Joined
·
15 Posts
Anyone know how fast they are? All I've heard about em is that they're basically turboed escorts :?
merkur xr4ti
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Joined
·
306 Posts
um, dude, based on cosworth, and a cosworth escort is not to be scoffed at. 2.0L T, they are quick and there is a parts market out there for 'em.
Joined
·
2,242 Posts
And they look ugly too.
Joined
·
2,242 Posts
And then there's the Mercur "Scorpio" - more ugly and bigger ugly too.
Ford really dropped the ball when they exported those two rides to the US.
Ford really dropped the ball when they exported those two rides to the US.
Joined
·
7,149 Posts
I always thought that the xr4ti came with the same 2.3L Turbo motor as the mustang svo of the early eighties. MY buddy had one...raced him with my Stage III MKIII about 4 years back and he smoked my ass.
if you guys really wanna get technical, its a ford sierra, tuned by cosworth and i belive lotus.
they were kinda ugly stock, but it doesnt take much (wheels, tint, and a nicer face) to make them look really slick.
IIRC they weigh something like 2800ish, with 175-190 hosses.
they were kinda ugly stock, but it doesnt take much (wheels, tint, and a nicer face) to make them look really slick.
IIRC they weigh something like 2800ish, with 175-190 hosses.
Joined
·
682 Posts
Merkur sites:
http://www.merkurxr4ti.com/
http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/search_results.pl?make=Merkur&model=XR4TI
There's a better one, I've seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now. I'll keep looking.
http://www.merkurxr4ti.com/
http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/search_results.pl?make=Merkur&model=XR4TI
There's a better one, I've seen it before, but I can't seem to find it now. I'll keep looking.
Joined
·
110 Posts
XR4Ti
For a change, I get to be the XperT!!!!
I owned an XR for about 2yrs, and it was FAST!
I once took it to 240kph before I chickened out; it would cruise all day at 180kph. The aerodynamics in a straight line were excellent, and you could hold a normal conversation with the windows down at up to 150. The 2.3l Ford engine was in North America, and good for 190HP stock turbo w/no intercool. I had the head off of mine, and gave it a full port on intake, and a clean-up on exhaust. No Dyno tests, but my seat-of-pants-o'meter would guess I managed about 200-210. Mine did not have the I/C, and ran stock boost.
Even a mildy hot-rodded MKII would not stand a chance, as a couple of them found out.
DRAWBACKS:
Dumb-ass North American FURD dealers; NO fuckin' clue.
Trans was T-9, not T-5; non-existant in America, and FRAGILE!!
plastic gear for speedo stripped too easily and hard to replace
Dash lights were euro, and N/A anywhere, had to fab my own
Fan switch would burn out; only high or none available
brake systems limited to this model; parts rare
PLASTIC composite headlights - milky & scratched quickly
Gusty wind from rear quarters made for "lively" road manners; throw in rutted pavement, and passing becomes a true white-knuckler
As a car to live with daily, my Supra is a LOT nicer, cheaper, easier to source parts, has better seats, and WAAYYY more reliable. BUT...
I miss the full-on power and high-speed cruise of my Merkur.
For a change, I get to be the XperT!!!!
I owned an XR for about 2yrs, and it was FAST!
I once took it to 240kph before I chickened out; it would cruise all day at 180kph. The aerodynamics in a straight line were excellent, and you could hold a normal conversation with the windows down at up to 150. The 2.3l Ford engine was in North America, and good for 190HP stock turbo w/no intercool. I had the head off of mine, and gave it a full port on intake, and a clean-up on exhaust. No Dyno tests, but my seat-of-pants-o'meter would guess I managed about 200-210. Mine did not have the I/C, and ran stock boost.
Even a mildy hot-rodded MKII would not stand a chance, as a couple of them found out.
DRAWBACKS:
Dumb-ass North American FURD dealers; NO fuckin' clue.
Trans was T-9, not T-5; non-existant in America, and FRAGILE!!
plastic gear for speedo stripped too easily and hard to replace
Dash lights were euro, and N/A anywhere, had to fab my own
Fan switch would burn out; only high or none available
brake systems limited to this model; parts rare
PLASTIC composite headlights - milky & scratched quickly
Gusty wind from rear quarters made for "lively" road manners; throw in rutted pavement, and passing becomes a true white-knuckler
As a car to live with daily, my Supra is a LOT nicer, cheaper, easier to source parts, has better seats, and WAAYYY more reliable. BUT...
