RE: Ford Capri 280 Brooklands Turbo Technics | Spotted
Monday 7th September
Ford Capri 280 Brooklands Turbo Technics | Spotted
Get on your best tracksuit and dig out your favourite cassette - there's an icon in our midst
Everybody knows the Ford Capri. Lots of people love the Ford Capri. Which is why it was the ideal name for Ford to resurrect, because it didn’t need any marketing or explanation. The new Capri could hardly have been more different to the old Capri, but that didn’t matter - the name would stick. And in a packed EV SUV sector, recognisability is important.
Though it’s still hard to imagine now, there was a long time where the original Capri was simply too common to be considered much of a classic. They were everywhere, and not deemed worth saving, because there’d always be another one. Until there wasn’t. What were banger racers and £200 scrap and Sheds of the Week were gone, almost overnight.
40 years after the last Capris were made, there remains plenty of love for all of them, but some stand out above the rest. The 280 ‘Brooklands’ is certainly one, the lavishly equipped last of the line special made as young enthusiasts moved from coupes to hot hatches. What Ford could hardly give away in the 80s is the collectors special now.
But this isn’t any old Capri 280 (Brooklands is an unofficial name that stuck), because it’s a Turbo Technics Capri 280. Perhaps the most 80s thing on wheels since a roller disco, and maybe even more exciting as well: power was up to 200hp from 160hp or so. And Capri brakes were never great to start with…
Undoubtedly it’s going to draw a crowd. Driving the final 280 close to Ford’s heritage HQ was like driving an F40 in Maranello (probably), kids pointing and old men wanting to chat. And that’s before seeing under the bonnet.
This one was recently restored as well, refurbished from top to bottom by a marque specialist so it really should be as good as new. What couldn’t be repaired was replaced, the underside is said to be immaculate, and you’ve never seen better shiny interior plastics. Even after seeing dozens of Capris in the classifieds, this one appears a real gem. It was actually a recent competition prize, but the winner opted for the cash instead, so now it’s up for sale. And in the slightly mad world of classic fast Fords in the mid-2020s, £35k doesn’t seem daft. Best get planning a 40th anniversary road trip…
SPECIFICATION | FORD CAPRI 280 BROOKLANDS TURBO TECHNICS
Engine: 2,792cc, turbo V6
Transmission: 5-speed manual, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 160@5,700rpm (standard)
Torque (lb ft): 162@5,700rpm (standard)
MPG: N/A
CO2: It was 1986…
Year registered: 1987
Recorded mileage: 36,000
Price new: £11,999 (standard)
Yours for: £35,999
Discussion
It’s 1986. I’m a young lad with a driving licence, held for six months. My weekend and school holiday job is valeting cars at a used car dealership in a small North Wales town.
One Sunday afternoon I’m manning the site solo – nothing unusual there. It’s teeming with rain, so not many customers out and about. I’m bored.
I decide now would be a good time to drive the Capri 2.8i with a Turbo Technics conversion that we’d just taken in and which sits next in line to be valeted.
Fuel – check. Tax disc – check. I lock the door to the sales office and I’m all set.
First problem is exiting the forecourt. The camber of the road is quite steep, and I’m spinning the rear wheels just trying to get moving. With alarming suddenness I’m at the first junction on my test route. I slow to allow another car to clear, then give it some beans. The resultant fishtail would have made a thresher shark envious, but I somehow manage to get it pointing in the right direction.
This exercise is repeated at each subsequent junction – miraculously I manage not to bin it and return to base unharmed, if a little pale and shaky. The boss has decided to pay a visit.
“Where have you been?”
“The battery was flat, so I took it for a spin to charge it up”.
“OK, anyone been in?”
“Nope”.
“Ah well, take the rest of the day off, and you can use the Capri until next weekend”.
I never owned a Capri in period, but find myself strangely drawn to them these days.
One Sunday afternoon I’m manning the site solo – nothing unusual there. It’s teeming with rain, so not many customers out and about. I’m bored.
I decide now would be a good time to drive the Capri 2.8i with a Turbo Technics conversion that we’d just taken in and which sits next in line to be valeted.
Fuel – check. Tax disc – check. I lock the door to the sales office and I’m all set.
