7th Dec 2007, 13:01
Are you sure about that fuel consumption?
I had a Sierra 2.3 diesel some years ago and never got more than about 34 to the gallon, marginally better than the petrol version.
They were also very poor for bodywork protection. Most Sierras showed significant rust underneath after 3 years on the road.
5th Jan 2008, 16:31
I am positive; I cover about 200 miles a week in it on the motorway and have calculated it as doing 45 mpg. It will do more if you can be bothered to sit it at 60mph.
I wouldn't drive it if it could only achieve 34 mpg-its really sluggish, I had a 1.6 petrol sierra that was at least that economical. regular servicing, clean injectors and having the pump timing correctly set up etc all make a difference.
18th May 2009, 13:51
Regarding fuel economy, early ones came with a 4 speed box which would make it worse on fuel, I think the engine stayed the same throughout production. I used to drive these things when they were current as minicabs. I used to be amazed that doing a night's taxi work they would only used a third of a tank. It's correct that you need to drive everywhere at full throttle though, they really are sluggish. One of our fleet had a 2.5 version of the same engine from a Granada and it made a hell of a difference - much more torque.
26th Sep 2009, 17:05
I think you will struggle to find one for the 2.3, as I am sure you are aware the Sierra 2.3s are now thin on the ground. This engine was also fitted to Peugeot 504/505s (and mk2 Granadas in 2.1 and 2.5 form) but all of these are now very rare. I think your best bet would be to get a pump from a pre-97 LDV 400/convoy. I am not sure if it's exactly the same pump, but it should still fit.
2nd Nov 2007, 08:03
I agree mate, nothin wrong with Sierras. Only children care about "image".