Seat Toledo 1991 vs Ford Sierra 1990
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 140 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.9 seconds | 16.4 seconds | |
| Seat Toledo and Ford Sierra have the same engine power, but Seat Toledo torque is 12 NM less than Ford Sierra. Seat Toledo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Seat Toledo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Seat Toledo consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Sierra, which means that by driving the Seat Toledo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Seat Toledo consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Sierra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Seat Toledo) 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: | 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 Seat Toledo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Volkswagen Vento, Seat Ibiza | 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. Seat Toledo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Seat Toledo 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: | 4.32 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Seat Toledo is smaller, but slightly higher. Seat Toledo is 10 cm shorter than the Ford Sierra, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Seat Toledo is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Toledo is 0.5 metres more than that of the Ford Sierra, which means Seat Toledo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 1`150 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Ford Sierra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Toledo has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Ford Sierra, so Ford Sierra quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 400 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Toledo has
|
Ford Sierra has
| |