First problem is exiting the forecourt. The camber of the road is quite steep, and I’m spinning the rear wheels just trying to get moving. With alarming suddenness I’m at the first junction on my test route. I slow to allow another car to clear, then give it some beans. The resultant fishtail would have made a thresher shark envious, but I somehow manage to get it pointing in the right direction.
This exercise is repeated at each subsequent junction – miraculously I manage not to bin it and return to base unharmed, if a little pale and shaky. The boss has decided to pay a visit.
“Where have you been?”
“The battery was flat, so I took it for a spin to charge it up”.
“OK, anyone been in?”
“Nope”.
“Ah well, take the rest of the day off, and you can use the Capri until next weekend”.
I never owned a Capri in period, but find myself strangely drawn to them these days.
Turbobanana said:
It s 1986. I m a young lad with a driving licence, held for six months. My weekend and school holiday job is valeting cars at a used car dealership in a small North Wales town.
One Sunday afternoon I m manning the site solo nothing unusual there. It s teeming with rain, so not many customers out and about. I m bored....
That made me laugh - I did something similar with V6 ClioOne Sunday afternoon I m manning the site solo nothing unusual there. It s teeming with rain, so not many customers out and about. I m bored....
Can someone explain like I'm 5, how we got from a 2.7l turbo @160bhp, to, say, a 1.6 turbo with 270bhp? As in, the main factors? that seems like a lot of weight for very little power comparatively, to say, any other hot hatch with a small engine?
I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
TimmyMallett said:
Can someone explain like I'm 5, how we got from a 2.7l turbo @160bhp, to, say, a 1.6 turbo with 270bhp? As in, the main factors? that seems like a lot of weight for very little power comparatively, to say, any other hot hatch with a small engine?
Materials, ECU technology, monitoring, tolerances, turbo developments and the base engines being designed for turbocharging, not a wheezy old Cologne V6 from the seventies (basic design actually from the fifties) with a turbo added. This car is 40 years old and is the last they made.
They (the normal one) were regarded as a bit of a beast at the time, and folk would nowadays dismiss that much power as paltry, but, they arent very heavy, have no electronics, rear wheel drive and have a live rear axle, plenty to get yourself into armfuls of trouble, I used to manage plenty of that in a 1600.
This will have felt plenty fast, 247 lb ft at 3800 rpm, the normal one was quite grunty back then by most standards, with like 80 lb/ft less at 4200, had a ride in a friends Tickford, not quite the same implementation of the turbo side but similar end result and that felt pretty rapid, might have been down to doing 100 mph through Trafford Park that added to the effect....It really didnt like hitting the old railway tracks on the road.
J4CKO said:
Materials, ECU technology, monitoring, tolerances, turbo developments and the base engines being designed for turbocharging, not a wheezy old Cologne V6 from the seventies (basic design actually from the fifties) with a turbo added.
This car is 40 years old and is the last they made.
They (the normal one) were regarded as a bit of a beast at the time, and folk would nowadays dismiss that much power as paltry, but, they arent very heavy, have no electronics, rear wheel drive and have a live rear axle, plenty to get yourself into armfuls of trouble, I used to manage plenty of that in a 1600.
This will have felt plenty fast, 247 lb ft at 3800 rpm, the normal one was quite grunty back then by most standards, with like 80 lb/ft less at 4200, had a ride in a friends Tickford, not quite the same implementation of the turbo side but similar end result and that felt pretty rapid, might have been down to doing 100 mph through Trafford Park that added to the effect....It really didnt like hitting the old railway tracks on the road.
This car is 40 years old and is the last they made.
They (the normal one) were regarded as a bit of a beast at the time, and folk would nowadays dismiss that much power as paltry, but, they arent very heavy, have no electronics, rear wheel drive and have a live rear axle, plenty to get yourself into armfuls of trouble, I used to manage plenty of that in a 1600.
This will have felt plenty fast, 247 lb ft at 3800 rpm, the normal one was quite grunty back then by most standards, with like 80 lb/ft less at 4200, had a ride in a friends Tickford, not quite the same implementation of the turbo side but similar end result and that felt pretty rapid, might have been down to doing 100 mph through Trafford Park that added to the effect....It really didnt like hitting the old railway tracks on the road.
ISTR a TT Escort RS local to me that was 'legendary' insomuch as we all lived in a fairly average market town, and buying an RS was expensive enough but taking it to TT was seen as eye wateringly expensive. 'Local boy done good' scenario, in the sense that in those days credit was not available to every man and his dog.
