (BT) as a known history, low mileage, entity. I even did quite a few, often sideways, laps of the original Nurburgring, the Nordschleif, all 147 corners, in it and had a lot of fun in the process.
Plus points:
Cheap as chips to buy, run, and insure
Mechanically simple to maintain myself
Never broke down
Refined in the cruise
A nice, positive, gear change (though the throw was a little long)
Reasonably torquey
Minus points:
Poor front headroom with sunroof fitted
Poor outright acceleration for the size of engine and weight of car
Vague steering
Floaty suspension
Carp body quality, including jacking points that had badly rusted by four years of age (though the rust was hidden by the underseal), and which consequently dumped the car on the road with a bang during a spare wheel change. Thank God I wasn't underneath, though I than had real fun getting the car back up again. Doors rusted along the window sills before three years of age.
Out of context to the car's intended purpose, but for completeness, boy did the Nurburgring fade those brakes! Yikes!
|
BTW Adksi, the BSR PPC software arrived today, though the missus has confiscated it until 25th. Spoil sport! :-(<<<
It will make it all the more fun SJB - you know it does!
I wonder what you'll be doing on Christmas Day? ;-)
Incidently, how much did it all cost (if you don't mind me asking that is) and what power gains are we looking at?
Roll on Christmas!!!
--
Adam
|
Just a quick question to the sierra people out there.
What are the rarest Mk1's now. I just ask because from my dim and distant childhood i remember a Mk1 laser, and a Mk1 LX, as well as a 10.iS and a 2.0 GLSi (jelly mould shape all of them). None of which i have seen for at least the last 10 years.
Do you know a) the specs of these (sorry i have an affinity for sierra's) and B) do you know how many are known to the OC.
|
My guess is the launch Sierra 1.3 Base, 3 door(?). The one with the grey grill whatever the body colour.
|
After a stormy start this, this thread seems to have settled down well.
However, and this to the Sierra Guys, your own forum still holds negative comments about the problems here with no positive comments about the outcome. It might be fair to address that.
You are all welcome here, as I hope is now apparant. And hopefully, after the CBC breakdown is re-written, you'll also be comfortable with the comments in there as well.
If you have any other comments about the CBC breakdown, or any other information for that matter, then please drop me an e-mail - mailto:mark_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk - and I'll review the relevant bits.
Ahhh. Its like Christmas, everybody being nice.
Mark.
p.s. But could you please keep ssnjimb (James Stephenson) over at your place ? He was a bit of a pain here and we'd prefer not to have him back.
|
|
Only ever got to drive the 1.6, workmanlike enough car but slug slow. Incidently why did the 1.6 have a measly 75bhp whilst the same era Escort/Orion have a 90bhp 1.6??
|
seems like i've started something here doesn't it :)
anyway, here's my take on things:
there was a link on the interford site that said "telegraph slates sierras" or something along those lines, and being chairman and all that, i thought i'd see what all the fuss was about. what i found was shocking to say the least and i signed up so that i could post about the inaccuracies in that report.
now i thought i was making a fairly good point and invited others to join in, and then the thread disapeared.
a little narked by this i posted another one to find out what had happened
2 of the mods replied and emails sent until i got a reply from HJ himself, in which he made a few points clear.
rather than go into it in detail here i thik the problem was that, a, they have a proccess here where they email someone to voice an onion (which is not what happened this time) and b, the email was sent as i would say it.
