RE: Ford Sierra 1.6 Laser | Spotted
Discussion
I used to buy and sell cars..these rusted on the inner wings really badly..thing is at the time people's attitudes were weird..if it was a lancia or Alfa with a little surface rust people would panic..they would view these with massive holes in inner wings and not be a bit put off just say we can weld that cheap..and buy them. Drove ok...for the time but forever losing wheel trims and of course the term Jelly Mould stuck.
dontlookdown said:
Callum43 said:
It was a challenge visually when new . Time has not been kind subsequently. Less said about the mechanicals the better . Makes you realise how right Vauxhall/ Opel got the Cavalier.
Yup. Had a summer job in the early 90s at Hertz. Rented lots of Sierras (mostly 1.8 and 2.0) and Mk2 Cavaliers. The Cavalier was just a much better car - better to drive, more agile, light positive controls, eager engines. The 1.6 Cav felt faster than the 1.8 Sierra and the 2.0 Cav was really quite quick by the standards of the time. Even the twin cam 2.0 Ford engines were wheezy, although better than the remarkably terrible CVH. The top spec Sierras (Ghia X?) had a fairly plush interior and a lot of kit for the time but that was their only advantage. People were also way way less "car literate" in the 80s as well. No youtube, no online reviews, no owners surveys, or recommendations.
From my memories as a kid, your dad (and it was usually dads) were either a Ford man, or a Vauxhall man, or a yuppie and liked BMWs. Nobody knew that it had ancient cortina based technology underneath. Car reviews were your dad's mate saying "she drives really well". Car magazines existed, but %of buyers who did any research vs. today was teeny tiny.
I read Autocar from about 9 years old (cheaper than the Beano - no word of a lie!) and knew Ford's were sh*t - took me ages to convince him to move away...but i got there in the end, via a Renault 21. That broke a lot mind - but dad's fault for listening to a 12 year old.
From my memories as a kid, your dad (and it was usually dads) were either a Ford man, or a Vauxhall man, or a yuppie and liked BMWs. Nobody knew that it had ancient cortina based technology underneath. Car reviews were your dad's mate saying "she drives really well". Car magazines existed, but %of buyers who did any research vs. today was teeny tiny.
I read Autocar from about 9 years old (cheaper than the Beano - no word of a lie!) and knew Ford's were sh*t - took me ages to convince him to move away...but i got there in the end, via a Renault 21. That broke a lot mind - but dad's fault for listening to a 12 year old.
J4CKO said:
The did a 1.3 for when a heady 74 bhp was too spicy for you and you felt that you could only manage 59 bhp, can only imagine what slug of a thing that would have been, in period, never mind now.
A mate of mine bought a 1.3 Capri and brought it round to "show it off".I was with a couple of mates at the time so we egged him on to do a full bore take off up a pretty steep hill.
It was so glacially slow that he'd clearly have been able to see the three of us in his rear view mirror doubled up in tears of laughter.
AC43 said:
J4CKO said:
The did a 1.3 for when a heady 74 bhp was too spicy for you and you felt that you could only manage 59 bhp, can only imagine what slug of a thing that would have been, in period, never mind now.
A mate of mine bought a 1.3 Capri and brought it round to "show it off".I was with a couple of mates at the time so we egged him on to do a full bore take off up a pretty steep hill.
It was so glacially slow that he'd clearly have been able to see the three of us in his rear view mirror doubled up in tears of laughter.
The Escort did feel a little bit more peppy than the 1982 Skoda Estelle 120 that I had before it though.
AC43 said:
J4CKO said:
The did a 1.3 for when a heady 74 bhp was too spicy for you and you felt that you could only manage 59 bhp, can only imagine what slug of a thing that would have been, in period, never mind now.
A mate of mine bought a 1.3 Capri and brought it round to "show it off".I was with a couple of mates at the time so we egged him on to do a full bore take off up a pretty steep hill.
It was so glacially slow that he'd clearly have been able to see the three of us in his rear view mirror doubled up in tears of laughter.
I had a Mk1 Golf GTI 1.6 GTI for a couple of years, sold it to go travelling in the US for the summer, my dad got me a lovely looking E reg, last of the line 16 Laser in Silver for my return, it lasted about a month as after the Golf, despite being five years newer it felt, old, slow and ponderous, god knows how bad a 1.3 was.
R50 BPS said:
I'm sick of Left Hand Drive cars commanding a premium over here, they're pretty much unusable. Yes there are plenty over here that manage just fine, but annoys me more when they're everyday cars we still have over here as RHD, it's an instant no from me when I look at an advert and get to the interior shot to see LHD.
Yes ,it's a lot of money but "LHD unusable" ?Seriously ?...LOL...
waynecyclist said:
Shocking to think how modern the Cavalier was in 1986 against this, Sierra's were dated when they were launched.
