Group test Audi 100CD C3 vs BMW 525e E28 and Ford Granada 2.8GL Mark II, Saab 900 Turbo

Group test luxury saloons – Audi 100CD C3 vs BMW 525e E28 and Ford Granada 2.8GL Mark II, SAAB 900 Turbo Sedan Series 1. Auto focus. Need big saloons mean big fuel Mils? We compare the new economy oriented BMW 525e with the slippery Audi 100 and other large automatics from Saab and Ford to find the top fuel stretcher.

Big cars are starting to make a comeback after years in the sales doldrums and the reason is a sometimes dramatic improvement in fuel consumption which has done much to counteract the financial burden of running a large car. Leading the way in this drive to-wards improved consumption have-been Audi, whose new (1982, Drive-my remark) 100 C3 model set fresh standards in aerodynamics and economy. But arch German rivals, BMW, who have seen Audi’s newcomer take a chunk out of the heart of their market, have been quick to respond with their new economy saloon, the 525e.

And since their less than two years’ old (at 1983, Drive-my remark) 5-series saloon has nothing like the aerodynamic efficiency of the Audi, they have been forced to adopt a different solution with, in passing, a hard knock at Audi’s enthusiasm for aerodynamics which they say is not the best way to economy.

We decided the two big saloons were obvious group test rivals and we have also added in a third car that adopts some highly modern solutions to problems of combining performance with good economy; the Saab 900 Turbo whose latest engine features not just the performance boosting turbocharger but also the clever APC engine management system.

Our fourth contender is scarcely as modern or progressively engineered as the others. But the Ford Granada is far from being mere ‘cannon fodder’ in the test. It’s a conventionally engineered yet still popular large saloon that sets a high standard which the other, newer cars must try to beat. Ford openly say, too, that the Granada will be replaced next year by a much more adventurous newcomer, project Scorpio, and any weaknesses in the Granada here will, perhaps, point to likely improvements.

{gallery}e28{/gallery}

The BMW 525e E28 is the cornerstone of this test and its technical solutions to fuel economy deserve closest attention. Engineers use the Greek letter ‘Eta’ as the symbol for efficiency – the ratio between fuel burned and energy derived – and BMW have chosen this name for a new engine which is the 525e’s major advance. It is a large capacity BMW M20 engine, of 2693cc. that has been designed to produce massive torque – pulling power – at low revs, and has many detail engineering refinements.

Performance is claimed to be similar to the two-litre engined 520i E28 and power outputs of the two engines are the same at 125 bhp, but while the 520i produces maximum power at 5800 revs, the Eta engine needs only 4250 rpm. Similarly torque is 177 lb ft at 3250 rpm compared with the smaller unit’s 122 lb ft at 4500 rpm.

This ‘low end torque’ philosophy is not unique to BMW: many other manufacturers are producing engines to a similar philosophy. Economy is improved because the extra flexibility allows higher gearing, lower revs and wider throttle openings.

Because the low revving, flexible engine is not well suited to a manual gearbox BMW are only offering the 525e here with their new four-speed automatic transmission, recently introduced on the 6- and 7-series and which features a high geared overdrive top ratio and lock-up system.

The rest of the E28 525e is relatively standard 5-series, though the drive-train is stronger and there are disc brakes all round (vented at the front). Suspension is by MacPherson struts at the front and independent semi-trailing arms at the rear, with steering by power-assisted recirculating ball.

While the BMW engine is best  suited to an automatic transmission that shifts the ratios up as promptly as possible and keeps engine revs low, Audi’s 100 has gone instead for high manual gearing as the optimum solution. Nevertheless we felt it was essential to compare like with like and chose an automatic 100CD.

The Audi’s world-beating drag coefficient of 0.30 is now legend, as is its unique flush fitting glass that was instrumental in achieving this figure. The wind tunnel optimised body is sleek but very long – eight inches longer than the BMW. It’s not heavy, though; 1.9 cwt lighter than the 525e.

