Talk:Ford Sierra

Untitled

The Sierra picture here has no source information, but is probably a Ford promotional image. If we're going to use it, someone should write a fair use rationale, but I don't see why we have to have a Ford picture up. Surely someone can go out and take a picture of a Sierra that can be GFDL'd and thus have no distribution issues. Anyone game? I'd do it, except for being on the wrong continent at this time ... —Morven 16:42, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Moved the copyright information an anon user placed on the image to its description page. We don't put credits in the image caption here, as a rule. Were you the original uploader? —Morven 21:18, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Sapphire

This looks like it should be in a banger race, hasn't anyone got a better pic? Gillean666 05:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• As I'm assuming you're talking about the red one with the missing hubcap, I suggest remove it, we need pictures of cars that are in resonable photogenic condition, which that Sierra isn't.

I'm quite glad to see it's still there as I'm afraid that image epitomises the Sierra for me! I recall the unfortunate owner of a brown "classic" model nicknamed it "The Turd" owing to its shape and colour.

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put another picture of a Sapphire with more wheel trims on Commons, but I'm reluctant to put another of 'my' Sierra snaps on the article page (1) out of modesty and (2) because I think the red Sapphire already there is at a more interesting angle, regardless of the number of visible wheel trims, and (3) I have sufficient experience of having driven (and of being a passenger in) these things to find myself in sympathy with the comment entered above by Chris. Charles01 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Rust!

It's surprising to see an article on the Ford Sierra without mentioning its most obvious weakness; rust. The rust problem certainly gave the car a dowdy image which was bound to inhibit sales. Mechanically they were rather behind the times compared to contemporaries such as the Vauxhall Cavalier with its front wheel drive and more responsive engine. But how to say these things in an impartial non Point Of View way? I leave this to someone more closely connected with the vehicles. Colin99 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cd factor

The style section mentions a "class leading Cd of 0.34". But Audi released their Audi 100 for the same (1983) model year with a Cd of 0.3, so this statement is not strictly true. 194.206.39.97 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In the UK and Germany the price differential and size differential was sufficient for the Audi 100 to be positioned against the larger Ford Granada. Although the Sierra was a smidgeon larger than the Audi 80 of that time, that is more a reflection of the fact that the Audi 80 was by then smaller than such obvious competitors as the VW Passat (which had recently grown). I do not think most people would have thought of the Sierra as inhabiting the same class as the Audi 100. One was a middle sized saloon, the other was a large saloon. Charles01 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

ISTR they had to make some subtle aerodynamic changes fairly early on as the original shape was, as Neil Kinnock discovered, rather iffy in a cross-wind. Anyone know the details? Mr Larrington (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures are presented rather haphazardly: what on earth is a 1993 Sapphire doing next to the text about the 1981 Probe III and the 1983 model??? The article should really should contain one good clear image of the 1983 model (preferably near the top of the page) so that people can appreciate the revolutionary design. 194.206.39.97 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

South America

In Venezuela the Sierra were all 2.8 and latter 3.0. The 1.6 and 2.3 mentioned in the article were never sold there.

Prices

Does anyone have a clue what the prices were for various Sierra models?

Engine info

1800cc Sierras.... They don't seem to have existed in either Pinto or CVH form according to this page!

Also there was never a 1.6 OHV available. It was an OHC Pinto in the early years and later a 1.6 CVH was sometimes used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.181.18 (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

Ford tried to sue Dutton Cars when the Ford Sierra came out as Dutton had a Kit car called the 'Sierra' and Ford tried to get ownership of the 'Sierra' name, unfortunately for Ford, Dutton had been using the name for some time before Ford. IIRC, Ford sued Dutton Cars and lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.48.22 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Merkur

I removed the untrue statement "XR4Ti outsold all the European XR variants combined"

According to the book "The Sporting Fords : Volume 4 Sierras" by Graham Robson, Sierra production figures are as follows :

Sierras XR4i : 25,662 XR4x4 : 39,554 Sierra Cosworth (3 door) : 5,542 Sierra RS500 : 500 Sapphire Cosworth (2wd)  : 13,140 Sapphire Cosworth (4wd)  : 12,250• TOTAL : 97,347

Merkur XR4Ti : 45,748

Non-Sierra XR Fords Fiesta XR2  : 20,000• Escort XR3  : 25,500• Escort XR3i  : 47,051• TOTAL : 92,551

• These figures were obtained by Internet searching of European XR and RS web sites. They do not include the Fiesta XR2i, the Fiesta RS1800, the Fiesta RS Turbo, the Escort RS1600i, or the Escort RS Cosworth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leesonic (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Second Facelift?

Was there not a second slight facelift which introduced the white indicators and blacked out rear lights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theofficeprankster (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Midsize vs Large Family car

The arguments against the Sierra being an American car as follows:

• The lede confirms that the vehicle was built by Ford Europe
• No manufacturing took place in America - there is a separate article for the Merkur, which only had a 4 year run, compared to the Sierra's 11 year production run.
• The rest of the article conforms to European wp:engvar - spellings include "colour" not "color" and "bumper" rather than "fender".
• There were almost 13 million Sierra's sold in Britain. The Sierra wasn't sold at all in America - There were 42,000 Merkur's sold in America.

I'm reasonably sure that's indicative of a European vehicle.