obviuosly the written word isn't the same as the spoken version and even though the gist of my complaint was there, it's the lack of tone that makes it sound different to the way you would come across if you told someone face to face (ok a bit of rambling but you know what i mean)
the end result is that HJ has offered me the chance to write the thing the way i would like it to be posted and he would put it up, an offer that i have accepted (though at the moment i don't finish work till about 9 so i don't really have time)
the doors rust along the bottom because the drains get blocked up and along the top because no one cleans the window rubbers and they get mouldy and damp
the front track control arm bushes lasting 30k miles is a joke as i've seen the mot place fail a car on them, fit new ones, and it still failed, so the easiest way to do this would be to fit the polyurethane ones and not have to change them ever again (until i went compression strut and in situ adjustable tca's the set on my car were bought 9 years ago and they live on in my other sierra)
one more thing, the GT was a run out LX with different trim and the absence of rear discs (which all dohc sierra's got from the 90 spec onwards and is one to be avoided rather than sought after, a 92 spec GLS is what you want because it had abs and leccy mirrors and stuff the GT didn't or the ghia if you want a more floaty ride and a few more toys, AC, leccy roof etc)
if anyone wants to ask any more questions then ask here or at either of the forums linked further up the page
(the 2.0iS was the one before the GLS, same car but the 2.0iS was the square headlight and the GLS was the facelift name change, both ran lower suspension and 9.1 0-60's)
dojj
chairman fsoc
|
and before i forget, blame the spelling on the dyslexia :)
onion should read oipnion but seeing as i can never spell that right (same with docrot amongst others) everyone who reads my words automaticly knows what it means, but it's a heads up for you new people out there :)
|
Back to the original question...Good deal/bad deal?....I would say that only you can answer that. I'm sure that there are plenty who would say that you must be certifiable to spend so much on a Sierra. IMO it doesn't yet manage classic status, but for a car that becomes rarer each year & in showroom condition, then it's worth whatever an enthusiast is willing to pay. It's not like buying, say, a 406 - miss a sale today and 2 more come along tomorrow.
I had a 2000E until Nov last year. It was a great little car, served its purpose admirably & and was in excellent condition. I only sold it because I changed job and started commuting 900 miles a week - I would (almost) rather have given it away. Sold it for £500 but I don't think I could have replaced it for 3 times that figure.
As for being certifiable - I have an 83 GTV6 which has has cost me more than £7k to restore over the last couple of years....where's the sense in that!!
|
the doors rust along the bottom because the drains get blocked up and along the top because no one cleans the window rubbers and they get mouldy and damp
On mine, the top of both the rear doors rotted through but not next to the door rubbers. This was quite early in its life.
I got fed up digging compost out of the rear window strakes of my Sappire every time I washed it.
The plus point was that there were stacks of spares, literaly, in the breakers yard. I even had to replaced the steering wheel and seats ,fortunately they were cheap as chips.
The poor fuel consumption and no power steering is not missed.
|
i've had a huge 77 mpg out of my twincam (on the motorway and people will coroborate this) and it has to be said, it is easily the most economical engine in the range, as long as you keep it below 3k rpm
above that it drinks like any normal sierra
the V6's are terrible for fuel consumption though, my trip computer used to read 0 mpg whenever i floored mine but it was understandable when you realised i had 351bhp on tap but i never got over 20 mpg even when i drove it without the turbo conversion so i was never fussed
a mate of mine can empty his tank (60L) in 20 minutes with a bit of hard driving but equally i've had 600 miles out of a tank in the twinky
you have to balance the size od the engine with the size of car, which is hwy a big car with a weedy engine is going to be seriously underpowered and drink lots more fuel (who remembers the days of the 518 bmw?)
anyway, do you think i could get a certain rolling road day covered by a national newspaper? :)
|
I had a 2.3 Ghia from 1983 to 2001 which did 145000 miles of troublefree motoring.
I loved her and was always changing her oil (castrol of course) and washing her. I had her Endrusted when new, and her body was in quite good condition when I sold her to a friend for £50, which included half a tank of petrol and 4 months tax. He used her for 18 months before scrapping her, the swine.
She was a beauty in her day, but of course got old, now I love my Passat, but I will always remember my old 2.3.
|
SjB {P} I will say sorry for my remarks to your post cos I took your naught to fifty in five days as something else, but you still drive a old mans car HeHe, that and the first time I said it was a Joke cos thats what we call Volvo drivers in my neck of the woods. Hard to express that with not smiles.
|
SjB {P} I will say sorry for my remarks to your post cos I took your naught to fifty in five days as something else, but you still drive a old mans car HeHe, that and the first time I said it was a Joke cos thats what we call Volvo drivers in my neck of the woods. Hard to express that with not smiles.
:-) Thank you, Taps.
|
After a stormy start this, this thread seems to have settled down well. However, and this to the Sierra Guys, your own forum still holds negative comments about the problems here with no positive comments about the outcome. It might be fair to address that.
Mark.
Mark, the above you are correct and I have now Closed the thread on Interford with a final comment from me.
Going to take some getting used to the way the posts land in these threads hehe but your site is well worth visiting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