I miss the full-on power and high-speed cruise of my Merkur.
Joined
·
664 Posts
re: XRT4i
Dude, where are these numbers coming from? The XRT4i had 175 hp stock, and was really no quicker than a good MKII. May 1985 Car and Driver has the XRT4i beating the MKII to 60mph by 0.5 sec, but by the end of the 1/4 mile they were dead even, and the MKII edging it out to the 100mph sprint. Top speed for the Merkur was also rated at only 123mph, where did 150mph (240kph) come from? Stock speedometers are notoriously inaccurate at high speeds, and given this is of Ford origin, I'd say double that. Not saying that the Merkur is not a nice car, just trying to put things into perspective.
Sonny
Dude, where are these numbers coming from? The XRT4i had 175 hp stock, and was really no quicker than a good MKII. May 1985 Car and Driver has the XRT4i beating the MKII to 60mph by 0.5 sec, but by the end of the 1/4 mile they were dead even, and the MKII edging it out to the 100mph sprint. Top speed for the Merkur was also rated at only 123mph, where did 150mph (240kph) come from? Stock speedometers are notoriously inaccurate at high speeds, and given this is of Ford origin, I'd say double that. Not saying that the Merkur is not a nice car, just trying to put things into perspective.
Sonny
Joined
·
235 Posts
I don't know how fast they are but there was a nice black one at the exhaust shop the other day and he'd put on some nice 16s, koni reds, ground control springs, upgraded the sway bars, poly bushings all around, Mustang brakes on the front, converted to rear discs, and had a nice 2.5" exhaust put on. I didn't get to talk to the owner but according the the exhaust guy it was pretty damn fast and handled amazingly well. There are definitely parts out there to fix them up. The only reason I'd stay away from it is because it's a ford.
Joined
·
110 Posts
xr4ti
Crocket:
My Merkur was an '86, not '85
The old article I read (before I bought the car; don't remember the mag, but I am confident in my memory of the #s) stated 190hp w/o intercooler, 210+ with I/C, There was also a true Cosworth version in Europe- (Ford Sierra Cosworth) that used a 16V turbo, I/C that was in the high 200's for hp.
I just googled for info, and could find as many sites that stated 190hp as 175hp for the XR.
The 86 SVO mustang with same engine & turbo was 205HP and 245lb-ft of torque.
I agree that the speedo could easily have been + or - 10%, as I don't know if the tires were stock sized (factory rims tho).
I have to ask, what gear ratios were in the Supra and the XR used in your Car & Driver comparo? Supras came with ratio choices, not sure of XR. They usually test on a closed course with limited straights, my run was on an empty Alberta highway with no curves in sight. They test new cars hardly broken in; my Merkur had 80k-km on it. C&D is US magazine, and US ocassionally got imports even more de-tuned than Canada. Was their tester a California model?
They may have stopped at red-line, I didn't
Like it or not, the Merkur aerodynamics ARE SUPERIOR; that car is much smoother and suffers less drag. The Supra is more aesthetically pleasing, but not a wind cheater.
I didn't say I beat YOUR Supra Crocket, but if you have followed this site, or the yahoo list, there are many knowlegeable folk who will tell you that a N.A. 5MGE is near impossible to get to 200HP without turbo or very expensive machine work. My Merkur was in that hp range, and I did in fact beat a couple of Supra's. I never checked under their hoods, nor did I bother to ask. I should perhaps have not said mildly modded, as what I saw were fart cans, but the cars souned better than stock
MY XR was DEFINITELY faster than MY Supra, and I miss that power.
I still PEFER my Supra.
DUDE :suicide:
Ken
Crocket:
My Merkur was an '86, not '85
The old article I read (before I bought the car; don't remember the mag, but I am confident in my memory of the #s) stated 190hp w/o intercooler, 210+ with I/C, There was also a true Cosworth version in Europe- (Ford Sierra Cosworth) that used a 16V turbo, I/C that was in the high 200's for hp.
I just googled for info, and could find as many sites that stated 190hp as 175hp for the XR.
The 86 SVO mustang with same engine & turbo was 205HP and 245lb-ft of torque.
