Recently, Mercedes Streeter was doing a piece on diesel-powered Chevy El Caminos, something the “AI Overview” on whatever browser she was using claimed never existed. About the same time, I put “Ford Escort Turbo” into a different search engine and the bot that gives an AI-derived summary claimed this car was a figment of my imagination as well.
The AI stated that there was, of course, a Turbo Ford Escort made overseas; a number of them actually. The 1984 RS Turbo was but one of the examples of boosted overseas Ford subcompacts, and the later Cosworth Turbo was a truly legendary version. Being over 25 years old, the AI browser helpfully stated that I could import one of these if I wanted a blower-equipped Ford Escort. Barring that, though, I had no other options.
Wrong! Ford did make a turbocharged Escort right here in America, but it’s a car so rare that I could almost forgive the AI’s silicon brain for not knowing this. This homegrown hot hatch had a remarkable turn of speed combined with decent road skills, but failed to find buyers and Ford quickly discontinued it. What sealed the fate of this underrated and forgotten version of one of America’s best-selling cars?
Chevy Would Like A Word With You
Let’s face it: the statement of something being a “world car” is a lie right up there with “the check’s in the mail.” At least, back in the late seventies it was. Replacing the clunky but popular Pinto in America for the 1981 model year, Ford wasn’t ready to go full-on-Euro with their new front-drive subcompact. Our own Thomas Hundal wrote about this a while back:
See, Ford of Europe and Ford in America had very different ideas on how to build a small car. As a result, the European third-generation Ford Escort and American first-generation Ford Escort didn’t share a single body panel between them. In fact, Europeans got three Escort-branded body styles never sold in America, and a four-door sedan called the Orion.
That’s true, but the intent was to make something more attuned to American tastes; they certainly did that.
In retrospect, maybe that wasn’t a bad thing. The US Ford Escort quickly became the best-selling car in America, despite the fact that it was a bog-slow 1.6-liter, 69-horsepower slug. Thomas continues:
Sure, the Escort sold in America shared the CVH engine architecture with the European Escort, but it was also the economy car equivalent of fat Elvis, and while (for enthusiasts) Europe got the XR3 for 1981, America made do with the Escort SS.
Yes, that’s right: the “sporting” version of the world-car-that-wasn’t-in-America had the same designation as truly exciting Chevys from years past. Boy, if that stolen name set your expectations high, you were bound to be disappointed.
See that black grille, “sport” mirrors, the graphic stripes and “racy” stamped steel wheels? Well, other than “special” upholstery and a few extra gauges, that was all this SS package gave you. Yes, you got the same 69-horsepower engine, truly a delight when paired with an automatic transmission and the air conditioning running on High.
One would assume that GM sent Ford a knock-it-off letter about the name, and prospective “hot hatch” and “sport wagon” buyers certainly wanted actual “hot” and “sport” that the SS didn’t provide. Thankfully, for 1982, Ford gave us the GT version of the Escort (in three-door form only), complete with a whopping 23 percent increase in power! Calm down, that equates to 80 horsepower. For 1983, however, multi-port fuel injection raised output to 88 horsepower, and a five-speed manual was standard (yep, they were all four speeds up until 1983).
This uprated GT was a far better proto-GTI than the embarrassing SS ever was. Now, besides the increased oomph, the GT traded the SS model’s dumb stripes for spoilers and fog lights, and the suspension was tuned differently with the option of metric alloy wheels shod in 165/70 R 365 TRX tires. Yes, following in the path of the Mustang, this performance Ford used Michelin’s new standard of tire where inch wheel diameters like 13s or 14s on other Escorts were traded for all-metric dimensions in a new standard for rolling stock that would sweep the industry.
Just kidding; as our Adrian Clarke wrote about, TRX “system” essentially became the Sony Betamax of tires, adopted by virtually nobody. They were quickly discontinued as options and today are only available as ungodly expensive replacements (and they don’t necessarily perform any better than other contemporary performance rubber). That’s why you’ll probably never see an old Ford Escort rolling around on these TRX wheels (if you even do see any Ford Escort rolling around at all).
Regardless, this new Escort GT (and nearly identical Mercury Lynx RS twin) was actually something to be reckoned with. You can see here in a Motorweek test that our man John Davis called it “right up there with the GTI”. He’s Autopian’s favorite car reviewer and got his salary from public television, so there’s no way that John could be lying to us, right?
