How Ford put the boot into the Sierra August 22, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , trackbackBack in 1987, Ford invested huge amounts into the Sierra Sapphire.
Remember it? The booted, four-door version of 1982’s ‘jellymould’? That car replaced the Cortina in spirit… but not in the eyes of Mr. and Mrs. Jones of Battersea.
To appease them, Ford changed every panel other than the roof. This saloon Sierra, alongside the five-door hatchback, was an 18-car range that would boost the Sierra’s share of the UK market by a boggling 8 percent.
Why? Because Ford would now be open to far more fleet car choice lists (back then, hatchbacks were a no-no for many fleets – can you imagine?!). This would see it increase market share, possibly closing to the 30 percent it held before Vauxhall and Austin-Rover got good.
(For comparison, massive recent gains by Ford have seen it edge closer to… 20 percent.)
Now, get rid of the big hole in the back of a hatch, explained top writer (the late) Jeff Daniels, and the car becomes stiffer. Enhanced, in the Sapphire’s case, by having a bonded-in rear windscreen. This meant the windscreen could also become bigger.
With a stiffer floorplan too, the ride had actually suffered, the engineers revealed to Daniels: there was now so (relatively) little flex in the chassis, so they had to take remedial action. By softening the suspension bushes, to soak up more grumbles at source.
Incidentally, the reason why Sapphires got fold-down rear seats – then, a rarity in saloons – was because of the hatchback roots. Ford chose not to fill in the gap in the rear bulkhead here, to save a bit of dosh…
Finite element analysis was in its infancy back then. I studied it at Brum Uni; even in 1997, we had to leave the computer running overnight to process. Lord knows how long it took Ford to do the Sierra’s mathematical model Ford refined on this iteration.
Meant they knew the exact force inputs, though, rather than having to predict them. Thus, the body engineers knew they’d get most benefit from floorpan stiffening, so upped sill strength, along with the crossmember running between them.
Ford’s level of detail extended even to the windows. These, revealed Daniels, were 15mm deeper, while the glass area itself was enlarged through squaring off the rounded corners of each window. Sounds simple: but ‘aint cheap. Ford saved cash by sharing the same doors on saloon and hatch, mind.
Much to the surprise of geeks, this – didn’t the Sapphire have doors that met the roof cleanly, rather than having a drip rail in the way, as on the hatch? They did indeed. But the doors were indeed identical. Cannily, developing the new body had allowed Ford to integrate the drip rail. The budget, nor the will, didn’t stretch to doing the hatch’s too.
There was one even more local change. UK Sapphire models got a tiny front grille, to differentiate them from the hatch. This wasn’t the case anywhere else in Europe – and meant yet another new set of tooling for our market alone. Blimey.
No wonder, really, that Ford forked out, to do the whole Sierra facelift/Sapphire introduction, £200 million. Big money back then. Eye-watering now. It also took no less than 1.5 million man hours…
Mind you, look at the detail of some of the things they had to do. Ford introduced a heated windscreen, for example. Great! Only, the switch for it took the slot previously reserved for the rear wash-wipe of the hatch and estate. There were no free ones left.
The engineers thus had to design an entirely new column stalk, just to accommodate a rear wash-wipe function.
Ah, how things were… mind you, as the Sapphire itself was a sticking plaster, maybe this shouldn’t be too surprising.
Comments»
[...] How Ford put the boot into the Sierra [...]
[...] How Ford put the boot into the Sierra [...]
Fascinating piece…
Stylistically, however, the tweaks around the windows (tighter radii, etc) were also designed to get away from the ‘jelly-mould’ jokes which plagued the first gen Sierra hatch.
Looking back now, I think the original is still the best. I believe even Giugiaro, when asked in the mid 80s if there was a car he wished he had designed, cited original Sierra.
Thanks Massimo! In retrospect, original hatch is still the best (unless the Saph is a Cossie..!!). But, given that it looks mildly contemporary today, compared to the shocking datedness of the Cortina, it’s unsurprising people were shocked/amazed/etc…
So often, Ford design has led trends. I’d say it’s still doing it today: current Fiesta is a blinder, Mondeo is great, S-Max set trends. Mind you, for me, the current modern classic is the ’98 MkI Focus. How good does it still look today?!
Another interesting fact to do with the Ford saloon era, is that when Ford created the Orion, it took the Cortina Mk 5 rear tail lights and adapted them for the Orion. If you look at the clusters side by side, the indicators, reversing and brake lights are in identical positions – just in a more modern and up to date design.
Ian, that fact has made my day – thanks! Amazing… Now to find a nice 1986 1.6 Ghia in that familiar maroon colour to compare with a Crusader!
R.
Ian, the cameras never lie: check these out!
Ford Orion
Ford Cortina
Actually, the Sapphire’s front grille didn’t go entirely unused on the continent. However, it wasn’t linked to a particular body version there, but to an engine choice instead: the diesel-engined versions in the Sierra range got the grille, regardless of body style. The Sapphire moniker wasn’t used on the continent either, the saloon was simply marketed as another body choice within the Sierra range there.
Wow – great feedback: thanks, Sven! Appreciate the comment.
Always feel free to drop over any other thoughts on EU cars, too.
Best,
Richard.