I agree that the speedo could easily have been + or - 10%, as I don't know if the tires were stock sized (factory rims tho).
I have to ask, what gear ratios were in the Supra and the XR used in your Car & Driver comparo? Supras came with ratio choices, not sure of XR. They usually test on a closed course with limited straights, my run was on an empty Alberta highway with no curves in sight. They test new cars hardly broken in; my Merkur had 80k-km on it. C&D is US magazine, and US ocassionally got imports even more de-tuned than Canada. Was their tester a California model?
They may have stopped at red-line, I didn't
Like it or not, the Merkur aerodynamics ARE SUPERIOR; that car is much smoother and suffers less drag. The Supra is more aesthetically pleasing, but not a wind cheater.
I didn't say I beat YOUR Supra Crocket, but if you have followed this site, or the yahoo list, there are many knowlegeable folk who will tell you that a N.A. 5MGE is near impossible to get to 200HP without turbo or very expensive machine work. My Merkur was in that hp range, and I did in fact beat a couple of Supra's. I never checked under their hoods, nor did I bother to ask. I should perhaps have not said mildly modded, as what I saw were fart cans, but the cars souned better than stock
MY XR was DEFINITELY faster than MY Supra, and I miss that power.
I still PEFER my Supra.
DUDE :suicide:
Ken
Joined
·
664 Posts
re:
Not trying to make a big deal about this, but where are your hp figures coming from? According to http://www.merkurencyclopedia.com/ all Merkur XRT4is had 175hp (ie. no engine changes). The 190hp you quote was probably for the intercooled SVO Mustang. It's entirely possible that people owning XRT4is added the SVO intercooler afterwards, but now the car can't be considered stock anymore. The quoted stats below would also indicate that the Merkur did not get a hp increase. The higher hp figures you quote are no doubt for a Sierra Cosworth (check the aforementioned website), which had a different engine entirely and was not available here. Also, with a C.O.D. of 0.32, a XRT4i is not much more aerodynamic than a MKII, and still does not explain your 150mph top speed run. Was your example purchased used? Maybe it had an upgraded turbo and boost to account for the increase in speed? Or maybe as I eluded to before you speedometer is off (way off). There is no way that a stock XRT4i, or evenly a mildly modified example could attain anywheres near those terminal velocities (well possibly a mildly modified one going downhill with a nice tail wind could.... but anyway). And it entirely possible that your XRT4i is faster than your 145hp 82 MKII. Although not being able to test them back to back we won't know for sure.
Car and Driver 5/85
0-60: 7.9
1/4 mile: 16.1
Top Speed: 123mph
Motor Trend 6/86
0-60: 7.8 sec
1/4 mile: 16.2
Top Speed: not given
Car and Driver 6/88
0-60: 7.7
1/4 mile: 16.1
Top Speed: 130mph (defined as MAXIMUM top speed in two directions)
Merkur Encyclopedia
0-60: 7.9
Top Speed: not given
Drag Coefficient: 0.32
Sonny
Not trying to make a big deal about this, but where are your hp figures coming from? According to http://www.merkurencyclopedia.com/ all Merkur XRT4is had 175hp (ie. no engine changes). The 190hp you quote was probably for the intercooled SVO Mustang. It's entirely possible that people owning XRT4is added the SVO intercooler afterwards, but now the car can't be considered stock anymore. The quoted stats below would also indicate that the Merkur did not get a hp increase. The higher hp figures you quote are no doubt for a Sierra Cosworth (check the aforementioned website), which had a different engine entirely and was not available here. Also, with a C.O.D. of 0.32, a XRT4i is not much more aerodynamic than a MKII, and still does not explain your 150mph top speed run. Was your example purchased used? Maybe it had an upgraded turbo and boost to account for the increase in speed? Or maybe as I eluded to before you speedometer is off (way off). There is no way that a stock XRT4i, or evenly a mildly modified example could attain anywheres near those terminal velocities (well possibly a mildly modified one going downhill with a nice tail wind could.... but anyway). And it entirely possible that your XRT4i is faster than your 145hp 82 MKII. Although not being able to test them back to back we won't know for sure.