We had a 1986 Cavalier, I did not see it as that modern against the Sierra. The only difference being the Sierra was rear wheel drive. The Cavalier and other of this size car and larger going front wheel drive was only about cheapness, nothing more.The Cavalier was not that reliable and had a fair amount of problems.
R50 BPS said:
I'm sick of Left Hand Drive cars commanding a premium over here, they're pretty much unusable. Yes there are plenty over here that manage just fine, but annoys me more when they're everyday cars we still have over here as RHD, it's an instant no from me when I look at an advert and get to the interior shot to see LHD.
lol, maybe it may appeal to someone who lives here but drives on the continent a lot.dontlookdown said:
Callum43 said:
It was a challenge visually when new . Time has not been kind subsequently. Less said about the mechanicals the better . Makes you realise how right Vauxhall/ Opel got the Cavalier.
Yup. Had a summer job in the early 90s at Hertz. Rented lots of Sierras (mostly 1.8 and 2.0) and Mk2 Cavaliers. The Cavalier was just a much better car - better to drive, more agile, light positive controls, eager engines. The 1.6 Cav felt faster than the 1.8 Sierra and the 2.0 Cav was really quite quick by the standards of the time. Even the twin cam 2.0 Ford engines were wheezy, although better than the remarkably terrible CVH. The top spec Sierras (Ghia X?) had a fairly plush interior and a lot of kit for the time but that was their only advantage. I was never a fan of the Sierra styling until the later mk2 model. The Cavalier looked much better. The last in line Cavalier being the mk3 (Opel Vectra A) I was never a fan of, just did not like the styling, especially from the front.
cidered77 said:
People were also way way less "car literate" in the 80s as well. No youtube, no online reviews, no owners surveys, or recommendations.
From my memories as a kid, your dad (and it was usually dads) were either a Ford man, or a Vauxhall man, or a yuppie and liked BMWs. Nobody knew that it had ancient cortina based technology underneath. Car reviews were your dad's mate saying "she drives really well". Car magazines existed, but %of buyers who did any research vs. today was teeny tiny.
I read Autocar from about 9 years old (cheaper than the Beano - no word of a lie!) and knew Ford's were sh*t - took me ages to convince him to move away...but i got there in the end, via a Renault 21. That broke a lot mind - but dad's fault for listening to a 12 year old.
I disagree. There was car magazines and newspaper columns, this was the interaction. Also the local pub. Also TV adverts played a big role. People then as they do now tend to buy cars a lot by image. How do you think we ended up woth the SUV craze, German Whip craze etc.From my memories as a kid, your dad (and it was usually dads) were either a Ford man, or a Vauxhall man, or a yuppie and liked BMWs. Nobody knew that it had ancient cortina based technology underneath. Car reviews were your dad's mate saying "she drives really well". Car magazines existed, but %of buyers who did any research vs. today was teeny tiny.
I read Autocar from about 9 years old (cheaper than the Beano - no word of a lie!) and knew Ford's were sh*t - took me ages to convince him to move away...but i got there in the end, via a Renault 21. That broke a lot mind - but dad's fault for listening to a 12 year old.
The Renault 21 was a joke, makes me laugh for you to say Ford was s
t, but then go for a Renault 21. The Laguna could not come soon enough to replace it.People in the UK flocked to Vauxhall, Ford, Rover as it was also to do with image and price. Back in the 70s and 80s BMW, Mercedes and Audi were not common at all. It was down to price. Even VW that was german and priced around average cars did not sell that well in the UK. People were more patriotic in some ways then.
Funny old beast , the Sierra. On its launch it looked amazing but they soon became just part of the scenery . Aesthetically , the last Cortina iteration arguably now looks less dated than its successor , the blobby Sierra . The principal reaction in my circle to the Sierra was 'how could Ford be so backward looking as to launch a rear wheel drive car now ? ' Back then, it wasn't compulsory for nearly every manly car guy to bleat about understeer on fwd cars, because real men are masters of oversteer .
People were just as 'car literate' then as they are now . The medium may have changed but the messages are essentially the same. In any case , it was - and still is - only sad bds like me who are very interested in what makes car A better than car B .
People were just as 'car literate' then as they are now . The medium may have changed but the messages are essentially the same. In any case , it was - and still is - only sad b
ds like me who are very interested in what makes car A better than car B . Escort Si-130 said:
cidered77 said:
People were also way way less "car literate" in the 80s as well. No youtube, no online reviews, no owners surveys, or recommendations.
