The big difference though is the press used to slate the Fords but now they all seem to get rave reviews. My dad had an Escort MK6 and really liked it but then they were words apart from the early CVH MK5.
When you think of the Civic based Rover 200/400 they were ten times better cars than the Escorts int he early 90's.
I think I am right in thinking the Mondeo chaned Fords reputation, I remember being an 11 year old schoolboy and was very very excited when it came out. Wow it has airbags, wow look how modern it is inside, but don't forget back then MK2 Escorts with different colour wings were a very common sight so a Mondeo MK1 in that roadscape was a wow car.
|
|
|
I had a Sierra and a mk2 Cavalier.
Cavalier had infinitely superior engines and performance, and felt much more solidly screwed together than the Sierra.
Sierra had much nicer handling, ride and a far superior interior which I believe won ergonomic awards in its day. It had a lovely "wraparound" feel that you normally find in something like a BMW (if nowhere near the BMW's standard of construction).
Both good, solid, reliable cars in their day IMHO. Both were good to drive in the context of what else was around at the time. Both could be fixed for buttons if they did go wrong. Both hopelessly out of date in the context of a modern equivalent.
Edited by DP on 06/02/2009 at 13:44
|
|
Interesting as it desribes both the Sierra and Chavalier as troublesome but I am not sure how relaible this guide actually is.
|
Sierra had 180k when sold and still ran well. Cavalier had 150k and ran even better, but was demolished by an uninsured driver in a Ford Granada.
One breakdown in the Cavalier (fuel pump relay) and one in the Sierra (coil) in over 60k in each car. Both rotten as pears underneath towards the end (Cavalier probably worse)
|
Ford got a big share as Britons bought British (currently French buy French, Italians buy Italian, Germans buy German) - the British alternatives were Hillman, Rover,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Been there tried them all - both my cars are Japanese - good experiences in 14 years - contrast to British & European over 30 years prior to my 1995 Honda (USA manufacture) and each Japanees since then.
|
I seem to remember that in the early seventies Ford and BL each had about 40% of the market, with imported cars at 20%. Roots Group had about 5% and Vauxhall were saved by the Chevette, which alone increased their market share from 5 to 10%.
Yes I know the sums don't add up!
|
Vauxhall were saved by the Chevette which alone increased their market share from 5 to 10%.
I think you'll find Vauxhall were saved by the Mk1 Cavalier, then the Mk 2 & 3 even more so. By the mid-eighties they were struggling to get their other models to keep up.
|
|
|
My dad was born in 1915 and would never have a Ford, he thought that they were the lowest of the low. I have had several and like them.
I think Fords got a good reputation when they started in motorsport. I remember Jim Clark racing in a Lotus Cortina, this made them seem cool to young people, they were very successful in rallies as well. It helped when TV programs like Zcars, the Sweeney and the Professionals used Ford cars.
In the late 60s when I started driving Ford were better than most of the opposition. I remember the Cortina Mk3 came out at the same time as the Morris Marina in 1971, there was no comparison between the 2.
One of my favorite cars was a Cortina 1600E (XVT816H) it was a fabulous car.
They were cheap to buy and maintain, had a good image, had plenty of dealers (some not very good) and were a nice British car.
|
|
|
|
|
From other subjects I get the impression that the originator of this thread ? ?Rattle? ? is of fairly youthful vintage (much reference to him living with his dad) and yet he seems to have very definite opinions, most of them derogatory, about vehicles of which he has probably had little or no experience. I wonder how many times he has actually driven a Ford Sierra or Granada, one of which he describes as a ?rotbox? and the other as ?just average?.
His description of the Mk V Escort as ?the worst Ford ever? is, frankly laughable.
He may be interested to learn that during the 70?s and 80?s Ford?s market share seldom dropped below 30% and you don?t sell that many cars if you are turning out rubbish no matter how good your marketing is. The fact that much of their output in those days was for the fleet market tells its own tale ? fleet managers don?t buy thousands of vehicles that spend much of their life in the workshop.
The Sierra, which was revolutionary when it was introduced in the early 80?s, was a first class mass produced car and the various incarnations of the Granada were as good as, if not better than, any of the other ?executive? saloons then on the market, although I concede that the last version, the Scorpio, left much to be desired on the design front.
Edited by Honestjohn on 06/02/2009 at 14:39
|
Ford gained their reputation in the 1960s and 1970s for selling durable reliable car. Their main competitor British Leyland made interesting but unreliable and underdeveloped cars.
They also laid claim to and developed the fleet car market.
Rattle needs to do some reading...
Edited by Honestjohn on 06/02/2009 at 14:38
|
I get the impression that Rattle has not enjoyed the experience of cars which required frequent servicing including setting up the dwell angle of points, timing with a strobe light, carburettor strip and cleans, etc. At least most Fords were easy to work on though, another reason for popularity.
Edited by Old Navy on 06/02/2009 at 15:04
|
|
|
|
The Sierra which was revolutionary when it was introduced in the early 80?s was a first class mass produced car
Aero styling aside, it was hardly revolutionary. All the mechanicals were carried over from the Cortina, and the chassis was largely untouched apart from a new independent rear suspension setup. All proven and reliable, but out of date when launched.
It was a nice car, and I remember mine fondly, but revolutionary it was not. Cheap, proven, safe, appealing to fleets who'd been happy with Cortinas - absolutely!
Edited by DP on 06/02/2009 at 15:01
|
I had a Sierra estate . 70k safe and 100% relaible miles.
Then I had a Rover 800. About 10 electrical faults and a blown headgasket , blown exhaust in 60k miles. And its replacement was as bad...
(And people wonder why I don't like Rovers. I like real Rovers built with care: my rover 16 was lovely).
Ford revolutionised mass marketing of cars.
And until they delayed replacing models like the Fiesta in the 1990s were untouchable. But buying Kwikfit was a disaster..
|
|
|
DP
I agree entirely. What I meant was that it was revolutionary in shape and, as such, took a lot of selling in its early days. I know that for a fact because I sold Fords in those days. I was a big fan of its predecessor, the good old Cortina, but the Sierra was a much better car.
You can still see a bit of Sierra design features in many of today's cars.
|
Great Marketing in 60s and 70s aimed at all those Gene Hunts who wanted a bird pulling machine.
So they made the Cortinas, Capris and such-like and marketed them accordingly.
The sleazy music on the below Martin Shaw Capri ad is amazing and the ad basically says that if you give a female stranger a lift in a Capri she will sleep with you.
tinyurl.com/d3oc5r
This one basically says that if you own a Capri sexy women will want to 'ride' with you.
tinyurl.com/bwedmo
You can find loads of them on Youtube.
Edited by Honestjohn on 06/02/2009 at 17:24
|
|
Today's car market is much reduced from the 60/70's but Ford still have by far the largest share.
|
|
16.1% in September and that was before the introduction of latest Fiesta and the new Ka.
|
|
My brother wanted and so ended up with one of those Capris second hand. Rust bucket! :-)
|
Capri II an astonishing £1,215, Excluding belts, plates, VAT!
|
Out of the cars listed I have driven a 1991 Orion with the original CVH engine, in a car park late at night and not so legally (was 18, the car was my parents, car park was empty, you do silly things at that age). The steering was heavy, the clutch was heavy and it was very unreliable.
The post 92 MK5 was a much much better car.
Sorry for calling the Sierra a rotbox but in the context of 1991 with cars like the MK3 Cavvy on sale it was really quite out of date by then, in some ways the Montego was a better car.
I am a Ford fan btw!
|
I think madf has it pretty well right: "Ford gained their reputation in the 1960s and 1970s for selling durable reliable cars. Their main competitor British Leyland made interesting but unreliable and underdeveloped cars."
Back in the 1970's and before, people tended to buy 'British' cars, which basically meant BL, Ford, Vauxhall, and Rootes Group (the latter was by then was turning into Chrysler). In the 70's, Fords were generally more satisfactory and reliable than the other three. If you dig up copies of 'Which?' from that era, you should be able to confirm that.
|
Rattle
I sometimes think that you are not who you claim to be. You come over as a driving ingenue who looks for help in rather basic driving matters but you have started to make statements that sound as though you are trying to 'wind up' other contributors.
Your statement that the Montego was 'in some ways' a better car than the Sierra defies belief. In what ways was it better and how have you made your judgement? Have you ever driven a Sierra? Have you ever driven a Montego? I would have thought that the Montego was phased out before you were born and it seems highly unlikely that any specimen would have survived until you obtained a driving licence.
I'm afraid that I have risen to your bait but I would appreciate your observations.
|
I can only go off the statistics I have of the prices back in 89. The Montego was quite a bit faster than the Sierra especialy in 2.0 litre form. I have never driven either but I have been a passanger in both and have been bought up with both cars. I was a kid of 80's I have been in more Montego's than I would have liked and to be honest they seemed pretty good cars for the money. My grandad had a few (not by choice) and they were comfortable, refinded he always liked driving them.
I have never driven one so maybe it did have an awful driving position, useless brakes, a heavy clutch, useless vague steering but I have never read anything bad about the Montego. My entire family has quite a colourful car history.
And I have actually met a member of my the backroom who has seen my old car in the flesh so I don't need to worry about people thinking I am not who i say I am :p:
Also I have driven many cars in empty car parks in my 'youth' I have probably driven about 20 different cars. I had lessons on and off from 1999 to 2008 so got to drive a variety of learner cars, I also drove my dads various cars inbetween so I am not the typical driven two cars nearly passed learner.
The fastest car I have driven had 160bhp and that was legally :) but I did not dare exceed 30mph!.
|
I had lessons on and off from 1999 to
2008 so got to drive a variety of learner cars
Is this a record?
|
Rattle I sometimes think that you are not who you claim to be.
That would explain a lot of things!
;-)
|
Out of the cars listed I have driven a 1991 Orion with the original CVH engine in a car park late at night and not so legally (was 18 the car was my parents car park was empty you do silly things at that age). The steering was heavy the clutch was heavy and it was very unreliable.
Of course the steering was heavy, it wasn't power assisted. I owned both an 87 XR3i and an 89 Orion 1.6 Ghia Injection. Both very reliable and two of the most enjoyable cars I have ever driven.
As good as the current Ford line up is, there is now a huge amount of competition compared with 20 years ago so you would expect a drop in market share to drop. That competition is German and Japanese.
|
Out of the cars listed I have driven a 1991 Orion with the original CVH engine ........ was 18 ....... The steering was heavy the clutch was heavy and it was very unreliable.
Rattle, at 18 you didn't have enough experience of driving, or of other cars, to be able to make any of those judgements.
|
Out of the cars listed I have driven a 1991 Orion with the original CVH engine in a car park late at night and not so legally (was 18 the car was my parents car park was empty you do silly things at that age). The steering was heavy the clutch was heavy and it was very unreliable.
The steering was heavy because it was not power assisted which is not really a problem.
I had an 87 XR3i and an 89 Orion 1.6 Ghia injection. Both were reliable and two of the most enjoyable cars I have driven.
As good as Ford cars are, there is a bit more competition now than there was back then, mainly German and Japanese I'm afraid.
One of my dream cars is still a Mk1 Lotus Cortina or maybe a Mk2.
|
" a 1991 Orion with the original CVH engine"
Ditto a c reg '86 MkIV Escort 1.6 GL. First of the flat nose ones. Steering very heavy, wouldn't corner, new gearbox at 20,000miles, fuel filler pipe came loose. No FM on the stereo or electric windows or central locking. i know it an 1986 vehicle, but it was supposed to better than a L.
Hideous.
Mark II Fiesta as my first company car in 1992. This was a F reg, one of the last old Fiesta's. Rusting at three years old, no radio (??) and unequal driveshafts. Horrid.
