Audi 80 1992 vs Ford Sierra 1990
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 202 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 16.4 seconds | |
|
Audi 80 is more dynamic to drive. Audi 80 engine produces 15 HP more power than Ford Sierra, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Ford Sierra. Thanks to more power Audi 80 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.7 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Audi 80 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi 80 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Sierra, which means that by driving the Audi 80 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi 80 consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Sierra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1200 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 1150 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi 80 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 630'000 km | 300'000 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 Audi 80 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A6, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento, Seat Alhambra | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Audi 80 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Audi 80 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. | |||
| Audi 80 1992 1.9 engine: This engine stands out for its durability and generally remains trouble-free until it has been used extensively over many years. Despite its robust construction, the wear and tear from prolonged use, ... More about Audi 80 1992 1.9 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Audi 80 is 3 cm shorter than the Ford Sierra, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Audi 80 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1200 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi 80 is 1.2 metres more than that of the Ford Sierra, which means Audi 80 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`860 | 1`150 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Audi 80 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Sierra has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Audi 80, so Audi 80 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi 80 has
|
Ford Sierra has
| |