Audi’s unique five-cylinder engine powers the 100, producing 136 bhp at 5700 rpm in the larger capacity 2144cc 100CD engine. Like the BMW it uses Bosch fuel injection but without the sophisticated Motronic computerised engine management system of the other. Peak torque of the engine is 133 lb ft at 4800 rpm.

Transmission of the automatic model, a £634 option, is a fairly conventional three-speed, and while the BMW – like the Granada – is rear-wheel-drive, the Audi pairs up with the Saab in being front-drive, with the engine running longitudinally and sitting right at the front of the car. Suspension is strut type at the front and by a twisting semi-independent dead’ axle at the rear and coil springs. Brakes are all round discs.

Saab uses wishbones and coil springs for the front suspension with the rear being a ‘dead’ axle, located by trailing arms. Brakes are all-round discs and the steering is rack and pinion with power assistance. Once again, to keep things equal, we opted for the £450 extra automatic transmission; a conventional three-speed Borg Warner.

{gallery}Saab900{/gallery}

The APC (automatic performance control) engine management system has brought a new dimension to Saab’s four cylinder, 1985cc turbocharged engine. Electronic sensors now monitor the load on the engine and open the turbo wastegate to reduce boost pressure if this rises too high. The result is much better bottom end performance because the engine does not need to be ‘de-tuned’ so much to cope with the added turbo power when it comes in higher up the rev range. As a bonus the APC engine will run on any fuel grade (with varying performance) from sub-two star quality. Power of the latest engine is 145 bhp at 5000 rpm and torque of 174 lb ft at 3000 rpm rivals the BMW’s figure, though there isn’t the same proportion of torque available below these revs. Though the 900 is a big car, almost as long as the massive Audi, its origins in the smaller 99 are still revealed in its short wheelbase and relative narrowness. In this group we are testing the four-door saloon Turbo.

The Ford Granada uses two sizes of V6 engine to power the bulk of its model range and we opted for the 2792cc larger version in its caburettored 135 bhp guise. Such are the permutations of Granada models that a 160 bhp fuel injected model might have been considered equal on price grounds, though it would have had a substantial power advantage over the others here. The overhead valve V6 engine produces its maximum power at 5200 rpm and peak torque of 160 lb ft at 3000 rpm.

The rear drive Granada is another to use wishbones with coil springs for its front suspension while at the rear it follows BMW philosophy in having an all-independent semi-trailing arm layout. Steering is power assisted rack and pinion and the brakes are front disc/rear drum.

The 2.8 Ghia saloon we are testing here is a substantial £1000 plus cheaper than the others of the group; the better equipped Injection model would have been more equal on price but was, unfortunately, not available. Both the GL and Ghia models come with Ford’s own three-speed automatic gearbox as standard.

PERFORMACE

BMW 5

AUDI 3

SAAB 3

FORD 2

A low revving BMW engine, red lined at only 5000 rpm on the rev counter? It sounds the antithesis of everything the enthusiast wants in his BMW. But, fear not: keep your eyes off the rev counter and you will be hard pressed to realise it is anything else but the sweet, smooth, free revving six of any BMW.

Some might detect marginally less smoothness in the big engine but it’s still impressive and, though it may only rev to 5000, all those revs can be used quickly and effectively.

Think of it as a 2.7 litre BMW and the performance isn’t that impressive but appreciate that it’s only a 125 horse power (least powerful of the four here) and its acceleration figures can be seen more favourably.

It’s a clear second quicker to 60 mph, reaching it in a lively 9.6 seconds, and manages to stay just ahead of the others to 100 mph.

But while the engine is impressive, it is the automatic transmission that is the real secret of the 525’s performance success. It’s dazzlingly responsive; answering a press on the throttle with an uncannily quick – and silky smooth – kick-down change to a lower gear. Its change is so prompt that it will probably satisfy many sporting drivers who would normally detest the whole notion of giving up their manual shifting for it will down- change responsively enough to set the car in the right gear for maximum acceleration out of bends or past slower traffic, with none of the normally time wasting torque converter slippage.

