You evil parasite. Sell the car and give the money to your Grandad!!
Haha, fortunately he doesn't need the money, as bad as it sounds in 'x' years I'd actually be getting the money back from him.
An interesting scenario.
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
Haha, fortunately he doesn't need the money, as bad as it sounds in 'x' years I'd actually be getting the money back from him.
Book figures for speeds arent terribly different.
108bhp from a 2.3 cologne.
The 2.8 only made 140bhp, and did 0-60 in 9.5 seconds in the granada.
The point is, power to weight, there is nothing in it.
Last edited:
1.25 Fiesta is about 13 seconds 0-60 isn't it? The Cortina would better that by some margin, under 10 I would think. It was a surprisingly light car as well (though less so with the boat anchor Cologne engine).
No.
10.8 seconds and 108 mph top speed in a 2.3 cortina.
(In fact its likely the choice of the day would have been the 2.0 pinto, in which case he would have been looking at 5bhp LESS than the fiesta, a 11.1 second sprint to 60 and a top speed of a 105.)
12.9 and 104 mph in a 1.25 fiesta.
Yes, its 2 seconds difference, but just count 2 seconds, on a trip to the shops, its nothing.
My point was its interesting how today a car with not massively different performance from what was I would assume was one of the number one choices in main road mile mucher of the day in 1981 is now deemed laughable as a choice to do a 40 minute ride to work in.
Obviously its a smaller car, so there are other factors to consider but it was merely an observation.
A 2.3 cortina handled horribly by todays standards and did about mid twenties to the gallon, could be broken into with a coat hanger (I have done it) and was not terribly reliable or comfortable. So no real comparison here. It was a higher end rep mobile or family motor.
How in ****'s name have we gone from the 1.25 Fiesta to the Cologne V6 in Cortinas?
I was expecting the thread to go off topic to something a lot more obscure.