Ford Scorpio Forum - Print Page


    
      
        Ford Scorpio Forum
        (https://www.fordscorpio.co.uk/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl)
      

        General >> Off Topic Subjects >> How did they really perform? Lots of data
        
(Message started by: faffi on May 30^th, 2010, 8:25am)

Title: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by faffi on May 30^th, 2010, 8:25am

According to the test reports I've seen, both on this site and in Norwegian and German tests, performance seems to vary a bit from one car to another. This could of course also be influenced by the driver and the conditions.

Personally, I have owned a 2.9 12V automatic and a 2.3 manual. I have also driven a 2.0 16V.

0-60 mph (0-100kph) tests revealed that my 2.9 and 2.3 ran neck and neck. They also both reached an indicated 150 kph (93 mph) at a specific point when accelerating onto the motorway. I never tested the top speed of the 2.3, but I had an indicated 205 kph (127.5 mph) on the speedo of the 2.9 and it was still creeping upwards. What that was in actual speed is hard for me to say, but the speedo was reading 5kph (3mph) fast everywhere between 50 and 130 kph (30-80mph) according to a GPS I borrowed. The 2.9 was also less affected by having to carry extra weight than the 2.9. Compared to these two, the 2.0 was significantly less spirited.

According to the data listed on our main site, the 2.0 should have matched the 2.9 and the 2.3 should be significantly quicker and also a bit faster. I can say that my 2.9 at least met the claims made, whereas the 2.3 was much slower than promised.

Figures from Ford(?)
2.5 diesel
0-60: 11.4
Top speed: 116 mph

2.0 16V
0-60: 10.4s
Top speed: 129 mph

2.3
0-60: 9.2s
Top speed: 130 mph

2.9 12V
0-60: 10.5s
Top speed: 124 mph

2.9 24V
0-60: 8.5s
Top speed: 140mph
According to this site http://www.histomobile.com/dvd_histomobile/usa/15/1995-Ford-Scorpio-.asp?id1=1109092 the 2.9 should have done 0-60 in just 8.1 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.7s @ 89 mph with a 140 mph top speed. That is much better than the 9.0 and 16.9 @ 85 mph and 138 max gathered by Autocar. Top Gears figures of 9.6 / 17.3 @ 84 / 132 are worse still.

One thing that surprise me is that the Cosworth tested by Top Gear hardly ran any better than a 2.3!

Some figures from magazines that I have found:

Data from auto motor und sport, 2.0 16V Estate
0-80 km/h 7,9 Sek.
0-100 km/h 11,7 Sek.
0-120 km/h 16,8 Sek.
0-160 km/h 36,4 Sek.
Ford's claim 0-100 km/h 11,4 Sek.

Roll-on
60-100 km/h (5. Gear) 19,6 Sek.
80-120 km/h (5. Gear) 21,4 Sek.

Same magazine, same car but sedan:
0-80 km/h 7,5 Sek.
0-100 km/h 11,2 Sek.
0-120 km/h 15,7 Sek.
0-160 km/h 32,2 Sek.
Ford's claim 0-100 km/h 11,1 Sek.

Same magazine, 2.3 sedan
0-80 km/h 7,3 Sek.
0-100 km/h 10,4 Sek.
0-120 km/h 14,6 Sek.
0-160 km/h 26,6 Sek.
0-180 km/h 37,2 Sek.
Ford's claim 0-100 km/h: 9.8 Sek.

Same magazine, diesel sedan
0-80 km/h 8,7 Sek.
0-100 km/h 13,3 Sek.
0-120 km/h 19,4 Sek.
Ford's claim 0-100 km/h 11,9 Sek.

