With sales in the executive class barely ticking over, there's a battle royal for a piece of what little action remains. Muscling in here are four of the main contenders: the Ford Granada 2.8i GLS, the Rover 26008, the Vauxhall Viceroy and the Volvo 244 GLT. Which gets the top job? Read on

NOT LONG ago, the bigger executive car was the one to make. With its traditionally conservative engineering and generous specification, it had well-heeled busi-nessmen queuing up — whether it was a Mercedes or a BMW, a Rover or a Ford. And with its tooling investment often rooted in an older, more mundane, model its profit margins were large; in short, it was a high scoring card. That it was more costly to run than a run-of-the-mill saloon only served to underline its status. Then the recession squeezed hard. Big car demand collapsed faster than an England batting eleven as customers tightened their belts and made a mass exodus down-

  Rising to this challenge Rover, last September, improved and restructured its range: there are now five models, starting with the basic six-cylinder 2300 (£7,061), and finishing with the 3500 Vanden Plas (£13,261). The result of this is a more competitive price spread. The most important model, however, and the one around which this Group Test is based, remains the 2600 S (£9,249), as it is expected to continue to account for more than half of Rover sales and, in conjunction with money saved by closing part of Solihull and centralising Rover plant facilities at Cowley (where, previously, only the bodies were made), spearhead a return to profitability for BL’s talented problem child.

  Ford's Granada is also pitching hard for sales in the E8-10,000 sector and in 2.8 GL form, at £9,389, meets the Rover head on. As the saloon version of this car is usually sold with automatic transmission, however, we chose the next most expensive manual model, the £10,108 2.8i GLS, for this comparison — admittedly, a little unfair on the others since with the 160 bhp fuel-injected version of the “Cologne” V6 (compared to the 2.8GL's 140 bhp) the iGLS is significantly more powerful. Volvo's £9,225 244 GLT and Vauxhall's £8,545 Viceroy (with £207 worth of optional overdrive) complete ourexecutive quartet, the surprisingly sporting Swede bringing with it an image-shattering reputation for spirited acceleration and wieldiness and the Luton-badged Opel hybrid the promise of Royale standards of smoothness and refinement in a cheaper package.

  With the exception of the five-door hatchback Rover, these cars conform resolutely to the conservative, innovation-shy executive car formula, their four-door three-box bodies — none of which varies by more than a few inches from the standard size of around 15 ft long

No prizes for naming the car which shows the rest a clean pair of tailpipes: with a top speed of 117.4 mph and a 0-60 mph acceleration time of 9.0 sec, the Granada is, by medium-big saloon standards, a genuinely quick car.
  Not that the others are slow. It would take the Ford a long time, for instance, to make much motorway ground on the Rover which is capable of 116.1 mph and, with its new 26.3 mph per 1000 rpm gearing in fifth, not averse to keeping it up all day. With a 0-60 mph time of 10.4 sec, however, our Rover wasn't much of a sprinter, and there were occasions during the fast convoy sessions when it just didn't have the sheer pace to stay with the Granada — on long up hill stretches in particular. Since our original 2600 test car returned a O-60 mph time of 9.0 sec, we suspect that the example loaned to us for the Group Test may have been off-song.

  With out-and-out standing start acceleration second only to the Ford's, the Volvo's O-60 mph time of 9.4 sec represents something of a landmark for a company whose products have often been compared unfavourably with tanks — though its relatively less impressive 112.5 mph top speed does reflect on the amount of drag its blunt shape must create. The sleek shovel nose of the Viceroy, however, can do little to compensate for its comparative lack of power in this company, and it emerges as the slowest car, both on top speed (108.1 mph) and, with a 0-60 mph time of 10.7 sec, standing start acceleration.