The ‘kick-down’ acceleration figures confirm its effectiveness. The BMW runs from 30-50 mph in only 3.2 secs – quicker than all the rest – as it kicks down so smartly and this initial edge of acceleration is what keeps it in front. Under hard acceleration the automatic changes up right at the red line — with complete smoothness — and it will even kick-down in the higher rev ranges where others usually refuse.

But, of course, like any automatic it also changes up to the highest gear as soon as possible; in this case the high overdrive top (a genuine overdrive since the 115 mph maximum is achieved in third, the speed tailing off gradually when fourth engages).

{gallery}audic3{/gallery}

If the BMW is made by its delightful auto-box, the Saab, which ought to be the quickest here, is utterly spoiled by a dismal automatic. The torque converter seems to take an age before absorbing internal slippage and taking up drive, and this serves only to exaggerate the rather weak initial engine response.

The result is that the Saab potters frustratingly slowly away from a standstill (4.7 secs from 0-30 mph compared with the BMW’s 3.3 secs) and only when well on the move does the exhilarating turbo performance start to come into its own – it’s quickest from 60-80 mph and has the highest top speed.

Though the APC engine does have better mid-range power than earlier turbos, the turbo engine still needs to be kept nearer the top half of its rev band for maximum performance.

Sadly, the automatic, with its slow take-up and a sluggish, rather jerky kick-down doesn’t make this easy. We’ve driven other turbo-cars considerably improved by having automatic transmission but the Saab is certainly much better with its five speed manual gearbox alternative.

Heaving had several months experience now with our long term test, manually geared Audi we were pleasantly surprised by the changes with automatic transmission. The manual shift is rather ponderous and the gearing uncomfortably high at times – both problems that disappear on the automatic – and the engine’s slow revving, slightly uneven style is well matched to automatic gearing, which also serves to disguise some of the awkward power on-off jerkiness that can be noticed.

It’s a good auto transmission that changes up very smoothly and kicks down promptly, though without the dramatic responses of the BMW. There’s a little initial lag before drive takes up.

Acceleration starts to tail off beyond 90 mph but the streamlined shape allows the Audi to continue ding up speed steadily until it reaches an impressive 120 mph maximum, only bettered by the more powerful Saab.

The Granada suffers in being the heaviest car here as well as having a somewhat unresponsive automatic gearbox. Slowish take-up of drive in the transmission combines with the unexceptional bottom end power of the V6 engine to give the Ford lack lustre initial acceleration and though does pick up at the top end, as the engine gets more into its stride, it remains slowest of the four.

The big capacity of the engine gives it good mid-range pull but the transmission is reluctant to kick-down at higher revs so best use cannot always be made of the available cower, unless one uses the shift manually. Though the Ford never feels particularly lively – certainly one notices the loss of horsepower over the fuel injected models – its sheer capacity and the resulting heal thy torque figures gives it an easy going all-round pulling ability that belies the poor acceleration.

HANDLING AND RIDE

AUDI     5

BMW    4

SAAB     4

FORD    3

The four cars of the test group divide readily into front-drive and rear-drive pairs not just on paper specifications but on road impressions too. The Audi 100 C3 and Saab 900 Series 1 both have the immensely reassuring roadholding and handling that one has come to expect in current generation front-drive cars. They steer accurately and handle precisely but the real security comes in the predictable way their front wheels will gradually ease wide of their line as roadholding runs out.

The Saab with 65 series Michelin tyres, has the best roadholding of the test group, and taut suspension with crisply accurate steering to make it a terrific driver’s car. It corners with little body roll and complete stability, steering nimbly through bends in a style that belies its size.

