10th Oct 2006, 11:04
8.2 seconds to 60 is hardly a life time the way you talk of the BMW 328 you make it sound like lighting (which clearly it isn't) engine capacity is the same, but the 328i is more than 10 years younger as well as having the additonal 12 valves if your going to comment at least make like for like comment's (i.e technology and era) bwm may be a faster car, but lets face it throw the BMW into a corner and watch your rear end overtake you whilst the 4x4 will leave you standing.
27th Oct 2006, 11:04
What the hell are you on about? Saying I need to argue within the same era. If you look up, you will see that you were saying how much faster the XR was than a BMW or a Nova. Anyway, if you want another car from that era that will kick the **** out of an XR 4x4, look no further than a pug 205 gti. Even the smaller engined 1.6 gti accelerates quicker than the Sierra.
And yes, 0-60mph in 8.2 seconds is a lifetime, it was averagely quick in its day, but the 80's finished 16 years ago, get over it.
1st Nov 2006, 19:13
You are comparing a monster V6 4x4 with a car that weighs about the same as a bag of crisps. Dream on.
3rd Nov 2006, 02:31
More to the point, what are you on about? A 1.6gti 205 quicker to 60? You have no conception of what you're talking about. Yes, the 80's were over 16 years ago, that still does not by any way, shape or form take away the XR's performace stats. It's wasting most modern day hot hatches now.
27th Nov 2006, 12:00
I have a 2.0L Almera GTi, and I pissed all over a Sierra xr4x4 yesterday. Who needs 4WD, when you have a little Nissan.
27th Nov 2006, 16:43
Your Datsun might be quicker in a straight line (although if the XR was trying, there's no way you would have p***d on it), but it's the worst example of a soulless Japanese box I can think of.
I cannot believe you admit to owning an Almera, much less that you seem pleased enough to boast about it. Take the Skyline and the Z cars out of the equation and you have just about the blandest and most boring manufacturer of them all, and the Almera, however quick it is, is no more interesting than the Sunny it replaced.
In fact, just thinking about it is bringing me out in hives.
28th Nov 2006, 06:19
'Take the Skyline and the Z cars out of the equation and you have just about the blandest and most boring manufacturer of them all'.
Not forgetting the Pulsar GTI-R.
15th Dec 2006, 12:13
Hello there to the xr4x4 boys. I have owned both the 2.8 and 2.9 versions, and was very disappointed. The only thing they're good at is grip in the wet. I have also owned Astra GTE 8 and 16 valves, a Renault 19 16v, a Rover 216gti, and an Almera GTI. All of these would out accelerate and handle better, and I should know as I've taken most of them on tracks (a few years ago).
Please stick to the facts, and if you ain't driven em, don't comment.
14th Jan 2007, 10:30
How can you say the Almera GTi is bland and boring? Have you ever owned one.?
I'm saying that I beat that Found On a Rubbish Dump, 2.8 V6.
And would blitz it around any track wet or dry.
Until you know anything about Nissan, keep your stupid little comments to yourself.
4th Aug 2007, 06:17
Almera become collectible? I don't think so somehow!
I own the MK1 Sierra 2.8i xr4x4 and I think it's a fantastic car to drive. 4 wheel drive on spax suspension with straight through exhaust (bar the cherry bombs) and coupled with the short shift gearbox makes it a very rewarding drive indeed.
I have owned some fast cars in my time and would agree that this car is no light ship and performance (8.2 seconds to 60 mph) is not rapid, but 0-60 times do not make for a complete driving experience. Besides what this car loses out on in straight line performance is quickly forgotten when chucking the car around a track or blasting down a winding road.
Found On a Rubbish Dump xr4x4 is a lame comment to make about these cars. Fast On Road Daily would be more fitting.
I would rather tattoo my own eyes than give this fine machine up.
19th Nov 2007, 10:50
I have owned 2.8 and 2.9 xr4x4s. They definately do not weigh 1700Kgs and are in fact significantly lighter than modern cars. They are very easy to drive quickly without trying very hard. Unlike newer cars, I recall they went really quickly with not many revs. This made a pleasant experience to drive. However, the top end was just noisy with not much more power. They are definately slower that any modern hot hatch, even a hateful Almera.
3rd Mar 2009, 12:27
What I find funny is that someone can actually compare a XR4x4 to some cheap nasty Japanese crap.
What they seem to forget is that the Fords are very well built cars and will outlast any rival Japanese in the same era/category.
No matter how much he says bout his 'Almera' (LOL) it will never be regarded as a robust classic like the XR's.
Better luck next time mate.
15th Jun 2009, 08:01
Lol at some of the comments. Some of you really are missing the point - I am 31 years old, I have owned 38 cars since I was 17 (so far!) and I am on my 2nd xr4x4 2933cc - I have to say the point of this car is definitely that you can cane or at least keep up with hot hatches, but like myself, still be able to take my two kids in it in comfort and be able to fit a crapload of shopping, pushchairs, etc in the boot and be able to drive up steep hills without strain on the engine.
Yes the 2933cc V6 is only 150BHP, but it makes up for it with Torque. Plus the fact that it does handle superbly (with stiffer suspension and 16" and above wheels). Superb cars, superb engine noise, oh and 100% made in England. Sweeeet.
29th Jun 2009, 11:55
Yeah, an extra 30bhp I got with an induction kit, but I also have two cherry bomb exhausts underneath in "stealth" mode, and also took the air filter box off the air flow meters completely so the thing can breath. It got rolling road tested at 180bhp and does 0 - 60 in 7 seconds. Who knows if it had any other mods before I got hold of it tho?
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine is the wiki page for this engine, and if you scroll down to the 2933cc version description, you'll see there is two variants of it, the Cologne and the Essex V6. Plus the Essex V6 had between 150 - 160bhp depending on installations. I said the XR4x4 was 100% made in England, and it was; it was assembled from all the parts in Dagenham. I didn't say all the bits were made from scratch 100% in England LOL.
24th Aug 2009, 15:38
I reckon that a Saxo VTS could make meat with the Sierra 4x4. Don't get me wrong, I love Sierras, especially the 16v Cosworth, but at the end of the day the VTS is faster than a xr4x4. VTS 0-60 7.6s, and for the Ford 8.3s.
26th Nov 2009, 14:55
I bought a Sierra XR4X4 for a £500 challenge to the NURBURGRING, back in October 2009. I had a very little budget, so did very little mods; I fitted a Toyota Land Cruiser back box, serviced it, fitted braided hoses and cut the coil springs to lower it, stripped it out, fitted two bucket seats and that was about it.
I drove it all the way there, did four laps in the dry, 10.45 - 10.26 - 10.16 - and a 10.08, and two in the wet and it performed absolutely fantastically on the track, it was like a different beast, lots of grip and torque on the hills. And got all the way home too. LOL.
Bring on NURBURGRING 2010. With some more power and suspension kit hopefully.
3rd Oct 2006, 09:57
As much as I do love sierras, the way you describe the car as being really fast is a bit foolish. By modern standards 8.2 seconds to 60mph is a lifetime, the easiest way to show this is to compare say a BMW 328i to a XR4x4. Both have the same size engines, but the XR will have better traction off the line, and yet the BMW gets to 60 in under 7 seconds!!