Ford Sierra 1990 vs SAAB 9000 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 294 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
SAAB 9000 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Sierra engine produces 125 HP less power than SAAB 9000, whereas torque is 142 NM less than SAAB 9000. Due to the lower power, Ford Sierra reaches 100 km/h speed 7.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 11.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 11.4 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Sierra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Sierra consumes 5.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the SAAB 9000, which means that by driving the Ford Sierra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 795 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Sierra consumes 4.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the SAAB 9000. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 66 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 560 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Sierra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (SAAB 9000) 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 | 420'000 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 SAAB 9000 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 4 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The SAAB 9000 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.76 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Ford Sierra is smaller. Ford Sierra is 34 cm shorter than the SAAB 9000, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Sierra is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Sierra is 0.9 metres less than that of the SAAB 9000, which means Ford Sierra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`150 | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 400 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Sierra has
|
SAAB 9000 has
| |