Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Griffin General Automotive (BGA, BMG, Griffin Automotive) - Griffa Sirion '98


Griffin General Automotive - a global megacorporation formed mainly of British and American brands. It appeared in 1979 as a fusion of some (yet unnamed) American company which didn’t survive the fuel crisis and British Griffin Automotive, which itself was formed by merging British Motors Group and Griffin Automotive.

So, basically, British Leyland with a bit of GM included. Stupid decisions, bad designs, corporate logic, brands with no sense or identity, badge engineering, bankruptcies, strikes, poor quality and all that fun stuff :grin:

Brands being part of one of above mentioned companies, now or in the past:

  • Griffa
  • Iolar
  • Orion
  • Blakesley
  • Keighley
  • Unicar
  • Augustine
  • Empress
  • Ainsworth
  • Morin
  • Cavallera (no mistake here, Ram’s brand)
  • and many more…

I didn’t plan to make it now, but I want to clean my sandbox, and thus properly publish the cars I consider being worth it and delete all the rest.

First car, already seen on the forum, coming later today.

The Hunt For A Star Car! - Blurred Vision [UE4 - Completed]

I reckon that somehow, within all that dross, there will be a few hidden gems which are in fact much better than, well, virtually everything else in the Griffin range. Which means that someone, against all odds, managed to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear…


BGA? You mean like


Oh. Crap.

One damn huge project.


Griffa Sirion (98-05)

(added some engine data)

GGA’s standard E segment offering, mainly for European markets, though sold all over the world. A car for people who want a “budget limo”, yet still having the proper wheel drive and being European. As if that meant anything.

Available in sedan or estate body styles with a range of I4s and I6s from an anaemic 8-valve 2.0 to 300 hp, turbocharged DOHC 3.3, made to compete with higher trims of cars such as IMP Magnum, Erin Berlose or Zavir Espada. That failed, rather obviously, yet the more reasonable variants were quite successful - while being inexciting and sometimes slow, they were comfortable, economical and somewhat reliable. Oh, there was a 5.7 V8 variant too, with the engine sourced from GGA’s muscle cars, but it was so rare that it’s prices now reach about 5 times these of the 3.3 turbo, and the engine while not being much more powerful devours about three times more fuel, so don’t bother. Engines were paired with various gearboxes, as a pretty standard RWD platform allowed for easy part exchange with about half of the GGA’s lineup. What’s easier to remember is that you could order I6 models with AWD, which turned out to be quite popular option, especially in Scandinavia and Alps region.

Here is an example of the flagship 3.3 TX4 variant, with 3.3 turbo, AWD and top equipment (X trim).

It cost 20 400 £ when new. Now you can get one for probably tenth of that price. At most. Which may be a good choice, if it had the valvetrain done not so long ago.

Engine Valvetrain Power Torque Economy Notes
2.0 I4 OHC 8v 92 hp 157 Nm 7.3 l/- unavailable in North America
2.0 I4 DOHC 16v 138 hp 175 Nm 6.7 l/35 MPG
2.0T I6 DOHC 24v 142 hp 219 Nm
7.2 l/- selected markets only, replacing 2.8
2.0T I6 DOHC 24v 219 hp 251 Nm 8.5 l/- selected markets only, replacing 3.3
2.8 I6 OHC 12v 140 hp 215 Nm 9.6 l/24 MPG
3.3 I6 DOHC 24v 228 hp 288 Nm 8.3 l/28 MPG
3.3T I6 DOHC 24v 300 hp 367 Nm 6.9 l/34 MPG
5.7 V8
OHV 16v 354 hp 483 Nm 19.3 l/12 MPG highly limited production
2.8TD I6 OHC 12v 145 hp 287 Nm 5.8 l/- unavailable in North America


Direct, Prechamber or Swirl chamber injected?
What type of injection Pump?
IS IT TWO STROKE? :heart_eyes:
Is it competing against the IMP 2.3TD or the 2.7TD???


Direct injection, electronically controlled rotary pump, four stroke :smiley:
I don’t know which one this competes with, as I don’t know the paramters of the 2.3 and 2.7 TD of the era. And I can send you one if you wish :wink:


Quite a good-looking executive car but the V8 is pointless due to being far thirstier than the top I6 turbo and not much more powerful. So how come the biggest turbo I6 returns better economy than any of the NA sixes? That fact alone would also be enough to render the normally aspirated 2.8L and 3.3L I6 engines redundant.


The 2.3L D423P ranges from 98hp (Non-Turbo) to 170hp (Impakt R1 only) Most of them had 142hp/300Nm though. It too is a Direct injection engine, except it employs DOHC 16V technology (big deal for Diesels in 1993 when it was launched) and a unique fully mechanical twin injector setup. Basically there are camshaft driven (via a massive FRP timing belt) main injector units (Volkswagen PD, Detroit Diesel 2-Strokes) and secondary nozzles fed by a separate reservoir (kind of like a common rail system except low pressure). The main injectors allow for very high injection pressures and increased safety (if one injector fails there are at least three others to keep the engine running) while the secondary nozzle is only used for pre-injection to give smoother running characteristics since the injection timing and amount of injected fuel on Unit Injectors can’t be variated.

The 2.7L D627N introduced in late 1999 was a first gen common-rail and made 180hp/390Nm lol.

MEANWHILE my technological flagship Opera kept that 300kg tank of a 4.0L Pre-chamber injection Diesel until 2005 lol.


The V8 was meant to be pointless, just another GGA’s stupid decision. The 3.3T is that economical because it’s heavily optimised for numbers as a CSR engine and has a mediocre torque curve and max power at the redline (and is a turbo I6, hello, that automatically gives great economy). So no, 2.8 and even 3.3 aren’t redundant - if you want an engine that is just more pleasant to drive, choose the 3.3 (it’s a bit cheaper too). If you want a budget I6, then get a 2.8, it’s much cheaper than the 3.3 and 3.3T. The 16v is more of an internal competition for the 2.8, but again, it’s more expensive (unless your country heavily taxes anything above 2.0, but in such case you won’t have a 2.8 anyway) and isn’t an I6, which might be important. Lower prestige, you know - as if this car had any. But it also means perfect smoothness.

Oh, and…

…is almost exactly what I wrote in the presentation.

@Awildgermanappears Then it seems to compete with the standard 2.3 :slight_smile: I have a problem with more modern diesels, as usually my modern petrol engines are very economical, so to make a diesel-worthy difference in consumption I have to optimise them almost only for efficiency, which unfortunately doesn’t go along well with high torque. Because hey, 125 Nm/litre is not high, right? Especially for a diesel from the last decade.


It’s appropriate für the time though. The Torque Explosion of diesel engines only started once common rail direct injection became established. A 3.6L OM603 Turbo only made 150hp and 310Nm.


I know, it was more about diesels from the last 10-15 years :slight_smile: I tried replicating D24TIC - no problem at all, all numbers to the point and maybe even better economy. Tried the same with some M57 - power and torque matched, but at much higher revs, and the curves were weird, though still more or less realistic economy.


90s is best. For modern ones I just gave up and went for 40+% Thermal efficiency, torque figures I’l just exaggerate by the old FIA Turbo factory of 1.4 to get realistisch numbers for lore reasons.


Well, that would explain the impossibility (Automation wise of course) of your modern diesels :smile:


Well yes a petrol engine with a crude turbocharger is not physically capable of operating like a diesel, start Ing with the fuel mixture. Naturally aspirated diesels are even more difficult because you always end up wth far more torque than a real one. Which is why I opted for the two-stroke cheat since those have supercharger that Boot power.