Edited by TimmyMallett on Monday 7th September 11:28
wolfie28 said:
Dare I say not a bad price considering the price of RS cars. Was always on the Opel/Vauxhall Manta side of the fence but I do like this Capri.
Always seemed a shame that they never did a mainstream fast manta, 110 BHP was your lot in a GTE and it was a bit of an old lump that got given fuel injection, was a fair bit down on a 2.8i Capri, the 130 bhp 2.0 for the Cavalier SRi 130 would have been a good upgrade but apparently, the the same Family 2 1.8 fitted it would have been too much additional work to make the 130 version fit. Shame really, the 1.8 was a better drive though down a bit on power, could feel that Iron block CIH in the front vs the smaller, lighter 1.8 family 2 engine, 45 kilos difference !"Capri brakes were never great to start with" you say that, but in my youth I bought a Mk2 Escort 1300 that someone had fitted Capri 2.8i front brakes to.
They were superb compared to the normal Mk2 Escort brakes. It was clearly intended as a project car, probably to receive a tuned up 2.0 Pinto swap which would have been the most obvious at the time.
So, a fairly clean if not perfect Mk2 two door shell. Bright red. Uprated suspension and brakes. But a weedy 57bhp 1300 to get you around in the meantime until you find a 2.0 from a Capri or Cortina to bung in, fit a hot cam and strap twin 45s to. I sold it for about £500. I shouldn't imagine they go for much more now.
They were superb compared to the normal Mk2 Escort brakes. It was clearly intended as a project car, probably to receive a tuned up 2.0 Pinto swap which would have been the most obvious at the time.
So, a fairly clean if not perfect Mk2 two door shell. Bright red. Uprated suspension and brakes. But a weedy 57bhp 1300 to get you around in the meantime until you find a 2.0 from a Capri or Cortina to bung in, fit a hot cam and strap twin 45s to. I sold it for about £500. I shouldn't imagine they go for much more now.
TimmyMallett said:
J4CKO said:
Materials, ECU technology, monitoring, tolerances, turbo developments and the base engines being designed for turbocharging, not a wheezy old Cologne V6 from the seventies (basic design actually from the fifties) with a turbo added.
This car is 40 years old and is the last they made.
They (the normal one) were regarded as a bit of a beast at the time, and folk would nowadays dismiss that much power as paltry, but, they arent very heavy, have no electronics, rear wheel drive and have a live rear axle, plenty to get yourself into armfuls of trouble, I used to manage plenty of that in a 1600.
This will have felt plenty fast, 247 lb ft at 3800 rpm, the normal one was quite grunty back then by most standards, with like 80 lb/ft less at 4200, had a ride in a friends Tickford, not quite the same implementation of the turbo side but similar end result and that felt pretty rapid, might have been down to doing 100 mph through Trafford Park that added to the effect....It really didnt like hitting the old railway tracks on the road.
This car is 40 years old and is the last they made.
They (the normal one) were regarded as a bit of a beast at the time, and folk would nowadays dismiss that much power as paltry, but, they arent very heavy, have no electronics, rear wheel drive and have a live rear axle, plenty to get yourself into armfuls of trouble, I used to manage plenty of that in a 1600.
This will have felt plenty fast, 247 lb ft at 3800 rpm, the normal one was quite grunty back then by most standards, with like 80 lb/ft less at 4200, had a ride in a friends Tickford, not quite the same implementation of the turbo side but similar end result and that felt pretty rapid, might have been down to doing 100 mph through Trafford Park that added to the effect....It really didnt like hitting the old railway tracks on the road.
ISTR a TT Escort RS local to me that was 'legendary' insomuch as we all lived in a fairly average market town, and buying an RS was expensive enough but taking it to TT was seen as eye wateringly expensive. 'Local boy done good' scenario, in the sense that in those days credit was not available to every man and his dog.
Edited by TimmyMallett on Monday 7th September 11:28
I may be wrong but I seem to recall that low boost produced 115bhp and high boost was over 130bhp
It seemed scarily fast at the time, the only issue I had was with the carburettor, which they never managed to sort, and the car was eventually bought back by the RS dealership I bought it from
My only other TT ownership was a black Sierra XR4x4 which I bought on a scarily dark and dangerous night from a scarily dark and dangerous lady
I can’t remember if it was a single or twin turbo, it was the highest output they produced anyway (250bhp?)
