Image of Ford Sierra 2.0i GLS

Ford Sierra 2.0i GLS specs

Car type 4-door saloon
Curb weight 1125 kg (2480 lbs)
Introduced 1986
Origin country United Kingdom
Views 13.5k

Performance

0 - 100 kph9.1 s
Est. 0 - 60 mph8.5 s
0 - 100 mph25.0 s
Est. 1/8 mile11.7 s @ 72.7 mph
Est. 1/4 mile17.8 s @ 88.9 mph
Top speed195 kph (121 mph)
Ford Sierra 2.0i GLS acceleration graph

Powertrain specs

Engine type S4 DOHC 8v
Displacement 2.0 l (122 ci / 1993 cc)
Power 127 ps (125 bhp / 93 kw)
Torque 174 Nm (128 lb-ft)
Power / liter 64 ps (63 hp)
Power / weight 113 ps (111 bhp) / t
Torque / weight 155 Nm (114 lb-ft) / t
Transmission 5
Layout front engine, rear wheel drive

More 0-60 and 1/4 mile times

User avatar
User avatar

Marcus  3y ago

I had a 1987 SOHC 2.0 GLSi, mine was around 10 years old and performance matched the figures here.
I don't believe the later DOHC version was any faster despite an extra 10bhp. Emissions would have starter to factor by then, plus trinkets such as airbags and ABS add weight.
It was quite a bit faster than my current 2005 BMW 116i which claims to have 115bhp and more torque. The 116 is definitely heavier, the Sierra was really light in the end because bits kept falling off it.

 

User avatar

FastestLaps  3y ago

Oh yes! And don't forget, iron oxide is lighter than pure iron. So these 80s and 90s cars are getting faster day by day. :D


User avatar

Yaspaa  13y ago

The performance figures for the 2.0i gls here are correct, the year is supposed to be 89 though. The xr4i hit 60 in about 8.0 secs and was noticeably quicker than this. The weight is correct with the 4i being about 80 kilos heavier.


User avatar

Georg  13y ago

there was no 1986 Sierra with 125hp 2.0l engine...
the 2.0l engine in 1986 delivered 115hp, the 2.0l from 1989 delivered 123hp(125PS)

the perfromance numbers claimed here are from the 1985 150hp Sierra XR4i (2.8l V6) next to the Cosworth versions no 4cyl Sierra was close to the perfromance claimed here..


User avatar

FastestLaps  13y ago

Yeaah! It's the 80s Sierra! And those figures look almost too good to be true. Was it really just 1125 kilos?