The penalty, however, comes in ride comfort, which is noticeably harsh and ‘sporting’ compared with its more comfort oriented rivals here. The Saab, of course, lacks the independent rear suspension of the others but the low profile tyres are probably more the cause.

 {gallery}Granada{/gallery}

The Audi is much more comfort inclined and its softer springing allows much more cornering body roll and a certain pitchiness over undulating surfaces. As a result it comes as something of a surprise almost to discover just how well the 100 handles and holds the road. The power assisted steering has a good weight and accuracy to it, and lets one point  the long car neatly through corners  where, if one comes to terms with the suspension softness and body roll, one discovers impressive roadholding. Its ride really is extremely good; in its smoothness, straight line stability at speed and ability to isolate occupants from the road surface it feels much like a Citroen CX but where it scores over the French car is in being able to absorb major jars and bumps well, and in retaining a ‘liveliness’ in the suspension that helps ward off the nausea some find in very soft French cars.

It must be added here that the superb quietness through the air of the slippery body with its flush glass adds so much to long distance comfort in the Audi. It’s a wonderfully quiet car at high speeds – something one only fully appreciates when stepping into one of the others and listening to wind roar.

Instinctively, the two rear-drive cars, with their different balance and handling characteristics, feel more enjoyable to handle than the front- wheel-drives. But while their handling may be better, their roadholding isn’t up to those cars’ high, safety-first, standards.

The 525e has about it some of the sporting tautness of all BMWs; it’s a car that’s good to drive. The firmly weighted power steering is its greatest asset and the car answers the steering’s call well, though there is perhaps a little too much body roll.

Roadholding is good, though relatively conservative tyres do set a lower limit than the Saab or Audi. Driven too hard into a bend it will smoothly understeer but the quick changing automatic means tail slides may still be possible on wet roads.

For ride comfort the BMW sits between the Audi and Saab. It has a basically firm ride but such is the well managed suspension that it rarely feels unduly harsh.

The Granada is by no means left behind by the high standards of its rivals here. Indeed its steering is the best of the group; its power assistance having just the right amount of weight and first class accuracy. The more tautly sprung and low-profile tyred X-pack Granadas take full advantage of the car’s good suspension design; on the softer GL model it errs too much on the sloppy side for our tastes, with rather too much cornering body roll.

Likewise, it rides well – a shade more softly than the BMW – but hasn’t that car’s reassuringly controlled feeling over some poor surfaces.

ACCOMMODATION

AUDI     5

BMW    4

FORD    3

SAAB     3

By the standards of the others here, the Audi offers exceptionally generous accommodation. It’s the longest car in the test but it has used the length well to provide a roomy passenger cabin and ample boot.

In contrast, the barely three inches shorter Saab is the least space efficient of all, having much of its length outside its wheelbase and, as a result, a decidedly cramped interior.

The rear-wheel-drive formula gives less room for space efficiency than front-drive, but nonetheless BMW, with the shortest car of the four, have packaged an interior better than all bar the Audi’s whilst the Granada, older and smaller inside than the 5-series, is still roomier than the Saab.

The Audi’s deep curving windows give a light, airy feel to its cabin and add to the impression of interior space. Front seats are firm and generously proportioned, with tilt adjustment on the driver’s seat and plenty of rearward adjustment. Driving position is good: high with a commanding view, though the front of the car disappears quickly from the driver’s sightline.

In the back there is a big, well padded bench that has generous space for two sizeable adults and would be comfortable with three.

The Saab has marvellous front seats: a yardstick for others to be judged by, offering unbeatable com-fort and support on long journeys. Tilt/height adjustment helps towards a good driving position and, despite the lengthy extremities of the car, visibility all round is good.

The narrowness of the Saab’s cabin may be noticed sometimes by those in the front but it will be rear seat passengers who suffer more: three abreast is a squeeze on the bench seat and legroom is also not up to the standards of the others here – though headroom is no problem.