Data from Bilnorge, 2.3 sedan:
0 til 80 km/t: 6,8 sek
0 til 100 km/t: 10,0 sek
Ford's claim 0 til 100 km/t: 9,8 sek

Data from a French source, old version Scorpio (Granada), 2,9i manual:
1/4-mile: 16.2 sek
80-120 kph: 6,6 sek
80-180 kph: 27,6 sek

I'm sure there must be more test data out there. Has anybody done their own controlled testing, like running timed 1/4-miles?

Title: Re: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by Matt on May 30^th, 2010, 10:45am

The test would also be affected by age of car when tests were done, fuel quality and amount of fuel in tank, amount of people in the car and weight of any test equipment / cameras etc

the test you have displayed info for are done in 3 different countries, air quality / altitude will affect performance, as will road surface and gradient

Not to mention most mags were rather harsh on the scorpio as most hated the look of it and 'adjusted' their write ups accordingly

Title: Re: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by faffi on May 30^th, 2010, 10:55am

These are tests done when the cars were new, one must presume with one driver only. The German and Norwegian press didn't complain about its looks like they did in UK and was generally favourably reviewed.

Title: Re: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by Mike H on May 30^th, 2010, 6:40pm

Interesting, 129 mph for the 2 litre seems feasible, seems to work out as about 5,500 rpm (for the auto anyway, with O/D on)

The roll on figures are interesting as well, think I might try a gear lower than fifth if I wanted to go from 40 to 60 mph quickly ;D

Other things that can affect are tyre pressures, wind direction, and drag; I have discovered just having a couple of windows open a bit can knock 10 mph off

Title: Re: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by faffi on May 30^th, 2010, 7:55pm

Top gear acceleration tests are primarily for testing pulling power, I reckon - good times means little need for downshifts to climb hills.

The manual 2.0 16V will be very close to hitting the limiter at 129 mph in 5th, what with the lowest overall gearing of the lot. It still seems weird to me that it should be 5 mph faster than the 150 hp 2.9? And match it on acceleration (listed 1/10s faster from 0-60, actually) - the 2-litre I tried was pretty slow. Top gear acceleration, despite the low gearing, was almost non-existent. Not that the 2.3 was a torque monster; it was flexible enough - could be coaxed up from 600rpm in 5th - but there wasn't much power below 4200 rpm. Well, not a lot above, either, but acceptable. Then again, I wasn't impressed with the Porsche Carrera Turbo and Ferrari 360 Modena I drove around a track last weekend, either. Most cars are pretty bland compared to motorcycles, which is why cars are for transportation and bikes for fun :D

Title: Re: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by faffi on May 30^th, 2010, 10:01pm

According to this http://www.btinternet.com/~jac/scorpio/history.htm the difference in acceleration between a manual and an auto from 0-60 mph is about two seconds http://www.fordscorpio.co.uk/YaBBImages/shocked.gif Interestingly, the auto apparently use less fuel than the manual in steady state cruising - would never have guessed. Perhaps due to the fact that the auto locks up above 40-45 mph and is taller geared than the manual?

The consumption difference between the 12V and Cosworth seems substantial in the old version (which was also called Scorpio here, not Granada) but not in the later edition (1995-98 ).

Title: Re: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by faffi on Jun 16^th, 2010, 12:05am

I know I have seen power graphs for the 2.9, Cosworth, 2.0 and probably diesel - possibly in the owner's manual from 1995. IIRC, this showed the 2.9 12V to have better power than the Cossie below a certain rpm (3000?). Does anybody have these sheets?

Title: Re: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by Jonnycab on Jun 16^th, 2010, 3:40am

faffi...I think you worry too much about figures & comparisons ;)....the Scorpio isn't a racing car, it's a luxury car with a bit of power & a bit more Oomph in the top engine models :)

Drive it & enjoy it :)

Title: Re: How did they really perform? Lots of data
Post by faffi on Jun 16^th, 2010, 7:33am

I do not focus on these items when I drive - it's just that I've always been a sucker for statistics and specifications. Always loved to compare various performances and specifications. It's not good for anything, but I do get some pleasure out of it :)