  The honours are much more even, however, when low speed pulling power is the criterion. Here the Ford, which has only four gears and, therefore, must strike a compromise between flexibility and cruising refine-ment, fails to assert its power advantage over its rivals in this group which keep a long-legged ratio in hand just for cruising: a fifth gear in the Rover‘s case, overdrive for the Volvo and Vauxhall. Comparing 30-50 mph times in fourth, the Ford takes 9.3 sec, the Rover 9.6 sec, the Vauxhall and Volvo 9.2 sec apiece.

  So, in everyday driving, there is effectively little to choose between these cars. During the hard driving of the Group Test, however, it was the Granada's performance that impressed above all, feeling the most effortless and refined yet, at the same time, the most potent. The Rover‘s engine made a character-istically sporting straight-six growl but felt slightly agricultural by comparison, revving less freely and responding less eagerly to full throttle: although better than it used to be, its refinement is still disappointing, especially above 4000 rpm. The Viceroy's straight-six is marginally smoother than the Rover‘s but otherwise un-distinguished, feeling rather throbby and breathless at high revs. Nor was the Volvo happiest when revved hard, though its fine flexibility and punchy mid-range torque meant that it was seldom necessary to wring the engine's neck, even when keeping close company with the hard-driven Granada. Used like this, the GLT's mechanical smoothness and refinement was acceptable if not, understandably, on par with that of its six-cylinder rivals.

ln absolute terms, these big saloons handle well, and there's little point inlooking for any one to put on a pedestal of excellence. The differences here are more ones of character than outright ability, though that's not to say they don't, in some cases, add up to a more enjoyable experience.

  In the mostly wet conditions that prevailed during the convoy driving, our testers agreed that the Rover was the most enjoyable car to drive fast. Although a little light for some tastes, its steering was judged to be the most direct and responsive with good feel and its roadholding was truly outstanding. Added to this was a sense of wieldiness that belied the car's bulk and despite a fair amount of roll made it feel "chuckable", almost handy. Even when pushed hard the Rover understeered only mildly, and despite its live rear axle's propensity to hop and thump when powered past the apex of a tight, bumpy bend, it was very rare for the tail to step even a couple of inches out of line.

  Which is a comment that applies almost equally well to the Granada. Under all conditions, its independent rear suspension's control and behaviour were (somewhat unusually for a Granada, in our experience) exemplary though, unlike the Rover, it did have enough power to slide the tail wide when trying very hard: a deft dab of opposite lock would neatly bring it back in line. ln fact, quick, taut responses were the Granada's forte, albeit tempered with a forgiving nature. What we couldn't get enthusiastic about was its steering which, despite its undoubted accuracy and sensible weighting, lacked genuine feel.

  In stark contrast, the Volvo's steering was more than generous in the information it relayed to the driver's hands, as well as being nicely weighted and reasonably direct. “Cumbersome” and "ponderous" might once have been apt words to describe a Volvo's handling, but not any more; and the be-spoilered and Pirelli P6-shod 244 GLT is anything but. The Rover probably has more outright grip in the wet, the Granada swifter responses, but for sheer predictability and unruffled poise the Volvo takes some beating. Mild understeer characterised the car's natural cornering balance in slower bends, giving way to a more neutral attitude at speed; full-blooded oversteer was not difficult to provoke (though more often than not the lightly laden inside rear wheel would spin first), but when a tail slide does occur it is easily caught.

  So where does this catalogue of virtue leave the Viceroy? In essence, its handling is very sound with body roll and understeer both well contained and no bad habits. But by the same token, its behaviour doesn't warrant any special praise within the context of this group. Its recirculating ball steering, was judged to be reasonably communicative but less direct and responsive than the others, with some vagueness about the straight ahead position. And its limits of adhesion, in the Wet at least, were marginally lower.

With the exception of the Ford, whose front seats were found lacking in both lateral and thigh support, our testers pronounced the cars comfortable to sit in — the more so of the Rover and the Volvo —- but not even these are beyond criticism. The Rover’s seat, although comfortably sprung and shaped could do with more rearward travel for tall drivers and the Volvo's (which, like the Rover, has lumbar adjustment), lacks sufficient side support. Although generously proportioned and correctly supponive, the Viceroy's seats were too firmly padded, some thought.