The BMW follows the firm seating . philosophy of its German counter-part, and like Audi its front seats are  generously sized. They may feel over-firm on first acquaintance but a few miles reveals how well sprung they are. Once again, there is height adjustment for the driver’s seat and the steering column can also be adjusted in-and-out.

In the back there is width enough for three adults and no problems with head or legroom, though the centre passenger of the three would have a firm ride.

The Granada steers a more conservative road, with seats that could not be described as soft but which do not have the obvious firmness of the BMW. The front seats are comfortable, well shaped and allow the driver a good driving position. Our test car came with optional electrical adjustment for fore/aft and height a gimmick but a touch of luxury.

The rear will hold three adults in reasonable comfort but legroom is not over-generous and an overall lack of passenger inches inside is also evidenced by limited rearwards adjustment of the front seats.

The Audi has a massive boot, running deep into the car, and a sensible low load sill. Both the Ford and BMW have large, square boots with high sills while the Saab has a roomy boot that has the useful advantage of a folding rear seat to allow large items to be slid through into the body of the car.

LIVING WITH THE CARS

BMW    5

SAAB     4

AUDI     3

FORD    3

The BMW dashboard is a masterpiece that will sell the car to many I customers on its own. It looks superb; a sophisticated and elegant arrangement of instruments and switchgear but, more than that, it works faultlessly and is remarkably well made. Indeed, the whole car stands out as being in a different class for the quality of its construction – not just the fit and finish but the choice and quality of materials used.

Heating and ventilation is comprehensive, with the widest range of setting options. Only snag is a notice-able increase in wind noise when the (very effective) ventilation is in use. There are few other criticisms; too much wind roar at speed for such a relatively new body shape and too much engine noise as well.

Saab followed the aircraft style I facia layout of BMW and their own dashboard design, while not as sophisticated as the German car’s, is still smart looking and logical to use. And, like the BMW, they have a well thought out heating and ventilation system that includes a powerful, separate ventilation system.

The Audi’s interior is smart and modern, though it lacks the dramatic appeal of the BMW. The facia is clear, if somewhat unprepossessing for such a car, but our chief criticism is of the heating and ventilation system which is, frankly, a disgrace. It is considerably worse than on several recent new cars of half the Audi’s price. Major complaint is that there is no separate ventilation – all air comes through the heater so when this is in use there is no possibility of having face-level cool air as well. Knowing how dangerous stuffy cars can be, we consider this a very serious omission. The heating system itself is also crude: there is no setting that gives screen level demisting and floor level heating simultaneously, for example.

Ford have also, sadly, fallen into the trap of pushing all the incoming air through the heater, though here at least a ‘stratified’ system keeps the air cool unless the heater is on full (but there’s still no fresh air on cold winter days when the heater is needed on strongly). The dashboard is functional rather than smart – a hangover from the Cortina days of design.

Three of the four cars have fuel injection systems that allow them fuss-free start up and running, hot or cold, and even the carburettored Ford, with an automatic choke, does not show any signs of hesitancy.

There’s a wide range of equipment, from the frivolous to the sensible, available as standard or optional on all the cars. The BMW is arguably the east well fitted out for the money, with electric windows, central locking and sunroof all being extras. The Saab does have front electric windows and central locking – as do the Audi and Ford.

COSTS

AUDI 5

BMW 4

SAAB 3

FORD 3

The much vaunted BMW challenge to Audi’s fuel consumption supremacy turns out – in our test at least – to be a victory for Audi. The figures are close, Tough: the Audi averaged 26.5 mpg overall (our previous manually geared test car gave 31.1 mpg) and the BMW 25.5 mpg. Intermediate fill ups confirm the Audi’s advantage with a range from 23.9 to 31.7 mpg, compared with 24.2 to 27.6 mpg for the BMW. It’s a result which confirms that the steady speed Government consumption figures aren’t always the best guide to real economy: the high geared BMW has the best steady speed figures, but driven on normal roads, frequent changing down negates the advantage.