Inside, you did get some pretty nice-looking sport seats with those Recaro-style donut hole headrests filled with nets so you could actually see out the back of the car. It lacks only plaid upholstery.
It’s amazing how big the transformation of the sporting Escort was in just twenty-four months, from a sticker-covered joke in 1981 to a rather legitimate “hot hatch.” Still, that turned out to be just the beginning.
The EXPeriment Fails
When most of you Ford fans think of a sporty version of Ford’s smallest car at the time, you probably imagine the rather odd-looking variant with sleepy eyes, the Escort EXP (and its twin, the Lynx LN7).
By removing the rear seat from an Escort two-door hatch, Ford had what they thought was the basis for a two-seater that might rival imported sports cars for buyers who couldn’t see beyond the new (sort of) sleeker body.
If you thought that low performance was a detriment to the standard Escort hatches and wagon, imagine what it was like trying to sell a “sports coupe” with such limited power. Ford sold over 98,000 EXPs when it debuted in 1982, but that dropped off a cliff to less than 20,000 units by the next year. Clearly, something needed to change.
What Ford offered was an SVO-developed EXP with a turbocharged version of the 1.6-liter motor, pumping out a strong-for-the-time 120 horsepower.
You want another road test? Here’s our man John with the EXP out on the test track. I really want to get a statue of Mr. Davis to put on my dashboard, Saint Christopher style, to ensure good sixty-to-zero stops.
The addition of the Turbo really didn’t change the EXP’s fortunes; sales were still low for the faux sports car. However, while the existence of the Turbo EXP is rather well documented, even most enthusiasts are unaware that this motor made its way into the more run-of-the-mill GT econobox. It’s about time that they learned.
Nice Try, GTI
I know what you’re thinking: Are you really sure this Escort GT Turbo really existed? Well, I found plenty of literature that seems to prove that it did, like this 1984 brochure lists the turbo as an available option. It’s pretty much identical to the regular GT except for a TURBO decal on the back and tiny TURBOs on the front fenders. Also, the soon-to-be-obsolete TRX alloys were standard:
The 1984 models featured a much, much nicer rounded dashboard that you can see in the lower corner of the above brochure pages. The 1981-83 editions had this slabby mess that looked painfully late seventies:
So the rounded replacement was a huge improvement; even better than the boxy thing in the concurrent VW GTIs if you ask me. Here’s a closeup:
There were advertisements made for the Turbo that I remember seeing as a kid, yet never seeing one on the road:
For 1985, before the more dramatic change to the 1985 ½ models, the Turbo yet again appears in a brochure:
With 120 horsepower on tap, it had close to twice the 69 BHP of the first 1981 Escort. I couldn’t find a road test of one, but tests of the turbo-powered EXP list zero to sixty times in around 9 seconds or less. Well, isn’t the EXP a smaller, lighter car? Actually, no! Despite the lack of rear seat and almost identical size, the EXP supposedly weighed around 100 to 150 pounds more than the Escort GT hatch, meaning that, if anything, that five-passenger car would have been faster than the “sports car” Escort.
Now, nine seconds to sixty is not neck-snapping territory, but it would beat a 1984 Volkswagen GT handily by almost a second; one would assume a Civic Si would also be in the Ford’s rear view mirror as well. I’m not about to claim that the Escort offered more refinement than the VW or Honda, but the turbo would indeed shut them down in a straight line, fair and square. Despite this, the imports shut the Escort GT Turbo down in the sales race like a 5.0 against a Festiva. What happened?
Records of the Escort GT Turbo’s production are tough to find, but most sources claim that only around 1000 were made for 1984, with an indeterminate number made for the shortened 1985 run. A thousand cars out of 273,000 Escorts sold for 1984! You want really obscure? Well, this ain’t Mercury Monday, but there appears to have been a turbocharged version of the GT’s twin, the Lynx RS Turbo. Exactly how many Lynx RS Turbo examples hit the streets is another mystery, but one would guess that finding one today would be like finding an Azerbaijani restaurant in central Iowa (well, I couldn’t find one when I was there).
This Turbo Barely Got Hatched
The reasons for the market failure might have had less to do with the Turbo Escort itself and more about the cars it was in competition with internally. My guess is that Ford simply didn’t promote the non-EXP Escort turbo in an attempt to let their slow-selling so-called sports car gain as much momentum as it could with the new blower option. The GT hatch was obviously a far better value proposition, and it’s not like the GT was suffering in the sales department like the weird two-seat car was.