  The Granada's driving position wound-up at the bottom of our testers’ score sheets too, even the taller ones complaining that when the seat was set to achieve full depression of the long-travel clutch, the non-adjustable steering wheel was too close to their chests. Better liked was the driving position of the Volvo, though it was criticised for the steering wheel being set too high. Most popular in this respect were the Rover and the Vauxhall, the former having a height and rake-adjustable steering wheel, and the latter a height-adjustable seat, as also had the Volvo. The minor switchgear is well located on all the cars and, with the exception of the stiff action of the Ford's column stalks, works well.

Apart from the usual speedometer, and water temperature and fuel gauges, each of the four cars is equipped with a rev counter and all except the Volvo have oil-pressure and volt gauges.

  All the displays are neatly presented and clearly marked, none more‘ so than the Vauxhall's which is really an object lesson to other manufacturers in reflection-free readability. The Rover's deeply recessed dials are also clearly marked but their tops are shrouded from the view of taller drivers and, depending on the position at which it is set, the steering wheel may partly obscure some of the minor gauges.

  The Granada's major dials are large and well located but, as with the Rover, the arrangement is spoiled by the location of the two auxiliary instruments which are almost completely obscured by the steering wheel rim. The single angled pane which covers them, however, at least ensures that the display is free from stray reflections.
  The Volvo's display, also of the single-pane type, is more attractive than the Granada's and easy to see.

Generally, these are all soothing cars to travel in. With its ultra-long gearing in top, the Rover is, mechanically, the most relaxed at speed. On the other hand, its engine is vocal under hard acceleration, though wind and road noise are seldom obtrusive. Nor are they in the Vauxhall whose engine noise is also reasonably muted through most of its rev range, only becoming a little throbby at high revs in the gears.

  The four-cylinder Volvo is a little out of its depth in this department. Up to 70 mph, its levels of engine and wind noise are well subdued; speeds above this, however, promote increasingly intrusive wind noise and a more dominant engine note even when overdrive is engaged. Road noise, however, is well suppressed at all times, despite its low profile tyres.
  Although handicapped by its lack of a specific cruising gear, the Granada cruises no more noisily than the Rover up to 90 mph or so; above that, its engine starts to sound noticeably busier, though not strained. Hard acceleration brings a mildly harsh edge to the Ford's otherwise crisp and sporting V6 engine note, however. Wind and road noise were judged to be reasonably well contained.

As must be clear from the accompanying blob chart, none of these cars lacks for creature comforts with items like cloth trim, head restraints, a laminated windscreen, power steering, remote mirror adjustment and a clock common to all of them. It's worth noting, however, that the Rover is the only car with adjustable steering and power windows; that the Volvo alone has alloy road wheels and a driver's seat tilt adjustment; and the Vauxhall is the only car without a sliding sunroof. Winner on blobs: the Rover.

Great variety here. While all the cars seemed well screwed together and painted to similarly high standards, their interiors represented a considerable divergence in approach and execution.
  The Volvo's interior, for instance, was meticulously neutral, verging on the bland, with materials, colours and shapes chosen to create a sort of negative style — a bit like Swedish furniture: neither particularly offensive, nor particularly pleasing, but nicely put together and detailed.

  For stark contrast look no funher than the Vauxhall. In fact, stark isn't the word. One tester compared its interior to the inside of a Wimpy bar — all ochre plastic and plastic wood though, in isolation, the crushed velour trimmed seats were thought attractive. The Granada's interior proves that extensive use of plastic mouldings needn't look cheap and tasteless, striking an appealing compromise between practicality and flair, without a rough edge to be seen anywhere.
  The Rover's interior design and appointments didn't greatly inspire our testers, the take-away instrument pod, as always, looking strangely ill-at-ease perched atop the othen/vise not unattractive facia. The trim material and carpeting, however, appeared suitably
plush and inviting.