Ford Sierra 1990 vs Toyota Carina E 1992
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 73 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 132 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 16.4 seconds | |
| Ford Sierra engine produces 2 HP more power than Toyota Carina E, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Toyota Carina E. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Carina E is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Sierra consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Carina E, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Sierra could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Sierra consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Carina E. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Carina E gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Toyota Carina E) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Ford Sierra) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Toyota Carina E engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Toyota Corolla | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Carina E might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Ford Sierra is smaller. Ford Sierra is 11 cm shorter than the Toyota Carina E, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 470 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Sierra is 0.2 metres less than that of the Toyota Carina E. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`150 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Toyota Carina E has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Sierra has serious deffects in 120 percent more cases than Toyota Carina E, so Toyota Carina E quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 400 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Sierra has
|
Toyota Carina E has
| |