Car and Driver 5/85
0-60: 7.9
1/4 mile: 16.1
Top Speed: 123mph
Motor Trend 6/86
0-60: 7.8 sec
1/4 mile: 16.2
Top Speed: not given
Car and Driver 6/88
0-60: 7.7
1/4 mile: 16.1
Top Speed: 130mph (defined as MAXIMUM top speed in two directions)
Merkur Encyclopedia
0-60: 7.9
Top Speed: not given
Drag Coefficient: 0.32
Sonny
Joined
·
110 Posts
xr4ti
I'm not going to play "My sources can beat up your sources!!!" And its obviously a big deal to you since you went to all the bother of digging up 80's magazine articles.
The info I had was factory 190hp. If you insist that it was only 175, fine you win.
If you actually read my second post, rather than just dumping all over it, you would have noticed that I conceded that my run was made under UNcontrolled conditions, relying on factory gauges, and tires that may or may not have been correctly sized. -10% at 240kph would mean an actual speed of under 220kph.
It is interesting that as provided by you, C&D quotes 123mph in one article, and 130mph in another a few years later, without noting what variations applied (gear ratio, hp, body mods etc). Since they test mostly NEW cars that are not yet broken in, the test vehicles are not as fast as they could potentially be. Throw in the fact that quality was not actually job #1 at Ford, and you can have a wide variation in actual BHP between 2 identical cars. When I ported the head on my Merkur, I had to grind off a BIG chunk of casting flash from the #2 intake, just before the valve. This piece was about the 1/2 thesize of the ball in a computer mouse, and right in front of valve stem. I asked one Ford mechanic who said this was not unusual for the 2.3l engines.
I should also note that my high speed run was AFTER the Port job.
My XR was purchased used, and other modifications may or may not have been performed before I acquired it. I never measured the cam, and did not bother to find info on stock boost; mine would boost 10-12lbs IIRC.
I never dyno'd the car, nor run 1/4miles with it. I STILL beat 2 Supras in stop-light racing, and STILL know that it was faster than my current supra. I also lost some races.
Since you wish to pick apart my posting, you should at least read it through.
Ken
I'm not going to play "My sources can beat up your sources!!!" And its obviously a big deal to you since you went to all the bother of digging up 80's magazine articles.
The info I had was factory 190hp. If you insist that it was only 175, fine you win.
If you actually read my second post, rather than just dumping all over it, you would have noticed that I conceded that my run was made under UNcontrolled conditions, relying on factory gauges, and tires that may or may not have been correctly sized. -10% at 240kph would mean an actual speed of under 220kph.
It is interesting that as provided by you, C&D quotes 123mph in one article, and 130mph in another a few years later, without noting what variations applied (gear ratio, hp, body mods etc). Since they test mostly NEW cars that are not yet broken in, the test vehicles are not as fast as they could potentially be. Throw in the fact that quality was not actually job #1 at Ford, and you can have a wide variation in actual BHP between 2 identical cars. When I ported the head on my Merkur, I had to grind off a BIG chunk of casting flash from the #2 intake, just before the valve. This piece was about the 1/2 thesize of the ball in a computer mouse, and right in front of valve stem. I asked one Ford mechanic who said this was not unusual for the 2.3l engines.
I should also note that my high speed run was AFTER the Port job.
My XR was purchased used, and other modifications may or may not have been performed before I acquired it. I never measured the cam, and did not bother to find info on stock boost; mine would boost 10-12lbs IIRC.
I never dyno'd the car, nor run 1/4miles with it. I STILL beat 2 Supras in stop-light racing, and STILL know that it was faster than my current supra. I also lost some races.
Since you wish to pick apart my posting, you should at least read it through.
Ken
Joined
·
664 Posts
re:
Dude, it's all good. I don't mean to pick on you or your account of events. Anything is possible. I was only commenting on something that was mentioned in your first post that raised an eyebrow, and thought I would add my opinion with some facts . Besides, looking up facts in old magazines gives me a reason to re-read some cool 80's articles again. It's what I do. Later 8)
Sonny
Dude, it's all good. I don't mean to pick on you or your account of events. Anything is possible. I was only commenting on something that was mentioned in your first post that raised an eyebrow, and thought I would add my opinion with some facts . Besides, looking up facts in old magazines gives me a reason to re-read some cool 80's articles again. It's what I do. Later 8)
Sonny
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
