Granada Scorpio 4x4
23 January 2004, 03:10 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel monster!!!!
The old Cologne 2.9 only had 150bhp without cats and 145bhp with cats (92on I think) but a lot of grunt.
In the Sierra performance was entertaining but in the Granada the extra weight, 4X4 and only 145bhp blunted the performance a lot.
I could only manage about 18mpg out of my XR4X4 I had back in the early nineties so you won't be lookng at any more out of the Scorpio.
The 4X4 system was generaly reliable but the transfer box does go with high miles, from memory I think it was chain driven.
To be honest the only time 4X4 is going to help you in a Scorpio is in the Snow. The RWD Scorpio doesn't have a traction problem with only 145bhp and the suspension is too soft to claim any twistie fun with the 4X4.
I wouldn't say don't get a Scorpio but I would look for a RWD version which hardly looses anything but has better economy, better performance and less mechanicals to go wrong in that age of car.
Cheers
Lee
The old Cologne 2.9 only had 150bhp without cats and 145bhp with cats (92on I think) but a lot of grunt.
In the Sierra performance was entertaining but in the Granada the extra weight, 4X4 and only 145bhp blunted the performance a lot.
I could only manage about 18mpg out of my XR4X4 I had back in the early nineties so you won't be lookng at any more out of the Scorpio.
The 4X4 system was generaly reliable but the transfer box does go with high miles, from memory I think it was chain driven.
To be honest the only time 4X4 is going to help you in a Scorpio is in the Snow. The RWD Scorpio doesn't have a traction problem with only 145bhp and the suspension is too soft to claim any twistie fun with the 4X4.
I wouldn't say don't get a Scorpio but I would look for a RWD version which hardly looses anything but has better economy, better performance and less mechanicals to go wrong in that age of car.
Cheers
Lee
23 January 2004, 04:06 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Leics
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other alternatives would be the Saab 9000 or a Vauxhall Omega. Omega's are dead cheap these days - not sure about economny though. You could get a decent light pressure turbo 9000 for under a grand (L reg ish) which would return high 30's mpg on a run. (I averaged 30mpg with my 2.0 LPT over 6 months of heavy right foot driving).
Fancy those 2.9 Scorpios myself - they must shift
The bug eyed ones are really cheap now too....
Fancy those 2.9 Scorpios myself - they must shift
The bug eyed ones are really cheap now too....
23 January 2004, 06:09 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just be careful with the 24V Cosworth lumps, they are suspect with high miles, listen for rattles from the heads as the cams have been known to fail around 90k miles.
The lump is nothing special by todays standards just a 2.9 24V V6. Most modern multi valve quad cam V6's of similar or less capacity match or beat it's output.
The Omega 3.0 is a far safer bet with better performance but they aren't as cheap.
There is also the 3.0 24V Senator option.
Lee
The lump is nothing special by todays standards just a 2.9 24V V6. Most modern multi valve quad cam V6's of similar or less capacity match or beat it's output.
The Omega 3.0 is a far safer bet with better performance but they aren't as cheap.
There is also the 3.0 24V Senator option.
Lee
Trending Topics
23 January 2004, 10:42 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the cologne v6 certainly isn't electrifying. even in a tvr made out of old coat hangers you aren't exactly kicking the @rse out at every opportunity... althogh it does sound ok
i reckon a 2l zetec mondeo would give it a run for its money.
i reckon a 2l zetec mondeo would give it a run for its money.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post