Ford and BMW both have serious European Championship saloon car racing aspirations for 1987. The Sierra RS Cosworth and the BMW M3 are the weapons they will use. What kind of car does the customer get? In this exclusive comparison, our test team, led by Jeremy Walton, drove over 2300 miles to pit the 150mph Ford against BMW’s latest. It was an epic confrontation! – Performance Car
The ‘log book’ for C232 HVW, a Ford Sierra RS Cosworth, is now as travel stained and battle-scarred as this Sierra’s under-belly. For this hard-worked Ford, a 2000-mile round trip to meet BMW’s latest Motorsport weapon, the 146mph M3, came on top of life as a press demonstrator which saw service on the model’s original launch in Spain.
Yet, in our hands, this white, three-door Sierra averaged over 23mpg, while occasionally inserting over 80 miles into each hour while turbo-whistling its way to our meeting with the M3. The Ford’s consumption was exceptional, for it was mostly running off-boost, keeping over-cool company with our long term 325i along the way. The RS, however, did develop a thirst for water that verged upon the rabid!
That impromptu log covers an unusually eventful span from 14,400 to 16,600 miles on the Sierra’s recorded mileage and includes one or two incidents in our stroll across Europe.
Half a day and £500 lost to French customs, for instance. Or the best part of 24 hours wasted, close to yet another border, when Walton and a fallen rock consummated an unwanted relationship that cracked the Cosworth’s alloy sump.
The severing of the same car’s exhaust manifold to twin exhaust downpipe at our chosen circuit was another hiccup in a tough trip, but it was all worthwhile.
For these two showrooms and circuit competitors promise a new dimension in the capable compact saloon class that Mercedes pioneered with Cosworth in the widely praised 2.3/16.
Travelling south we found our objective, BMW’s 200bhp, Motorsport division developed 3-Series – better known, to friend and foe alike, simply as the M3.
For two days we played in paradise. We had the use of a deserted race track (one of Europe’s best, with 3.3 miles of kinks and crests that recall a sunny Brands Hatch) and free run of the surrounding public roads: ribbons of motorway, city avenues and bump-ridden byways on which to pit Ford against BMW in their most exciting contest since the days of the 320bhp RS Capris and the BMW CSL ‘Batmobiles’ in the European Touring Car Championships of the 1970s.
The white Ford and the fleet BMW are worthy adversaries. Despite the presence of turbocharging on the Ford’s 16-valve Cosworth 2-litre, the Sierra RS and BMW’s M3 come to the line with almost the same power to weight ratio: 167.2bhp per ton for the heavier and larger 3-door Ford, versus 169.5 for the compact 2-door BMW.
They also have practically the same aerodynamic drag factors: BMW’s revised 3-Series outline weighs in at 0.33, against Ford’s production confirmed 0.34Cd.
Ford and BMW also agree on conventional front-engine, rear-drive layouts that depend on MacPherson front and semi-trailing arm rear suspension. Furthermore, both share gas damping, the standard security of ABS-backed four-wheel disc brakes and power-assistance for more responsive rack-and-pinion steering to guide substantially modified chassis of production origin.
Performance was bound to be close between such similar concepts (though they will race in different classes as Ford’s turbo will race in different classes as Ford’s turbo takes the Sierra into a bigger league) and in the event we found it was hard to separate the pair in back-to back electronic measurement of their prowess at the circuit.
Both Ford and BMW utilise their 200bhp outputs to sprint from 0-60mph in less than seven seconds, both will exceed 145mph and only 0.5mpg separated them in track use.
On the road, BMW provide a measurable fuel consumption advantage, but the Cosworth-boosted Sierra retaliates with a killer display of flexibility in the higher ranges of fourth and fifth gears.
From 50-70mph and beyond, the high-winged product of American ownership and American transmission, Belgian manufacture and British engineering, stomps away on the German Dunlops that it shares with Porsche. And the multinational Ford finally leaves the Fatherland trailing, with a small maximum speed advantage.
However, we all know how figures can deceive, so what are such cars like to live with? Which would you marry, if you would marry at all?
To help us answer such crucial questions, both manufacturers allowed unprecedented access to their cars. We tried M3s on two brands of tyre (Uniroyal and Pirelli), with and without such option as air conditioning, leather upholstery, sunroof and trip computer.
Our testers have also driven a number of similar Fords, including the updated car photographed here and one absolutely brand new production RS, and over a wide range of terrain.
Interior & Controls
The M3 has the initial air of an ordinary 3-Series; neatly coordinated, with the ultimate on analogue instrumentation clarity, but with detail changes which make it an even finer cabin to occupy.
As ever, BMW switchgear is laid out logically and operates with a precise air of quality that Ford can only contemplate.
Ford themselves have a riot of colors on their 160mph speedo, on the 7000rpm tachometer and above the slightly gimmicky rocker switches with their hedgehog ‘bristles’ to assist sweaty digits. BMW burst into splashes of red only to delineate a 7000 to 7300rpm warning band, or to act as warnings on the usual water temperature and fuel tank dials.
They do, however, permit themselves some time off from somber high quality plastics and restfully toned grey cloth trims – with a splash of Motorsport colors about the central dashboard M3 logo, repeated on the bottom spoke of the Motorsport leather-rim steering wheel.
Ford give you an XR3i wheel with a leather rim and the accountants had even allowed a leather gear lever knob on the test Sierra RS! On stepping from BMW, Ford trim strikes the senses as typical Euro-mass-manufacture and you are also conscious of how rough those Ford flap-style door latches are in comparison with the operation and finish of the similar BMW door access.
Ford seats do not adjust to cover as many possibilities as those of BMW, which are manufactured by the company themselves, not by Recaro, says their spokesman. BMW offer the driver thigh, height, and tilt controls, in addition to the normal backrest and legroom adjusters.
However, Ford’s sporting Recaro front seats (With driver’s-side height adjustment and excellent rotary knob backrest control) were voted just as comfortable as those of BMW and the driving position is outstanding. BMW used to be in a class of their own in this department, but Ford and Recaro have cooperated to provide more location at no discernible penalty in long distance comfort.
BMW incorporate an oil temperature gauge on the M3, where an ‘econometer’ normally sits in lesser 3-Series; it stayed rock-solid, at just under 100°C, even in track use. Ford tailor their standard dash by incorporating the boost gauge from the Sierra Merkur XR4Ti (2,3-litre, as raced by Andy Rouse in 1985-86) in one corner, but no oil pressure or temperature information is provided.
Ford also gloss over the need for a footrest (extraordinary in this class of car) but BMW do include this vital item. Ford counterpunch, however, with a conventional five-speed gearchange pattern for their Borg Warner T5 unit, whereas BMW have gone for the rather dubious (on a road car) racing pattern, with first to the left and back and second to fifth to its right in a standard H-pattern. The layout has obvious first to second gearchange deficiencies in urban or standing start use, and BMW cannot claim they had to have this pattern, for the Group A racer uses yet another Getrag unit, as found in competition 6-Series cars.
BMW move ahead again when we consider visibility; the high wing on the Cosworth pretty effectively obliterates any sign of following traffic and its headlamps, and could cost you your license.
BMW and Ford both provide good three-quarter rear vision for joining motorways and the forward views are uncluttered, the Sierra having a noticeably raked bonnet.
These cars, of course, are not sold on their accommodation potential, but if they were the Ford would be in a class up from the BMW. The two-inch longer wheelbase translates into extra rear seat room (always appalling on the 3-Series, more so with sports seats). Ford also has the hatchbad load advantage, along with Sierra L folding seats.
BMW could claim that boot accommodation was slightly increased on the M3 because the bootlid line has been raised by over one and a half inches, but That 2nd the ‘glassback’ enlargement and refinement of the M3’s back window are intended purely to help airflow (and the Cd factor quoted) for the rear deck and beep spoiler. Incidentally, these items, and the spoiler, plus the side extensions, are all moulded in polyurethanes that are flawlessly finished to match the deep luster of BMW’s exterior paint.
Looking over the exteriors, the Ford may feel embarrassed. After all, it is ‘only’ a Sierra dressed for a new role, not a purpose-built quality car. Yet the Ford kit of plastic add-on panels appeared sturdy, and that rear wing is necessary to overcome lift at speed.
The Ford’s low wind noise at consistently high speeds confirmed that Ford body panel fit and sealing have improved beyond imagination in recent years. A brand new production Cosworth in black looked particularly attractive and the panel fits were acceptable where those of the long distance mount would not have pleased a customer!
Finally, on a showroom static comparison note, we emphasize BMW have no plans to offer the M3 in right-hand-drive form, or indeed offer it in Britain at all. The £18,500-plus quoted is for a German market model, lacking the sunroof, ICE, electric windows and central locking that come with the right-hand-drive Ford.
Driving the M3 & RS
Only in their surprising and accommodating ride qualities on gas damping (Boge for the BMW; Fichtel & Sachs for Ford), with twin-tube units used for their front MacPherson struts, do the Ford and BMW strike common notes.
This may be because both share semi-traveling arm rear units too (single-tube gas dumped), but when you start to drive hard their paths diverge . . .
The BMW is the best Bavaria has ever produced in the chassis department – and the least like a BMW in engine manners!
Thomas Ammerschlager, late of Ford competitions as well as Audi’s chassis department, headed a team who increased the front end castor on the BMW by a factor of three, remounted its front and rear roll bars and uprated the rear springs. On Pirelli or Uniroyal, road or track, this has resulted in a unique blend of increased grip, tidy rear-end breakaway and outstanding safety.
The M3 understeers gently where a 325i backs and rears in sloppy distress. Its assisted steering, with faster response from a 19.6: I ratio, relays all the vital data right up to four-wheel drifts in circuit use, enabling any driver to be quickly flattered by its immense abilities.
Initially, the Sierra feels just the same good-natured pal. Plumper tyres (225 versus 205), in association with radically seperated suspension, featuring front and rear negative camber angles, allow the Ford to develop even cornering power than the BMW.
Also changed on the Ford is the front all centres (raised by 3.6 inches) with 106lb in springs mated to a beefy front roll bar, having a girth just beyond an inch.
On the road, that’s the end of the story, Ford Special Vehicle Engineering in Essex have done the job and provided a Sierra of occupational gripping capability, whether in straightline acceleration, or in outright cornering power.
In track action the Sierra betrays the standard use of 18 degree raked rear traveling arms, springs beyond 230lb/in and ? technology, including the half-inch null bar. Driven beyond road limits, including mid-corner decelerations, the Sierra gets more untidy than the BMW. This RS demands skilled and fast corrections to keep the tail from slapping to add fro.
Playing a vital role in all this comment are two steering changes which Ford SVE made in the light of Spanish launch criticisms: first they replaced the inner TCA (Track Control Arm) joints with rubber instead of plastic ball joints, and secondly they worked with TRW Cam Gears to remove the rack-and-pinion’s sensitivity around the dead-ahead position.
Confirming the details of this Sierra ‘de-sensitizing’ operation, SVE Manager Mansfield told us, ‘we think the inner units did half the job and we’re going over in the same system on all our 4×4 Sierras and Granadas, the first example having been the Sierra wagon. Given the production opportunity we would also like to alter castor slightly, but that has to be it a present.
The result is a still rapid rack (just 2.63 terms lock-to-lock) but the turning circle cornered a lot worse than the BMW’s in broad use. Ford have also foregone the informative wriggling (a la Piesche 911) of the original. Most customers should love it, but in our confrontation, BMW now get the nod for combining feel and response in their modified steering.
Braking is another dynamic quality that becomes vital in such cars. Here, Ford beat BMW on a slightly firmer pedal action from their Alfred Teves anti-lock system, but lose points for a vibration that developed later in the test.
BMW and Robert Bosch did a marvelous job in re-valving their legendary ABS so that it reacted only to the hardest inputs, but Ford-Teves was just a smidgeon faster, and just as predictable, for road and track use. Both are in the class of racing cars by normal road standards and a pleasurable reassurance in such 145mph-plus machinery!
In less dramatic driving, particularly in everyday road use, we believe Ford has some important advantages.
Firstly, Henry knows more than most about ventilation and heating. Secondly, Ford have a superb gearbox while BMW persist with the racing ‘pose-pattern’. Thirdly, this Ford cruises with an absence of fuss that puts the deliberately short-geared BMW, with its big-bore, four-cylinder engine, at an immediate disadvantage.
We did not expect to comment favorably on Ford engine refinement against a BMW, but even the fabled Bavarians could not overcome the resonances inherent in a four-cylinder layout between 4000rpm and 4500rpm.
At a constant 4500rpm, and the displayed equivalent of 93mph in fifth, the M3 starts to become wearing, BMW Motorsport’s mildly exasperated engineers acknowledged that a great deal of work had gone into the unit – and its exhaust system – in an effort to overcome this shortcoming. We failed to remind them that even Porsche had to go to countershafts on their 2.5-litre four for the 924s/944.
The plus side of this BMW unit (on which development commenced with a ‘cut-up M635/M1 six-cylinder head to see if it would work’) is life between the 4750rpm torque peak and the 7300rpm limit. ‘It’s just so exciting,’ said one tester with plenty of competition miles completed. In contrast the Cosworth-Ford is less dramatic, but generally better mannered, with a smaller (2-litre, smaller bore) resonance at 4000rpm. Above and below that is exceptional cruising peace, with 102mph and 4500rpm being virtually ‘loafing’, and up to 130mph at 5700 in fifth causing no sustained-speed fuss.
Faced by awesome pace and civilized grace at this speed from such an unlikely source as Ford, it is possible to forget BMW’s superior B-road ability.
For the BMW’s bigger engine, lighter weight and gearbox worked in an H-pattern (scoring heavily on the in-line second to third change compared to usual ‘across the gate’ Ford pattern) make the M3 easier to drive rapidly over country roads than the turbo Cosworth. The RS is slowed by its slightly larger dimensions over unknown and bumpy B-roads. Under such conditions it is also noticeable that the BMW has the slightly softer ultimate ride and more ground clearance!
Performance & Economy
Our figures are the usual two-way averages, recorded with our normal computerized fifth-wheel equipment; both cars were measured within an hour of each other and both are measured using the same points on the track.
While our acceleration runs give extremely accurate representations of the performance offered by both companies, we have to concede that a race track does not permit sustained, and therefore measurable, maximum speed runs.
Consequently, both the maximums given here are as observed by Germany’s notoriously strict TUV government inspection board. In this connection it may be worth noting that the 2.3/16 Mercedes can manage an honest 145mph on less power, thanks to a sleeker overall shape than either of our current contestants.
As you can see, both the RS and the M3 outpower the 185bhp Mercedes 2.3/16 Cosworth conclusively with their 6.7 second (Ford) and 6.9 second (BMW) 0-60mph times, the Ford only opening any kind of measurable edge on the BMW in its 0-100mph averages, where it sneaks under the 20 second barrier. The Mercedes returns ‘only’ eight seconds to 60mph, thanks to a 2950lb kerb weight which allows only 140bhp per ton.
It is nice to be able to report that two such fast cars are also responsive to demands for mid-range power. Indeed the 2-litre Sierra RS blows off the M3’s big brother, the 3.5-litre/286bhp M5, between 50 and 70mph in both fourth and fifth! Our records show 5.9/7.1 seconds versus 6.8/9.3 seconds. The M3’s short gearing, however, does allow it an occasional low speed (usually under 50mph) flexibility ‘win’ over the Ford.
Both cars departed from a standing start with over 4500rpm needed to break traction, emphasizing that rear-wheel drive can still handle a lot of power quite capably. In fact we only ever spun the Ford’s wheels on poor surfaces and the uphill hairpin traction in the mountains along our road route was as compelling as the views.
Summary
It has been an exhilarating as well as demanding business bringing a full report on two masterful performance cars from dedicated opponents. BMW had to take the shock of seeing a white Ford materialize on their temporary ‘home patch’ for a full performance session, while Ford lent us a car which they knew was ‘tired’, in the cause of meeting both opposition and deadlines. Furthermore, they were quite co-operative in taking a seven-mile old production machine off the press preparation schedule for our cross-checking drive.
Although the BMWs came complete with engines of uncivilized resonances, there was no doubt that Bayerische Motoren Werke has spent more time (since July 1981 compared to Ford’s April 1983 initial planning meeting), and more money, in making a genuine production car of their project.
BMW plan at least 15,000 copies of the M3 in the next three years, where Ford are likely to make only 5000 of the car tested here, its mechanical components then being likely to find a modified home.
The Ford performs way out of its league; it really could run deep into Europe and back with the Porsche 944T, gaining on handling and fuel economy, losing a few tenths of a second on acceleration and down just 2mph on maximum velocity.
So this Sierra really is something for Ford to shout about. At £15,950 there is no doubt the Sierra RS Cosworth gives exceptional performance and specification value; just don’t expect the quality and refinement of finish and detail engineering that you get from West Germany’s finest.
The BMW? Well, the company have made it pretty clear they don’t have Britain in mind as a sales outlet for this new flier, and few of you, we suspect, would buy left-hand drive. We view this as serious omission by Bavaria, for British customers have supplied considerable profits over the years and obviously don’t mind paying over the odds for an exceptional car.
Realistically, we can only recommend that such custom is given to Mercedes and their right-hand-drive-engineered 2.3/16, with Cosworth ingredients. It was a pioneer in this sector and we don’t honestly think that BMW have taken advantage of their later start to pull and perceptible advantage over the Merc, save the easy option of 200bhp in place of Stuttgart’s 185, which could in any case be rectified on the aftermarket.
If you are a British enthusiast, we don’t think the Sierra will disappoint in any performance role, and it is a natural competitor, for that was how it was conceived. However, if you are the kind of customer who just wants the best quality sports roadgoing saloon money can buy, then smile while paying over £21,000 for the right-hand-drive Mercedes which Stuttgart bothered to make for you!
Related posts:
September 1, 2008
1986 - 1989, Articles