From my memories as a kid, your dad (and it was usually dads) were either a Ford man, or a Vauxhall man, or a yuppie and liked BMWs. Nobody knew that it had ancient cortina based technology underneath. Car reviews were your dad's mate saying "she drives really well". Car magazines existed, but %of buyers who did any research vs. today was teeny tiny.
I read Autocar from about 9 years old (cheaper than the Beano - no word of a lie!) and knew Ford's were sh*t - took me ages to convince him to move away...but i got there in the end, via a Renault 21. That broke a lot mind - but dad's fault for listening to a 12 year old.
I disagree. There was car magazines and newspaper columns, this was the interaction. Also the local pub. Also TV adverts played a big role. People then as they do now tend to buy cars a lot by image. How do you think we ended up woth the SUV craze, German Whip craze etc.From my memories as a kid, your dad (and it was usually dads) were either a Ford man, or a Vauxhall man, or a yuppie and liked BMWs. Nobody knew that it had ancient cortina based technology underneath. Car reviews were your dad's mate saying "she drives really well". Car magazines existed, but %of buyers who did any research vs. today was teeny tiny.
I read Autocar from about 9 years old (cheaper than the Beano - no word of a lie!) and knew Ford's were sh*t - took me ages to convince him to move away...but i got there in the end, via a Renault 21. That broke a lot mind - but dad's fault for listening to a 12 year old.
The Renault 21 was a joke, makes me laugh for you to say Ford was s
t, but then go for a Renault 21. The Laguna could not come soon enough to replace it.People in the UK flocked to Vauxhall, Ford, Rover as it was also to do with image and price. Back in the 70s and 80s BMW, Mercedes and Audi were not common at all. It was down to price. Even VW that was german and priced around average cars did not sell that well in the UK. People were more patriotic in some ways then.
And of course there was still automotive media, but much less of it, and consequently only consumed by enthusiasts. Whereas today, anyone has access to every kind of comparison and review in their pocket.
Agree conventional above the line marketing was a much bigger factor back then (why OEM investment in motorsport, relatively speaking, is much today lower than in the 80s), but that combined with much less comparative data to hand is my core point: car buyers were less knowledgeable about the actual cars back then. Hence the Sierra, which in this guise was objectively s**t, sold bucketloads.
The Sierra wasn't just a Cortina in drag. It had irs instead of a live axle. In the day the higher spec ones were much covetted. I had an 86 Cav at the time and was always proud that it's 1.6 had 90hp compared to the Ford's 75. That said the Cav was an unreliable heap that needed a new camshaft every 5 mins. I sold it and bought another Ford.
Escort Si-130 said:
Well by 1990 we would have had the mk3 Cavalier known as Vectra A (opel) and that would have been a million miles ahead of the Sierra mk2. I would more compare that model with the mk1 Mondeo.
I was never a fan of the Sierra styling until the later mk2 model. The Cavalier looked much better. The last in line Cavalier being the mk3 (Opel Vectra A) I was never a fan of, just did not like the styling, especially from the front.
You are right, my bad memory. Mark 3 Cavaliers. It was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. I was never a fan of the Sierra styling until the later mk2 model. The Cavalier looked much better. The last in line Cavalier being the mk3 (Opel Vectra A) I was never a fan of, just did not like the styling, especially from the front.
Fair point that they were a model generation apart but both were still on sale together for a year or two.
Besides, my Dad had an actual Mark 2 Cavalier in the mid 80s and that was still a better car than my mate's dad's Sierra. Even though I was still too young to drive either of them
BigChiefmuffinAgain said:
Really struggle to see why anyone would pay £4000 for this. Not sure why anyone would even pay £400.
Emperors new clothes....
Agreed, the price seems madness, Seems that as the higher model cars (e.g. Cosworth) go up in value, people are going to ask what seems a quite ludicrous price for old tat (just my opinion). Emperors new clothes....
I test drove a 4 year old 1.6L back in the early 90s - it was smooth enough (if driven gently) but the lack of oompah even at suburban speeds was very evident - can't imagine it would have been very restful on the motorway either with a 4 speed box. I opted instead for a Renault 21 - it could at least muster a heady 92hp from its 1.7 litre lump, which made it feel reasonably brisk (by the standards of the day!) - and contrary to the experiences of some others on here, it was extremely reliable.
A friend's dad had a 2.0 GLSi Sapphire which was a bit more like it - same ropey Pinto (it was pre-DOHC), but a bit more poke at least.
In short, cooking Sierras were, well, 'OK', but 1.3 million people in the UK clearly thought OK was good enough......
A friend's dad had a 2.0 GLSi Sapphire which was a bit more like it - same ropey Pinto (it was pre-DOHC), but a bit more poke at least.
In short, cooking Sierras were, well, 'OK', but 1.3 million people in the UK clearly thought OK was good enough......
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff