Some very cool cars at the car show, but of course I’m drawn to the Merkur
ah, the XR4Ti that North America was never allowed to have...
Oh Sierra Cosworth, you should have been mine!!
mad_machine said:yes, far too close to the performance of the Mustang, so of course Ford couldn't import it
I’m not too familiar with Mustangs of that era, but I’d be surprised if the Sierra RS Cosworth wasn’t significantly faster (even in a straight line).
1986 Sierra Cosworth RS : 201 bhp
1986 Mustang GT: 200 BHP
to be fair, the 1985 Mustang GT had 210 and the 87 had 220.. but still.
mad_machine said:1986 Sierra Cosworth RS : 201 bhp
1986 Mustang GT: 200 BHP
The Sierra RS came in just under 2700 lbs, which is some 500 lbs lighter than a Fox body Mustang GT. Both cars used the same T5 gearbox, but the Sierras RS had a fairly short final drive ratio (3.64:1 stock) whereas the final drive on a Mustang GT ranged from 2.7 to 3.2
Stock-for-stock I bet the combination of less weight and shorter gearing would have put the RS in front of the GT.
That is a very nice Merkur.
I loved my XR4ti it only left me due to a wire harness meltdown. I always wanted to build it up. Not into a Sierra cosworth, but instead use a modern aluminum turbo like from the Ecoboost mustang. Replace the scary oversimplified front suspension.
Advan046 said:That is a very nice Merkur.
I loved my XR4ti it only left me due to a wire harness meltdown. I always wanted to build it up. Not into a Sierra cosworth, but instead use a modern aluminum turbo like from the Ecoboost mustang. Replace the scary oversimplified front suspension.
if you look at the rear quarter window, it's a Sierra Cosworth, not a merkur. We never got the model with the single glass side windows here in the states.
mad_machine said:Advan046 said:That is a very nice Merkur.
I loved my XR4ti it only left me due to a wire harness meltdown. I always wanted to build it up. Not into a Sierra cosworth, but instead use a modern aluminum turbo like from the Ecoboost mustang. Replace the scary oversimplified front suspension.
if you look at the rear quarter window, it's a Sierra Cosworth, not a merkur. We never got the model with the single glass side windows here in the states.
And if it were, one could have ordered that engine from the Ford Performance catalog. For much of my early career, it was available for about $10k.
Now a day- you can build a Duratec turbo to out do it. Or get a modern EB and REALLY out do it. Both of which, I think, can be made for less than the $10k of the Cosworth engine.
my SVO mustang was 2900 lbs and had 205hp...it was in direct competiton with the Sierra Cos....they also made AWD Cossies in 90-92 - dreamy!!
pinchvalve said:Some very cool cars at the car show, but of course I’m drawn to the Merkur
YB engine, no goofy bisected rear side glass, and a perforated grille panel.... that is not a Merkur XR4Ti, that is a Ford Sierra Cosworth.
In reply to Knurled. :
But lack of ABS leads me to believe it’s an XR shell.
It’s way easier and more common to do the bodywork (even the fuel filler door and license lamps) than it is to transfer the abs stuff. You generally never see that done.
pinchvalve said:
Maybe I'm seeing it wrong but is that a catch can on the firewall, directly behind the intake manifold? And a follow up question, is it a vented catch can that's mounted upside down? It looks a lot like a small filter on the bottom of the can
alfadriver said:mad_machine said:Advan046 said:That is a very nice Merkur.
I loved my XR4ti it only left me due to a wire harness meltdown. I always wanted to build it up. Not into a Sierra cosworth, but instead use a modern aluminum turbo like from the Ecoboost mustang. Replace the scary oversimplified front suspension.
if you look at the rear quarter window, it's a Sierra Cosworth, not a merkur. We never got the model with the single glass side windows here in the states.
And if it were, one could have ordered that engine from the Ford Performance catalog. For much of my early career, it was available for about $10k.
Now a day- you can build a Duratec turbo to out do it. Or get a modern EB and REALLY out do it. Both of which, I think, can be made for less than the $10k of the Cosworth engine.
Guys this is GRM. An XR can't be made into a Sierra Cosworth? Just want to keep the essence of the 4 cyl power rather than the standard V8 swap.
Nowadays I would build a modern Ford turbo four and swap it in. The rear glass is cosmetic and the floorpan mods are probably the most labor intensive. I researched it a lot back then. While the screaming Cossie has its nostalgia I guess I had already done the high strung NA four and wanted to do the turbo four next.
In reply to LanEvo :
Those era Mustangs were right at 3k lbs or 300 lbs heavier. It’d be an interesting race the favorable torque band of the v8 might make it closer than weight/hp suggests.
In reply to AnthonyGS
I thought the GT was 3100 lbs and the SVO was another 50-100 lbs more than that?
Also, the Mustang would do much better with a shorter final drive ratio. That’s a pretty common mod as far as I know. Then again, it’s easy to turn up the boost on the RS.
In any event, they’d be pretty close for sure.
SVO's were typically high-option vehicles, but they could be ordered with low options as well. my car was scaled at 2940 if i remember corrrectly. i have no options, no A/C, (usually no gas lol) roll up windows, radio blank, cloth interior (still had fancy SVO seats, just grey cloth where many were leather)... and the 86 had the water cooled turbo, i use the Tbird T/C intercooler and a couple other goodies but the 5.0 fox's were still faster in the big end.
Trespassed on a piece of commercial property today that has what may be a small mechanics shop on the adjacent lot. Two sunroof XR4ti(s) sitting in the yard. I'll have to drop by some day to chat. It's also surrounded by small vacant commercial/auto shops which makes me think they're owned by the local church.
You'll need to log in to post.