1987 Ford Sierra RS 500 Cosworth from UK and Ireland - Comments

Just thought I'd point out that what you found is wrong, the Escort Cossie has a 0-60 of 5.7, and the 0-100 is 15.7. However you are right about the top speed, 137 MPH.

Depending where you get your figures, either one of you is right. I would imagine the Escort was quicker off the line due to 4WD, but the Teg would pull away after initial traction was done with due to the Cossie having bigger power losses through 4WD. Overall, both are very evenly matched in terms of performance.

I can't imagine an Integra Type R pulling away from an Escort Cossie' they ain't that powerful.

197bhp, 1060kg in weight and 8900rpm's. More than enough.

It's a bit too simplistic to just quote power to weight ratios, you have to take the whole car into account, like gear ratio's torque etc, and the Escort Cossie has more than enough torque to be able to make its power quickly.

It is a bit, but when you factor in that the Cossie has 4WD sapping power in the top end, but getting good launches, then the guy who suggested the Teg would be slower off the mark but quicker in the top end is probably right.

176.87bhp per ton for the Escort.

181.80bhp per ton for the 197bhp Integra DC2.

The Teg actually has it beat on paper, but I doubt you would pull them apart TBH.

I used to own an Audi S3 with 4wd 1.8t engine remapped to over 250bhp. Yes the torque is nice to have, but torque doesn't equal speed. Sold the Audi to buy my 3rd Honda Integra Type R just coz it's faster, and a lot more fun and responsive. Turbo's are great for torque, but that doesn't automatically make them fast. My friends 170bhp Seat Leon diesel has bags and bags of torque (more than double the Honda I think), but it still gets whipped by the Honda every single time.

Yeah but a diesel will never be a performance car anyway.

"a diesel will never be a performance car"

I'm sure there are lots and lots of people out there that will disagree with that.

How about the diesel Audi that won the 24 hr LeMans race?

Yeah and the last commentor also forgot that the Audi diesel LeMans car has two turbos and a larger displacement, which the petrol cars are not allowed to have as they develop far more hp per litre than there diesel counterparts.

If the petrol cars had a similar spec to the Audi, they would beat its ass. The Audi is more powerful because of a better spec engine, nothing more.

Same on the road, diesel cars will always be behind a good petrol, nuff said.

A 24 hour race is not the same as a 1/4 mile dash, diesels have lots of torque, but what good is it unless you have the bhp to go with it? It would have to be a very big diesel engine to compete with a performance petrol car.

I'm not saying a diesel engine is better than a petrol engine. Just pointing out that diesel engines can be quick cars in response to the person that said all diesel cars are slow. Chill out, it's a discussion not an interrogation.

I agree totally with you, the BMW 535d, 335d etc. are all very quick for diesels, and I can appreciate why people would buy them; reasonable economy and stonking performance for 45mpg, very impressive.

I just get a bit riled when people say how the Audi r8 tdi LeMans is the best out there just because it's diesel, which is correct it is the fastest, but only because the petrol cars are handicapped compared.

But I won't disagree about quick diesels, I myself drive a heavily modified stripped out Clio 172 with throttle bodies, which is extremely rapid on 'cam', but below sort of 5500rpm a half decent diesel will keep up despite 315bhp per tonne! LOL.

For low to mid end grunt I don't think you can beat a good diesel really (or for fuel economy), but having said all of that, a modern diesel is still using technology, like common rail, which is still relatively new, as well as dual mass flywheels on the VWs, and a lot of this new technology is in its infancy, so is prone to failure on a lot of new cars unfortunately.

In another 5 to 10 years, diesels will never fail! (the basic engine block and internals themselves are solid), they just need to develop the rest of the parts a bit more, i.e. the injection systems and flywheels etc. to be completely reliable.

But so far the manufacturers are doing a grand job of making diesels better, don't think they will ever be better than their petrol equivalents, but they're getting closer.

I reckon diesels will all but disappear from everyday runabout cars in the next 10-15 years. Euro IV emissions has wrecked the reliability and fuel economy, and Euro V and onwards will make it even worse. Diesel engines are now overcomplicated, and have lost their inherent reliability, with particulate filter problems, common rail problems and flywheel failures now writing off 5 year old cars quite easily. Look at the adverts for diesel cars now and you will find disclaimers telling you they are not suitable for short journeys any more because the particulate filters block up.

The future for bread and butter runabouts is small capacity direct injection petrol engines with forced induction, such as the VAG 1.4 TSI, and Vauxhall's new 1.4 turbo engine going into the new Astra. Lighter and more powerful than an equivalent diesel, almost as fuel efficient, and actually technically simpler and more reliable. They meet emissions regs without the need for expensive, unreliable, economy sapping, Heath Robinson bolt on crap in the exhaust, which almost all modern diesels now have to have. Also no need for a failure prone dual mass flywheel, no £2,000+ high pressure fuel pump, no £300 individually coded fuel injectors etc etc.

Ford, BMW and others are working on small turbo petrols to power their next gen models. It is rumoured the next Ford Focus will have a 1.0 petrol engine with up to 160 bhp!