The bigger issue was probably price. An Escort GT Turbo priced out at only around $1000 less than a Mustang GT; a totally different kind of car, but one that would ostensibly seen as “much more car” without any connection to an econobox. Remember, in 1984 the idea of $50,000 plus hot-hatch like a performance Civic would have been unfathomable.
Midway through the 1985 model year, the Escort GT was reintroduced with a high-output, normally aspirated 1.9-liter motor with 108 horsepower and more conventional wheels and tires. Performance still trailed behind the turbo, but the lower cost for production and resulting lower MSRP for just a few fewer horses put an end to the turbo.
The late-nineties Escort GTs were certainly fun, as I am certain our many, many Gen X readers will tell me in the comments from their experiences of riding in or owning one. Still, the idea of an Escort that could spool up its little turbo and beat the vaunted GTI fair and square is something that just adds to the allure of this mysterious and elusive bit of Ford history.
Top graphic image: Ford
What really struck me is how much more modern (for the times) the Euro version looked compared to the American one.
Same. I didn’t even realize they were basically the same car. I just assumed they were very different until comparing them side by side.
Because Ford Europe needed to have an exceptional small car. Ford America was no one wants a small car just make something as cheap as possible and put a sticker on it.
I have never understood why Ford and Chrysler couldn’t use the same platform and body design as “world car” for Escort and Omni/Horizon respectively in the first place.
General Motors had better luck with its T-Platform (RWD and later FWD) that spawed so many brands and variations around the world in the 1970s and 1980s.
I forgot about “Have You Driven A Ford…Lately?” What kind of advertising slogan is that? We’re Not As Bad As We Used To Be? Not So Shitty These Days?
It must’ve been successful as Dominoes Pizza is still using a similar marketing concept to this day.
As long as the John Davis statue rests on a plaque that says, “Blessed are the voltage and oil pressure gauges.”
Re the SS and GM taking possible objection to the name, I’ve always wondered about that- there seemed to be, back in the day, an unwritten understanding among the big three about performance trim nomenclature – GM used SS and various Z prefixes; Ford used GT; and Chrysler, R/T. But I’ve noticed of late for instance that there are GT Dodges now, so I guess like airy greenhouses or fun cars, that deal is no longer in effect?
Im not saying youre wrong about the big three nomenclature, but the term “GT” has been passed around pretty well. I think if we tried, we could come up with a fair number of brands who’ve used it.
Calling a car a GT is almost akin to calling it a hot hatch, as it’s a category, though a formally recognized one rather than a common phrase, like hot hatch is. GT originally meant Gran Turismo (Grand Tourer) and it has been used by about everyone, being a popular type of sporting car and category in (primarily endurance) racing prior to Ford using it, though primarily European. There may have been a tacit agreement among muscle car makers that it was Ford’s by association once they started using it, especially when the US makers owned so much of the market that other entries were nearly irrelevant (GM and Chrysler weren’t likely to want people possibly confusing their cars with a Ford, anyway), but it wouldn’t have been an exclusive. SS has also been used elsewhere (including Jaguar’s original name), predating GM, though not remotely as common as GT, nor a category, and it’s likely GM took out a US trademark on it. AFAIK, R/T is a Chrysler marketing specific term that I’d bet is trademarked. I can’t recall seeing anyone else use it.
Honda had “RT” as a base trim on the Ridgeline at times, but without the / it doesn’t really count there and the use case is far removed from Chrysler’s anyway.
I bet the designer of the EXP originally designed it with some kind of flip up headlights and some Ford bean counters said no that’s going to cost too much. Combine that with not being able to at least use composite headlights at the time and we ended up with the goofy face.
I’ll admit it – I liked the froggy front of them back in the day, and was disappointed when Ford Escort-ized it (before making it an Escort trim level). It was nothing if not distinctive, and from certain angles it did seem to call to mind an (questionable) 80s attempt to replicate British sports car curves.
The standard Escort face didn’t really work on the EXP
Though I still liked that better than when it would eventually morph into the mini-Taurus-style ZX2 in the 2000s.
Which if you liked that rear lighting then – you can have it again on your brand new Mercedes-Benz CLE, CLA, GLC…
I would love if you tried out the 1st gen Honda Prelude front setup on the EXP, might be worth it.
I had a 1st Gen Prelude XE when I lived in Japan
Great little car even tho it was the least powerful car I’ve ever owned.
