Why is everyone here crying about not having a RWD shitbox

the sierra is awfully unreliable/fragile for hooning

Never made it to the US (unless you count the Merkur XR4Ti), and starting to get rare in yurop.

File: opel-omega-ope_98_ol_1.jpg (41KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 630x420px

>>17137062
OMEGA

>>17137076
fat 'n slow

File: 57801d8s-960.jpg (157KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 800x534px

>>17137076
Yeah I guess in the end the Omega won. Still see more of them around (A and B) than Sierras.

>>17137085
The Sierra was slower on average if it didn't happen to be the sportier edition.

>>17137099
sure, sierra was slower, but only about 200HP from a 3l V6 engine is american tier low

>>17137140
200hp from a shitbox V6 is perfectly acceptable for a car from the '90s. Remember that engine wasn't built for performance.

File: Opel-Omega-38256_auto_geburtstage_16_wochenthema_6.jpg (58KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 630x420px

>>17137085
>>17137099
>>17137140
equivalent of Crown vic
slow
reliable
rwd
big sedan

>>17137153
>that engine wasn't built for performance.
that's the point, for me RWD shitbox has to be sporty, not just be RWD. That's my point desu lads

because the equivalent E30 had plenty of great engines to choose from in comparison the Sierra. Also you can fit pretty much any engine into an E30 up to the e46 with not much issues, while a sierra has what FORD options? The 2.0 DOHC? the 2.9 v6 that barely made 150?
TLDR: it costs more to go fast in a Sierra than in an E30. Also, an E30 is a better car, period.

>>17137185
there's a sport version
and a manual version

>>17137140
>200HP from a 3l V6 engine
Actually, for a N/A V6 at the time, that was decent. Yamaha made a 220 HP 3.0L for Ford (Taurus SHO), GM made a 3.4L screamer with 210 HP (Monte Carlo Z34), Nissan made a 3.0L with 190 HP (Maxima), and Honda had a 3.0L V6 making 200 HP (Accord)

So it was actually respectable power at the time.

File: Mazda-KLZE[1].jpg (736KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 1600x1200px

>>17137207
Don't forget Mazda's 200hp 2.5l KLZE. Underrated little gem.

>>17137219
nip only. sadly.

>>17137292
Yeah, the global market KLDE still made a respectable 170hp though.

File: Ford-Sierra-2.0.jpg (22KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 640x480px

>>17137062
>but completely ignoring the Sierra?
Well, because newest Sierra is older than your average 4chan poster, also mainly euro car.
Back in the day I had a 3-door with 2.0 dohc engine from 1990. That thing knew how to take a beating and not give a fuck.

pic. mine was light blue

>>17137140
i wish i had 200HP

mine piece of shit v6 is 160HP

>>17137140
200hp out of 3l in a 90s shitbox? That's pretty decent for back then.