There were NOT almost 13 million Sierras sold in Britain. What on earth is your source for that? (And please spare us the apostrophe abuse - even if I do it myself all the time when I'm not thinking...) But yes, of course it was designed in Europe, designed for Europe, intially (and in greatest numbers) manufactured in Europe, and overwhelmingly sold in Europe. The Merkur was a shortlived Sierra derived niche vehicle that seems to have been promoted rather half heartedly and sold in North America in small numbers for a short period. But yes, it's unusual (European?) characteristics (quirks?) have left it with a devoted following of enthusiasts 25 years later.

On the size of the thing, if your typical family car was a Fiat 124 or a Toyota Corolla, you would think the Sierra large. Too large for city traffic in Rome or Tokyo given that there was no way of spotting where the car ended at the front or the back while you were positioned in the driving seat.

Further north in western Europe, where the taxis were Mercedes 200s or upwards (unless the taxi driver was poor in which case he used an Opel Rekord), the Sierra was no longer large, and maybe in Sweden and Norway where there is more space and a standard sized car was a Volvo 240 it could have be described as small. It was certainly more cramped in the back than the contemporary Passat.

Given that we all approach the issue of car size differently, according to where we were when we were growing up and absorbing our preconceptions and most cherished prejudices, it's probably not useful to refer to the size of the Sierra in the intro para. It was ... a family car. If you are nevertheless sufficiently (car-)class obsessed to want to give it a size category in the info box, you'll need to have one category for USA readers and another for the rest of the world - which here would in effect mean Europe. Because there are wiki-readers in more than one continent. That's good, by the way. However, in describing the size of the car it's probably more relevant to identify its obvious competitors and, at least in those countries where there is an awareness of such things, spell out its tax bracket (eg 2CV, 12CV etc) than spend time agonising (that's agonizing) over whether "large" or "small" is the better adjective. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree - when determining the class of car, you need to consider the market it was sold in, not it's physical dimensions. Therefore, at the time of the Ford Sierra, the Granada would be full-size (along with Opel Rekord and Mercedes W123), the Escort would be compact and the Fiesta would be subcompact. The Sierra was midsize. However, some cars did compete in two categories, such as Volvo 240/260. Wikiwayman (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right - 1.3 million, not 13 million. Not only apostrophe abuse, but missing decimal point abuse as well - a typo on my part. To summarise (ize?) your other point we should absolutely not have one size for American readers, and one for European readers. That's crazy talk. We should have one size definition for the market in which the car was intended - in this case the European market. We also link the term so that those who are confunded by it can look it up and be enriched. Both WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES exist for this very purpose. Also, let's not forget WP:RETAIN - where essentially if nobody can agree, we keep the previous wording. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor has twice changed the size of the Sierra to "small family car" - with no edit summary it's hard to tell the reasoning behind such a change, but I invite them here to this discussion over the vehicle sizing. The Sierra is/was not a compact car. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is back again, despite the slightly different address it's obviously the same person. Any more changes without discussion will most likely result in a trip to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. At the very least use edit summaries to justify changes, but please comment here as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I note that the IP editor is back again, changing size classifications. The article has since been protected, and I'm not sure if that means that an IP can edit the talk page or not. If so - please comment here upon your justification in changing the size to "small". If you cannot edit here, I would welcome you on my own talk page, where you can also comment, and I will transpose them to this talk page if needed. Or we can talk on your own talk page - you have at least 4 of them available to you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again - as soon as the protection ended the IP editor has changed the size class with no rationale either in edit summary, or on this talk page. It's no longer practical or reasonable to assume good faith in such circumstances. For reference, the user also changed the size on the Opel Corsa in simlar manner - no discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder - am I the only person who is aware of the talk page on this article? A lack of use by other editors does not strengthen arguments. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I invite the Argentinian IP editor to discuss their changes, instead of simply making them. C'mon - be collaborative! Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, Chaheel Riens, I believe you are right about this. So you're not alone. It's just that I already wrote what I thought in this issue, and short of doing a quick copy 'n paste job down the page .... I don't have anything to add. Since the chap who keeps changing the thing doesn't tell us what's in his mind it's hard to know whether he's well intentioned but (in our opinion) mistaken or the other thing. I think there is a wiki mantra somewhere that says one should "assume good faith" but ..... is that until Hell freezes over, or simply some place between here and there.

Meantime, people sometimes organize votes on talk pages, and doing so here might give an interesting result on what activist readers more generally think (on balance...), but it's also a lot of pfaffing for something which .... well, it's not the most important or interesting thing about the Ford Sierra. If you grew up in Rome in the 1960s anything larger than a Fiat 600 looks large. If New York anything smaller than a Chevrolet Impala looks small. And if .... no, I'm not going anywhere useful with this. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult when there is no input form the other party, which is why I keep asking for it. It's made even harder to ascertain intentions when they also made this edit to the Opel Corsa page - which they also considered to be a small car. Now I accept that as you say it's potentially a subjective observation, but no way can you put those two cars next to each other and say they're both in the same size class... Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Should be Pinto instead of Cologne?

Under Sierras outside Europe, under South Africa, the second-last paragraph refers to a Cologne. I think this should be Pinto instead of Cologne. The Pinto 2 liter was used in the Sierras and Sapphires, and is an inline-4. The Cologne is a V6. The kW figures also match those of the Pinto 2 liter engine. Hilton Williams (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please - especially if you can find a source - correct it. Success. Charles01 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Sierra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100902103657/http://media.ford.com/plant_display.cfm?plant_id=134 to http://media.ford.com/plant_display.cfm?plant_id=134
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://media.ford.com/article_print.cfm?article_id=9725
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/motors/advice/tm_headline%3Drecession-proof-wise-buys-revealed%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D23171460%26siteid%3D63127-name_page.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)