It delivered its power very differently to my 3dr Cosworth, more secure because of its 4 wheel drive and a lot more torque.
Anyway, ramblings over, didn’t a company use to make and fit an ‘X-brace’ (if that’s what it was called) which helped with rigidity and locating the live rear axle?
I seem to recall that owners said it made a huge difference.
And finally, I saw a Capri 2.8i parked up in my mum’s village a couple of months ago, and it looked absolutely tiny!
The TT 200bhp F9 conversion used the stock 9.2:1 compression ratio, so only ran 0.37-0.41 bar of boost, hence the modest power gains. The F16 230bhp conversion had lower compression (8.9:1) by using skimmed pistons, raising boost to 0.55-0.6 bar. By contrast, a modern turbo car will typically run 1.0 bar of boost with a compression ratio of about 10:1.
I'm no engineer, but engine management systems were relatively crude back then, so boost pressures had to be modest in order to avoid the risk of engine damage from pre ignition and detonation.
By the late 80s and early 90s, ECUs had become sophisticated and reliable enough for high performance turbocharged engines to be offered by OEMs and the mass market turbo era was born.
Edit: just spotted the 'wand' of a gearlever, nothing dates the car as much as that. Nice to see again in 2026, but not for me.
I'm no engineer, but engine management systems were relatively crude back then, so boost pressures had to be modest in order to avoid the risk of engine damage from pre ignition and detonation.
By the late 80s and early 90s, ECUs had become sophisticated and reliable enough for high performance turbocharged engines to be offered by OEMs and the mass market turbo era was born.
Edit: just spotted the 'wand' of a gearlever, nothing dates the car as much as that. Nice to see again in 2026, but not for me.
Edited by mjspencer348 on Monday 7th September 13:39
TimmyMallett said:
Can someone explain like I'm 5, how we got from a 2.7l turbo @160bhp, to, say, a 1.6 turbo with 270bhp? As in, the main factors? that seems like a lot of weight for very little power comparatively, to say, any other hot hatch with a small engine?
I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
The 160hp quoted is for the non turbo standard model. It had 200hp witht the turbo added which was good for the day but not cutting edge. But the Capri was at the end of it's life at this point so everything about it was a bit dated. I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
Turbo technology was pretty basic too with lots of lag and the bigger the turbo the worse the lag got so i think that limited what power increases you could achieve.
My dad was driving us about in an MG Montego Turbo in this era, and that had 150hp from 2.0 litres. It was faster than anything I'd been in before and the turbo surge was addictive but it was a little laggy. 150hp was at the top end of what fast family cars were offering at that time.
For comparison a 528i which had a relatively advanced fuel injected 2.8 was only making 184hp, so the standard Capri 280 with its dated mechanicals and 160hp isn't that bad.
TimmyMallett said:
Can someone explain like I'm 5, how we got from a 2.7l turbo @160bhp, to, say, a 1.6 turbo with 270bhp? As in, the main factors? that seems like a lot of weight for very little power comparatively, to say, any other hot hatch with a small engine?I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
Easy in 2 words: Government regulationThe Driving God said:
TimmyMallett said:
Can someone explain like I'm 5, how we got from a 2.7l turbo @160bhp, to, say, a 1.6 turbo with 270bhp? As in, the main factors? that seems like a lot of weight for very little power comparatively, to say, any other hot hatch with a small engine?
I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
Easy in 2 words: I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
Government regulation
Did my explanation not cover the real reasons ?
Gez79 said:
TimmyMallett said:
Can someone explain like I'm 5, how we got from a 2.7l turbo @160bhp, to, say, a 1.6 turbo with 270bhp? As in, the main factors? that seems like a lot of weight for very little power comparatively, to say, any other hot hatch with a small engine?
I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
The 160hp quoted is for the non turbo standard model. It had 200hp witht the turbo added which was good for the day but not cutting edge. But the Capri was at the end of it's life at this point so everything about it was a bit dated. I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
Turbo technology was pretty basic too with lots of lag and the bigger the turbo the worse the lag got so i think that limited what power increases you could achieve.