Ford could have used to the composite headlamps only if NHTSA wasn’t dragging its feet slower than sloth. NHTSA promised to have it done in 1982. Yet, lot of goldbrickers there couldn’t make up their minds whether to approve the new headlamp bulbs and polycarbonate lens.
The stickier point was the strong tendency for polycarbonate material to turn yellow and opaque from UV radiation. NHTSA wanted the UV protection coating or material in the lens. Ford threw temper tantum, hissing and spitting, until NHTSA gave in and rescinded its demand.
The approval came in July 1983; too late for Ford Mustang SVO (going on sale in April 1983) but not for Lincoln Mark VII (introduced in August 1983).
although the 86 SVO did get the composite headlights
I think the turbo was significantly faster than the 1.9 that followed going by those EXP test numbers against an anecdote. I went to a shop one time with my FWD ’83 Subaru GL sedan and one of the other kids there had a reportedly mildly modified Escort 1.9 and he said he recognized my car (it was somewhat distinctive apart from being uncommon) and that he couldn’t catch me after traffic cleared on the highway one time before asking what I had done to it. I had no idea anyone was trying to keep up, I was just driving as I did back then. Anyway, I asked him if he wanted the truth or to feel good. I did nothing to it except removing a high beam to run a “ram air” intake that I don’t think did anything except reduce loss of power in hot weather (normally pulled air from right behind the radiator). On a good day with favorable winds, that Subaru could hit 60 in about 13 seconds according to a G-meter (I think that’s what it was called—anyone remember those?). Of course, we weren’t drag racing and the Subaru did have a solid torque band, but if the heavier turbo EXP pulled 9 and squeezed into the 16s in the 1/4 (which is pretty damn impressive for the time), it had to be a lot faster than the small HP difference on paper would indicate.
Yeah I remember the G-meter or whatever it was called. I actually had two of them as it was a free with 4 tires at Tire Rack. Even though I only purchased 1 set of tires I got one and another a few weeks later. I gave one to my buddy but now you have me wondering what happened to mine.
GenX here spent lots of time in Ford Escorts in the mid to late 1980s and they were all garbage and I knew they were garbage at the time.
Ditto. I drove for a courier company in the late ’80s that had a fleet of them. I drove a base 2dr Jetta at the time and it might as well have been a Mercedes in comparison. And those late ’80s cars were a HELL of a lot better than the early ’80s originals. Absolute, 100% utter crapcans. Making a faster crapcan doesn’t make it not a crapcan, and I can only imagine how explodey those early turbos would have been besides.
I can confirm this. They were always garbage.
My father-in-law has an ’85 Escort mouldering in his driveway which he swears he’s going to drive again; he’s 86, blind without the glasses he refuses to wear and too deaf to admit he needs hearing aids. I pulled the plates off and the coil wire to ensure that car never moves again (he’s not the least mechanically inclined). When he passes, I will happily have it hauled away for scrap.
Same here. Dad bought me a 1986 (technically a 1985 1/2) Ford Escort Pony 2 door hatchback from a previous owner.
1.9 liter carbureted 4 cylinder/4-speed manual (some days you were really wishing for 5 gears but it certainly was better than the 3-speed direct drive automatic that Ford was putting into everything at the time). Red with grey interior and grey and black pin striping and graphics. Previous owner had disabled the power steering so it was all manual. Was getting 33 mpg (remarkable at the time).
Mine ’86 Escort was the polar opposite of the GT, it was the Pony – two doors and a hatch, four forward gears and not much else.
But I loved that car, it took plenty of abuse and kept on ticking. My first (and so far only) speeding ticket was in that car…the needle was buried back around on “5”. The state trooper said he clocked me at 79, wrote it up for 65. If that Caprice had been a few seconds earlier, he would have caught me going Mach 0.9 and no amount of mercy would have helped.
On the television show “My Name is Earl”, I learned that putting the word Turbo on the doors increased the vehicles value. Of course in the TV show, someone added the turbo with a paint brush or rattle can while the car itself had no such hardware.
I guess it works for Porsche: https://www.porsche.com/uk/models/taycan/taycan-models/taycan-turbo-s/
What?!?! Sorry, Bish, WTVJ’s Bob Mayer is this Autopian’s favorite car reviewer.
He was before Motorweek, too, if I recall. I LOVE looking at his reviews of the absolute garbage of the time.
Bob’s a real gearhead; retired now but still into cars and it would be great if we could get an interview.