The other two cars pale beside the fine figures of this modern, economical pair, each of them struggling to even average 20 mpg. The powerful Saab ranged from 15.5 mpg to 22.1 mpg while the Granada had a high of 20.2 mpg and low of 16.0 mpg.

All the cars will only need annual major servicing visits to the garage: the Audi and Saab have 10,000 mile intervals, the Ford 12,000 and the BMW has a clever on-board micro computer which monitors engine condition, usage, cold starts and so on to determine when a service is necessary (a steady driver in easy conditions could go 15,000 miles between major garage attention).

The Ford and BMW have a brief oil change service halfway stage – the other two simply the one annual service.

Garage bills will favour the Ford: there are more dealers, spares are cheaper and the car is the most straightforward. While Ford have 1200 dealers, Audi have 380, BMW 147 and Saab 178. Insurance, too, acts in the Ford’s favour.

VERDICT

AUDI     4

BMW    4

SAAB     3

FORD    2

This test has quickly resolved itself into a two horse race; the Audi and BMW have set the pace and left the Saab and Ford as also rans.

It is easiest to see the weakness in the Ford. That it is due for replacement next year is one. It’s an unadventurous looking car, whose boxy lines look dated now.

But let’s not dismiss it too lightly: it is quiet, pleasant to handle, has exceptionally good power steering and a gutsy engine. It lets itself down in newer company with poor mpg and below average ‘packaging’.

The Saab proved more of a dis-appointment; we had expected a lot from it having thoroughly enjoyed the five-speed manual APC turbo. But simply, it is ruined by a drab automatic transmission. One could tolerate the small interior and the harsh ride for the delights of the potent turbo engine and the superb roadholding — but in a manually geared car not in this automatic whose slow response knocks the stuffing out of the engine.

And so to the Audi and BMW. Add up the points scored by each throughout the test and they come out equal. They are two quite different cars yet very difficult to place one above the other. If the BMW had a more modern body style; if the Audi had a more glamorous facia, better ventilation, then the decision could be easier. Undoubtedly the BMW’s engine is impressive and even more so it its remarkable automatic gearbox. It does deliver good economy and it still feels like a BMW should. The whole car is also quite beautifully made.

But as an overall concept, the Audi has to be its superior. It’s a roomy, elegant and very modern looking car. It rides well and it is magnificently quiet and comfortable at speed. Add to that the ability to return 30 mpg on occasion and it becomes a thoroughly remarkable package – a pity it had to be sold short with such terrible heating and ventilation.

Saab 900 Turbo 1983

Stretched in size over the years, the Saab betrays its origins with small, too narrow passenger cabin that limits room, especially in the rear. Front seats are first class, though. Handling and roadholding, on TRX tyres are exceptional but ride is very firm at times. Turbo engine is fine performer but spoiled by automatic ‘box. Facia is smart with sensible heating and ventilation.

Ford Granada 2.8GL Mark II 1983

Granada lines look dated now but handling and ride comfort still reach high standards. Interior lacks space efficiency of newer rivals and dashboard is bland, if clear, but front seats are comfortable. Equipment includes sunroof. V6 engine has strong mid-range pull but is heavy fuel user and gives only modest outright performance. Like Audi, Ford has heater linked ventilation.

BMW 525e E28 1983

Square-cut BMW lines are elegant but scarcely modern or aerodynamic. Despite compact overall size interior is roomy and comfortable. Facia (far right) is a masterpiece of design and presentation. Low revving Eta engine retains BMW style punch and smoothness to give excellent performance with superb four speed transmission. Handling is first class, too. Extras include clever computer.

Audi 100CD C3 1983

Long, sleek Audi is handsome as well as aerodynamic world beater, thanks to flush window glass (far right). Interior is spacey and facia simple but modern. Handling is good, despite cornering roll and engine (top right) economical and strong performer, with five cylinder power delivery well suited to auto transmission. Biggest weakness is poor heating and ventilation.