Ford Sierra 1990 vs Volvo 850 1993
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 226 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo 850 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Sierra engine produces 151 HP less power than Volvo 850, whereas torque is 148 NM less than Volvo 850. Due to the lower power, Ford Sierra reaches 100 km/h speed 8.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Sierra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Sierra consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850, which means that by driving the Ford Sierra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 450 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Sierra consumes 3.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 73 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km with real consumption | 730 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 (Volvo 850) 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 | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 3 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 Volvo 850 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: | 4.51 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Ford Sierra is smaller. Ford Sierra is 20 cm shorter than the Volvo 850, 4 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Sierra is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volvo 850. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`150 | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Volvo 850 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Sierra has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volvo 850, so Volvo 850 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Sierra has
|
Volvo 850 has
| |