1989 Ford Sierra L D from UK and Ireland - Comments

Nothing so far, fingers crossed. I carried out a full service, as it had been off the road for 4 years before I bought it.

The gearbox synchro is getting weak, probably because of the necessity of thrashing it in the intermediate gears to make satisfactory progress.

This was bought firmly as a cheapy banger, and in this respect it excels. I am not someone who is happy to pay out £200 a month on a new car just to watch it depreciate.

Mine is one of the last fitted with the 2.3 Peugeot engine before they went to the 1.8 turbo Ford motor. It's pretty damned slow to tell the truth; my '92 Golf 1300 will leave it for dead, but this is only noticeable on the hills. For everyday driving it's fine, returning 45 mpg.

The cabin is basic, being only an L model, with manual windows and sunroof, but it's a comfy place to be, and any driver can find a comfortable seating position.

It's an easy vehicle to service and maintain; there isn't even a timing belt to worry about.

Mine has fared better than most with the rust, as it's spent most of its life in sunny Spain, but still has the odd rusty bit on the doors- still has its original sills though.

I would recommend one to anybody; there were enough of these around in the '80s, so they can't be that bad. They suffer a poverty spec image these days, when even Mondeos can be picked up for a couple of hundred quid, but I prefer the Sierra, a much more satisfying car.

I would not drive about in a Sierra unless it is was a Cosworth; you are right in your assumption that these give off a poverty image these days; very low rent indeed.

Quite right. but then if I DID care what anyone else thought of my car, I would be driving something newer. Truth is the only person who cares how new/fast/expensive your car is, is you. Hardly seems worth it, does it? Oh look, the 250th 07 plate BMW 3 series I've seen today... yawn.

I agree mate, nothin wrong with Sierras. Only children care about "image".

Quick update, I wrote the original review. well, I took the sierra for MOT- it needed one tyre, that was it! The guy even commented how solid it was.

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.

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.

Sierras are good cars, I have had a few over the years. reading some of these reviews, where people have spent 20k on a brand new car only for it to be constantly back at the dealers having faults rectified, who is having the last laugh? the person who's spent 20k on a lemon, but is at least impressing the neighbours/fellow reps in the company car park/chavvy boy racer mates, or the guy who spends 200 quid on a car that never goes wrong?

Mine was a 1983 car - maybe they did something with that engine during the production run to make it more economical.

The fact it had to be driven constantly at full throttle probably didn't help.