I do feel sorry for car reviewers of the malaise era. They were given some right awful crap to review.
But 110% yes to getting an interview with Bob!
I always preferred Jim Mateja, who was much more blunt.
I always had the impression that Mateja didn’t actually like cars that much. Like, he knew enough about them to get a job writing about them for the Trib, but he didn’t really like it. Like, he fancied himself a hard nosed sports reporter covering the Bears, but they gave him a weekly spot about new sedans.
You’re not wrong.
While the turbo was dropped, the 85 1/2 facelifted GT was much improved, very popular and I knew several people who had them. I had a used and abused 83 GL, which was terrible.
It was so good one of the Menendez brothers had one.
When I was in university in Michigan, I had a buddy whose dad was some very bigwig at Ford Motor Company. Apparently the dad had access to all manner of interesting development vehicles.
This friend of mine drove what was possibly a “one of none” car, a Mercury Lynx GT Turbo.
No, take a look at the post- there was a Lynx RS Turbo on offer (right there in the brochure), so at least one of very few.
Yeah, gee I can’t imagine why these didn’t sell well compared to the Mustangs of all flavors on the same fricking sales floor.
Ford had a real opportunity to take Mercury upmarket in the late 70s and through the 80s. They should have sold only the hotted up versions of the Escort as the Lynx and focus on that. I still think there would have been a big enough gap between the Lynx RS Turbo and the Cougar at the time price-wise where the two wouldn’t have been competitively shopped like the Escort and Mustang.
Alas – There was the bubble-back Capri RS
A friend in high school in about ’89 had an EXP Turbo. It was mildly entertaining but incredibly unreliable. Specifically, the turbo, which ate itself with about 30,000 miles on the car. It has been a while, but it had something to do with the car being shut off right after being driven a bit hard, before the heat in the turbo had been able to dissipate, which cooked it.
It wasn’t nearly as much fun as the Mk1 GTI or the Dodge Colt Turbo with “Twin-Stick.” Nor was it anywhere near as good as the Civic Si/CRX. Hell, it wasn’t anywhere close to the “Chevy Nova GSi” that came out around the same time.
I did read numerous accounts of unreliability, no different than the early turbo versions of the Pinto 2.3 engine. Oiling of something that was still spinning at like 100,000 revs for minutes after it stopped getting oil I assume was not a good thing?
Who woulda thunk!
The Euro-designed Escorts were infinitely better looking than the American versions. It is funny that Ford felt the need to cover the U.S. version with tacky chrome trim about the time that Chevrolet was removing the chrome from their “sport” models and badging them as “Eurosport.”
It was the mainstream taste of the time. Look at what tinsel full-size American Brougham luxury barges had all over them. These tried to be the mini-me version of that.
Sadly, VW tried to do that with the Rabbit too! With craptastic American build quality so all the former Detroit 3 former owners would feel right at home.
But that is the irony. It was a time when the Baroque style was transitioning into the de-chromed, modern style that Chevy was leveraging with the Eurosport, C4 Corvette, and Buick was hitting with the blacked-out Grand National. Ford made the Escort more American at a time when fashion was going European.
Not really – that all happened a half decade or so after the debut of the Escort. The Escort was spot on for the times, and evolved with them. The Escort debuted in mid-1980 as an ’81 model year car, which meant the design was finalized in the 70s. Those cars you note all came out years later.
The first year of the Eurosport trim was ’84, which isn’t a significant amount later, and it wasn’t like the Celebrity was the leading edge of fashion. As mentioned, there were plenty of other models at that time that had moved to a simpler, “blacked out” aesthetic. The Corvette, Grand National, even the Citation X-11. The Escort itself had blacked out trim on the GT.
My point remains, the craptastic Americanization of the Escort was ironic given the fact that had they left it as it was in Europe, it would have been ahead of the game rather than dragging passé glue-on chrome crap around.
Three years is an eternity. And even then, the vast majority of those cars sold were the chrome-laden gin palace variety for a long, long time. It was a another 10 years plus before the “Euro” look became anything like mainstream. And even then, I suspect it was because automakers realized that black or body color trim was cheaper than chrome.
If you wanted a “sporty” looking Escort with blacked out trim, they offered that almost from the very beginning as options, as this post notes, the SS and then GT. And they barely sold, because that was NOT the mainstream taste of the time. The lack of fancy trim on the Euro cars was mainly to make them cheaper. There was a very defined hierarchy of trim levels over there in the days of many cars being a perk of a job. As you moved up the corporate ranks, you got a fancier trim level too.
I assume you are too young to have actually lived through that era in any meaningful way?
I’m in my 50s. So, as is typical, your assumptions are wrong.
The point is that Ford went with the quickly dying style when it would have taken less work to be ahead of the curve. A curve that was in the process of quickly becoming mainstream. Especially when their entire marketing campaign for launch was based on the idea of it being a “Global Car.”
It would be hard to be more mainstream than a Chevy Celebrity, which was the first Europoort-branded model that came out in ’84. It may be the picture used in the dictionary to illustrate peak mainstream. Also, the idea of three years (around half the time between model refreshes) is an eternity, is just silly.
The idea of it being only about cheapness is also demonstrably wrong. BWMs, SAAB, Volvo, and Mercedes weren’t slathered in chrome at the time. The European Ford models didn’t have all the tacky chrome on any trim level at the time.
The higher-priced trim levels didn’t sell well, largely because there was a significant recession at the time. That doesn’t change the fact that there were plenty of mainstream models at the time that offered the more “euro styling,” and it was a trend that was fully accepted and represented the premium trim within 2-3 years, on even one of the most generic cars ever made, the Chevy Celebrity.
Fine, then you are just clueless. Being young would be a much better excuse than being oblivious. <shrug>
Again FORD OFFERED THE SPORTY BLACKED OUT LOOK IN THE US FROM THE GET GO. It didn’t sell. People WANTED the chromed out luxo look here. That was the mainstream style right through the 80s. Yes, the blacked out “Euro look” became more and more popular, eventually, starting in the MID-80s, but Ford was spot on for the times when the Escort was released in the US. Even Euro luxury cars weren’t blacked out in those days. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and especially Rolls-Royce\Bentley all had plenty of chrome, if not the excess of a malaise era luxobarge.
And BTW – the top-spec Euro Escort Ghia had nearly as much chrome as the US spec cars did. It was the pauper trims that were murdered out.
To your point – usually a blacked out trim package meant there was also a more “traditional” trim package option too with more Americanized trim, giving a choice rather than the one-size-fits-all design.
Using the Celebrity example, the landau vinyl roof option was featured more prominently in the brochure when the Eurosport option showed up, packaged as the “Celebrity Classic.” The wagon also showed up the same year with the option for woodgrain siding. That goes for the Pontiac 6000 too, which had been already touting the STE at that point.
Exactly. Even when it was an option to have “Euro styling”. it just wasn’t mainstream in ’80s for American cars.
People were into broughamtasticness back then. The sort of people who liked European styling mainly just bought European cars in the first place – and they weren’t blacked out back then either. And as cool as a Celebrity Eurosport wagon looked in that fantastic steel blue, it was still just a shitty Celebrity with at best a weak-knee’d 2.8l V6 under that blacked out trim, red stripe, and pretty paint color. Not even remotely competitive with European cars.
The Taurus actually WAS a style leader – but that came a half decade after the Escort’s debut. And still had the issue of great looks, decent ride and handling balance, but utterly terrible drivetrains. The Tempo was sort of a weird in-between having some of the aero styling, but still dripping in chrome and with the silly roof treatments available. Not that you couldn’t get awful dealer-installed crap all over a Taurus too.
You do realize you can look up images of these cars, right? You don’t have to just be wrong all the time. The clear, verifiable facts show that the American Escort had significantly more chrome, bumpers, B-pillar, grill, etc. than any trim level of any of the European cars you mentioned outside of the Rolls, and bringing that brand into this mix just highlights your desperation.
But again, you either ignore the point on purpose or don’t have the capacity to grasp it in the first place. Ford invested time and money in adding extra chrome trim, chasing a style that was quickly becoming outdated. Within three years, even the lowly Chevy Celebrity had fully embraced the look, despite your continued denial of reality.
Ford was chasing the luxobarge aesthetic at a time when it was already largely passé. They could have left it alone and been a style leader rather than one locked into the, as you put it, malaise lux-bardge aesthetic. You might think the tacky trim helped sales (you have no evidence of this to offer), but sales were never a part of my statement anyway. I didn’t say tacky chrome hadn’t been popular, just that those times were ending quickly, and rather than get ahead of it, they fell behind.
Attempting to make a point on the sales of the higher trim levels that had less chrome assumes they are the same price/product, and the only difference was the trim, which is quite dishonest. Either on purpose or out of ignorance, take your pick.
You really are trying to die on this hill, aren’t you? Ford did what people wanted back then. They wanted *chrome*. Chrome is what sold. So did goofy landau bars and vinyl roofs and all kinds of other kitchy shit that looks ridiculous today. No, blacked out trim did not become mainstream just a few years later. Cars like the Celebrity Eurosport were the exception in sea of chromed out A-bodies. The Escort was a mainstream car for mainstream tastes. That is how you sell cars. The American Escort shared damned near nothing with the Euro car anyway. Two cars that looked a lot alike while being complete different.
And yes, I looked up pictures of the Escort Ghia – it had a little less chrome than the American version, mostly in that it had black bumpers, but it was definitely the same idea. They even had chrome wheels quite commonly, something the US cars did not have. The blacked out cars were the poverty spec models.
You are simply completely wrong on this, just admit it and move on with your life, and stop tilting at imaginary windmills as you so seem to love to do around here.
The notion that a trim of the Celebrity, the most basic model in existence, was an exception is hilariously idiotic, especially when the Taurus came out in ’86.
Nothing you have said at any point counters my original statement. It was ironic that Ford spent time and money to make the Escort take on the look of the outgoing style rather than following the European style, which was quickly coming to the forefront.
That is a very true statement that got your undies all bunched up. I’m not sure what hill you think you are assaulting, and I doubt you know either. The fact that you are so drawn to using dishonest framing (sales), straw men (blacked out vs European style), and lies (3 years = eternity, European model having the same level of chrome, etc) to make a nonexistent point simply highlights your lack of integrity and nothing more. No wonder you were attracted to Florida.
Back then turbocharging (or the cooling aspect of it) wasn’t as sophisticated as it is today. The rule of thumb was that after driving for long periods of time (and especially after in high temperature regions) you were supposed to let the engine run and cool down for a few minutes while letting oil circulate in and around the turbocharger (specifically the bearings) to prolong the life of the turbocharger. The problem was that a lot of people didn’t do that, they just shut the car off after a hot run, which consequently would cook the turbocharger without proper lubrication.
And the main reason for that was indeed that turbos were oil-cooled only. Water cooling didn’t debut until later, and massively increased turbo reliability, along with better metallurgy and production tolerances. And massively better synthetic oil technology becoming commonly used.
But even modern turbos benefit from not being used in anger and then immediately shut off, IMHO. And of course, the tiny turbo mousemotors of today are pretty much ALWAYS being used in anger just driving around town. It’s kind of amazing they are as trouble free as they are, but TANSTAAFL.
This is what led to the concept of the “turbo timer” which was a popular mod on turbo cars from the ’80s up until the mid ’00’s. It was exactly what it sounds like, a module that kept the car running for a given amount of time after the driver had turned off and removed the key, locked the doors and left the vehicle.
Modern water-cooled turbos often feature an electric pump that continues to circulate coolant through the turbo for several minutes after shutdown if the temperature is above a certain level.
I know,my Fiat 500 Abarth is equipped as such. That pump is works well keeping the Garrett turbo in my car in check after 13 years of service.
I have the same engine in my ’15 Jeep Renegade. No turbo issues after 10 years and 180k miles, knock on wood.
My brother in law had a 1 gen. Absolute base model, stick shift, no ac, baby blue. It was a cockroach. He could get 40 mpg and drove it cross country several times. It had close to 200k on it when he traded it for a Ranger.
I never understood the small price difference between the Mustang GT and the Escort GT, was Ford making slimmer margins on the Fox? That and as I recall gas was relatively cheap in the md 80’s, so, why buy the Escort?
Similar with the Mustang GT vs SVO. Most everyone went with the tried and true GT, which was a smidge cheaper?
I mean I can see the SVO being a little more, it had more modern (Euro!!) styling, better suspension and larger wheels (I believe?), better power to weight ratio. The Escort was the inverse to all of that. Though I’m sure a lot of ‘mericans turned their noses up at turbo I4s, even though it was rated a 5HP more then the 5.0
And 4 wheel disc brakes. I believe the wheels were metric, so tires were expensive, but I was partial to the SVO.
I didn’t have to decide since I had to make due with my 77 302 Maverick, so I blacked out my trim and tinted windows.
Mantra in High School was no car with 4cyl or 4 doors was cool, not that many of us had a choice.
16 inch wheels on the SVO. Konis on all four corners and lots more over the GT. Acceleration was about the same between the two but the SVO would kill the GT on a road course.
The SVO had model specific 16×7 wheels with Goodyear Gatorback 225/50VR16 tores.
Evidently, it was only the very early 1984 SVOs that had those Michelin TRX metric tires 220/55VR390 (15.5″). Ford changed mid year to 225/50VR16s.
IIRC, the SVO was a LOT more expensive than the GT. Which was a big part of why it barely sold. Even though it was really the better car.
In 1984 the SVO was almost $7k more than the GT.
That’s was a whole Escort more than the GT – yikes!
It was reportedly about 1000 bucks less, which was hardly chump change in 1984.
I think more like $2K but still meh.. The GT was a $3000 upgrade over the base Mustang in 1984. Not chump change either but arguably money well spent. About the same $2k got you from a base Escort into the GT.
So $3K in 1984 is about $9300 in todays money. The delta between today’s Ecoboost Mustang and the GT looks like $15K. I don’t know how old you are, but I didn’t understand it in 1984, any more than today.
Possible reasons:
front-wheel drive (all the rage in the ’80s! And back then a bit safer for less experienced drivers on snowy roads)
insurance rates (gonna guess that Mustang would be a much higher rate than the Escort)
Also, the small price difference was probably the big added cost of having Roush help develop it from the CVH motor (the Euro turbo engine was done completely separately by Ford Europe). I’m going to hazard a guess that someone at Ford discovered just how much was being spent on a hot motor for a niche version of a subcompact and decided displacement was a more cost-effective replacement.
Arrrggg I forgot about all FWD all the time! “It pulls you up the hill!!”.. I’m betting that gets us part of the way there, and yes, insurance, especially with boy racers gets you the rest of the way. I totally missed the secondary factors, that have the larger influence. I made the classic mistake of correlating two factors; price and performance.
My first car was an 83 Escort GLX with the 1.6 and 5 speed and moonroof. It wasnt fast but it would leave a tire mark and outrun most of the VW Beetles in my town. It held up to my wringing every ounce of power it had out of it. I kinda miss it. It was a nice little car back in the day even if it was an economy car.
2nd gen Escorts dominated the parking lot at my high school – there was only one 3rd gen and one 1st gen (a few lucky kids had Foxbody Mustangs or Jeeps . . . there was even a couple Probes – but I digress).
I have lots of fond memories of riding in the 2nd gens. The 1st gen only struck me for exactly how garbage it was – no power, terrible interior, even for the time. Slapping a turbo on one would be cool for the effect and the novelty of the 0-60 time, but a polished turd is still a turd.
I always like the looks of the 80s Escort GT’s. Still do. I believe the GT version had a different head and multiport fuel injection. My mechanic father-in-law ended up with one with bad head someone brought in. He had trouble trying to find a replacement head that wasn’t $$$. He ended up just parting it out.
Picture #6 – Boy – “Escort SS!” Girl – “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
former owner of an ’87 lynx xr3 (escort gt in mercury guise) here: fun cars on backroads!
i took the decidedly superior interior out of an ’84 lynx rs, which jazzed up the little hot hatch quite a bit. Salty winters did a number to these cars. most had evaporated by the mid/late 90’s
Working at a ford dealer’s parts dept in the mid 90’s, i NEVER saw any escrat turbuhs, despite looking
Around 1000 cars total, Will. That’s rarer than most US market Ferraris, so you’d be unlikely to find one.
I remember seeing ads/articles about these, but never saw one in real life.
Escort gets blown. That is unusual.
ROFL – not that unusual in the world of *male* escorts.
It’s quite common in Washington DC and wherever the RNC and CPAC are having their conventions.
I see what you did there!!LMAO
Back in the late 70s/ early 80s, a lot of those small underpowered cars had a ‘Turbo’ button. It was labelled as ‘A/C’. Push it and feel the surge in power!
My ’82 Subaru *definitely* had that option! Even with the mighty 1.8, turning off the A/C made quite a difference.
Though turning off the A/C in my ’79 Peugeot 504D made even more difference. At least until the mechanically clutched main cooling fan kicked in. Peugeot gave two HP ratings for that car – with and without the fan running! IIRC, the fan took 5hp.
Reminds me of girlfriends Jetta. Going up inclines in PA on our way to DC had to turn off the AC and downshift to 3rd . It was still mikes ahead of the American crap being sold back then.
Test post.