I liked the Sierra, it was a nice car to drive and i drove a lot of them as the guys on site had them as company cars. i have fond nostalgic memories of Mk 2 and 3 Cortinas, but the FWD Escort went backwards, and the Fiesta was just cheap and nasty, when it didn't need to be.
I've bought with my own money a Sunny, Micra, Almera, Corolla, Impreza and a Grandis. There're all well built and sure some of them went wrong but at an age and mileage you'd expect them to do so. The Corolla (G reg liftback) was especially good.
|
Capri II an astonishing £1 215 Excluding belts plates VAT!
Can some more clever than me, Broomer equate that to what Ford or other 'sporty' model you'd get in todays £$£$£?
VB
|
Can some more clever than me Broomer equate that to what Ford or other 'sporty' model you'd get in todays £$£$£?
www.moneysorter.co.uk/calculator_inflation.html tells me that £1215 plus Vat at 15% is worth £11,837 now.
Semi Sporty Fiesta (including sporty foglights?) or a used ST Mondeo.
Either way, you get an awful lot more car for your money nowadays. And with the growth of cars, the Fiesta is not much shorter than a Capri (i checked - 3924mm vs. 4288mm).
|
Interesting you should bring that up, despite FIATs percieved bad reputation the market share now appears to be a lot higher than it was back in 1991.
Some interesting stats from 1991:-
Ford: 25.25%
Vauxhall: 16.08%
Rover: 13.38
Other brands of interest:
Lada: 1.06% but by this point their market share had already fallen well below that of 1987.
Renault: 3.36%
Nissan: 5.32%
Mazda:1.21%
BMW: 2.14%
FIAT: 2.74%
Citroen: 3.03%
VW (incs Audi!): 5.76%
Honda: 1.58%
If I get time I might make a graph of all them and then compare it 2008.
|
I thought from reading about it was really that Ford was a marketing driven company it concentrated on selling what the market wanted rather than perhaps being driven by an ideology or a strong engineering core that may or may not have produced the cars people wanted - If you read many interviews with people like Issigonis they were astonishingly dismissive of the consumer and assumed they knew right.
hence it seems that Ford was always producing something or at least plenty on offer to suit the various bits of the market - cars to suit all segments rather than at times BL and others had odd ranges of cars competing with each other as much as others and failed to notice when the market evolved eg the 1100 which was enormously popular was left in production restricted to its size and max 1300 engine when the market was looking for something bigger or with more go as the 60s wore on.
Also I understood as well that Ford understood more clearly than others that things like product placement and providing freebie cars to the media and celebs was all part of seeding the idea of their cars being out there and visible as important.
|
If I get time I might make a graph of all them .........
Do you mean a bar chart?
|
|
Aero styling aside it was hardly revolutionary. All the mechanicals were carried over from the Cortina and the chassis was largely untouched apart from a new independent rear suspension setup.
Really???
naw, sorry your totally wrong there!
the only major carry over parts were the engines, which were heavily modified,and maybe some of the gearboxes. (cant remember if any had 4 speed boxes, tinas never had 5...)
cortina had wishbone front suspension - sierra McPherson struts
bodyshell/chassis completely new design.
|
Quite agree with negative comments towards Mark 4 Escort.
In my yard, in small van ranges, you'd choose between Escot, Astramax, occassional Astra & Maestro.
The number of customers that came in for an Escort, but went out with a Maestro instead, surprised all of me counterparts.
It was my enthusiasm, for the Maestro, a demonstration in the (diesel) van, fuel savings & just how good a workhorse it'd be, as well as showing the 300,000+ miles, on my own van, all helped.
& sitting in the uncofortable seats & flimsy interior, Ford built.
Then if they were talking to our workshop lads, who told them we'd NEVER had a Maestro break a cambelt, or the (Honda) gearbox fail, or have such a rough & lumpy sounding engine, as the 1.8 had, it was easily done!!
Plus the £500 lower price, helped & we all had a result!!
VB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