My dad was driving us about in an MG Montego Turbo in this era, and that had 150hp from 2.0 litres. It was faster than anything I'd been in before and the turbo surge was addictive but it was a little laggy. 150hp was at the top end of what fast family cars were offering at that time.
For comparison a 528i which had a relatively advanced fuel injected 2.8 was only making 184hp, so the standard Capri 280 with its dated mechanicals and 160hp isn't that bad.
TimmyMallett said:
Can someone explain like I'm 5, how we got from a 2.7l turbo @160bhp, to, say, a 1.6 turbo with 270bhp? As in, the main factors? that seems like a lot of weight for very little power comparatively, to say, any other hot hatch with a small engine?
I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
They could do it and companies were selling cars with 500hp from Ford 2.0 engines and 1000hp from small block chevy engines back in the 80s. Whether they would hold up is another matter. More advanced ignition (you could only get so much timing from a distributor), fueling and better machining make it more feasible to make that power from the factory.I recall even having a 1600 Laser as a courtesy car (in replacement for my 1000 mini) and it felt like a rocketship...
All of these cars are light by todays standards where a Mercedes Benz C class weighs as much as an 80's 560SEL.
Turbobanana said:
It s 1986. I m a young lad with a driving licence, held for six months. My weekend and school holiday job is valeting cars at a used car dealership in a small North Wales town.
One Sunday afternoon I m manning the site solo nothing unusual there. It s teeming with rain, so not many customers out and about. I m bored.
I decide now would be a good time to drive the Capri 2.8i with a Turbo Technics conversion that we d just taken in and which sits next in line to be valeted.
Fuel check. Tax disc check. I lock the door to the sales office and I m all set.
First problem is exiting the forecourt. The camber of the road is quite steep, and I m spinning the rear wheels just trying to get moving. With alarming suddenness I m at the first junction on my test route. I slow to allow another car to clear, then give it some beans. The resultant fishtail would have made a thresher shark envious, but I somehow manage to get it pointing in the right direction.
This exercise is repeated at each subsequent junction miraculously I manage not to bin it and return to base unharmed, if a little pale and shaky. The boss has decided to pay a visit.
Where have you been?
The battery was flat, so I took it for a spin to charge it up .
OK, anyone been in?
Nope .
Ah well, take the rest of the day off, and you can use the Capri until next weekend .
I never owned a Capri in period, but find myself strangely drawn to them these days.
Haha love it, what a story !One Sunday afternoon I m manning the site solo nothing unusual there. It s teeming with rain, so not many customers out and about. I m bored.
I decide now would be a good time to drive the Capri 2.8i with a Turbo Technics conversion that we d just taken in and which sits next in line to be valeted.
Fuel check. Tax disc check. I lock the door to the sales office and I m all set.
First problem is exiting the forecourt. The camber of the road is quite steep, and I m spinning the rear wheels just trying to get moving. With alarming suddenness I m at the first junction on my test route. I slow to allow another car to clear, then give it some beans. The resultant fishtail would have made a thresher shark envious, but I somehow manage to get it pointing in the right direction.
This exercise is repeated at each subsequent junction miraculously I manage not to bin it and return to base unharmed, if a little pale and shaky. The boss has decided to pay a visit.
Where have you been?
The battery was flat, so I took it for a spin to charge it up .
OK, anyone been in?
Nope .
Ah well, take the rest of the day off, and you can use the Capri until next weekend .
I never owned a Capri in period, but find myself strangely drawn to them these days.
I did something similar ( but briefly ) with a Traders Yellow 911 2.4E that I was valeting way back in 82 !
J4CKO said:
Always seemed a shame that they never did a mainstream fast manta, 110 BHP was your lot in a GTE and it was a bit of an old lump that got given fuel injection, was a fair bit down on a 2.8i Capri, the 130 bhp 2.0 for the Cavalier SRi 130 would have been a good upgrade but apparently, the the same Family 2 1.8 fitted it would have been too much additional work to make the 130 version fit. Shame really, the 1.8 was a better drive though down a bit on power, could feel that Iron block CIH in the front vs the smaller, lighter 1.8 family 2 engine, 45 kilos difference !
Ralph Broad / Broadspeed built circa 3 Manta MK1 Turbos, one of which was an auto would you believe, a good pal bought it in the early 80s. Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff