(first posted 4/2/2014) When is a world car not a world car? When it’s Japanese. I can hear our readers’ responses already: Ford didn’t call the 1991 Escort a world car because it wasn’t engineered by its European subsidiary, making it the product of a different company. But this only makes limited sense. Dearborn exerted a very great deal of control over Mazda, strong arming it into using Ford powertrain components, while shaping its US lineup and installing executive personnel, effectively treating it as a Japanese subsidiary. And whether or not this assessment of the relationship between the two companies is one you agree with, there’s little denying that the products it created had far more global appeal than the distinctly American 1981 Escort.
In keeping with the spirit of my last post about the Mercury Mystique, the product of Ford’s second proudly advertised world car project, I decided to photograph this late production second-generation Escort down the street from me. With so much said about Ford’s excellent new Fusion and Focus, all the fanfare which surrounded the first Focus and our own discussions at CC about the 1981 Escort, I got to wondering why Ford’s collaborations with Mazda didn’t benefit from nearly as much press touting their origins. And while I understand the need to present the 1991 Escort as the Ford it wasn’t, passing off the Contour and Focus as American was no more honest.
The way Ford likely saw things, Mazda’s Familia was due to be re-engineered anyway, with American safety and emissions regulations in mind, so why not just put some pressure on Hiroshima to make a slightly larger car designed to accommodate the CVH engine? Certainly cheaper than having the Europeans redesign their car with North America in mind and, since the atrocious first generation car positioned the Escort as disposable transportation, this was the biggest concern.
With such cynical motivations, it’s almost unfair that the new car ended up so good, especially considering how widely panned the Mk5 European Escort was. The main reasons for the European car’s critical failure, aside from its engine, were its underwhelming dynamic qualities, which ironically enough, formed the basis of the new US Escort’s strengths. Based off Mazda’s BG platform, which underpinned the entire Familia/323 family, the Ford’s chassis was now at the top of its class, with surprising tail-happiness, excellent road feel and in sporty versions, with fat anti-roll bars and fifteen-inch wheels (which the Protege did not have), ample grip.
While the car was a continuation of the old car’s shape, its national origins were apparent. For one thing, being a Mazda clone meant that body hardware and more functional elements of its outward appearance (think window frames) had a well defined, distinctly Japanese, appearance. But even more importantly, the car itself was styled in one of Ford’s Japanese studios and there was little to visually tie the car to its North American siblings. Styling borrowed from the best and smart North American customers would recognize the Taurus-aping front fascia, and the interior design which copied the ’86 Accord’s themes, but the look was otherwise generic, if fully up-to-date, and aged well.
As in Europe, one of the worst aspects of the 1981 design carried over to the new car: the CVH engine, now labeled SEFI, in 1.9 liter form. It received some refinements in the new car, but remained largely the same, with ample torque and a breathless top-end delivery, perfect for suburban slogging when tied to the (JATCO) four-speed automatic. Luckily, the 1.8 Mazda BP twin-cam was also available in the Escort GT, LX-E sedan and Mercury Tracer LTS and so-equipped, these cars were truly world-class, though there was little outside of their styling for which Ford could claim credit.
Not that it mattered, as the Escort continued its streak as a best-seller, while the Protege was only a modest success. While they were very careful in planning this car, testing the Ford-badged Mazda small-car formula first with the original Mercury Tracer, the Festiva, and the Probe before finally applying it to one of their biggest sellers, one can’t help but see the whole arrangement as incredibly unfair. It’s reminiscent of the classic scenario in which a star athlete collaborates with a bookish classmate to complete a group project, pushing all the hard work on the socially marginalized peer while taking most of the credit. From the way the Escort was marketed, it would seem Dearborn certainly felt shame in its inability to create a competitive small car on its own, even if compunction over the exploitation of its Japanese associate wasn’t forthcoming.
Mazda didn’t necessarily have the last laugh, as their perpetual precarity remains, but they may have felt a certain bitter smugness while watching from the sidelines as Ford proved its continued incompetence in small and midsized car design. The suave but shoddy Contour–whose automatic Ford forced onto the 626, damaging its reputation–was replaced with the 2006 Fusion, which followed the ’91 Escort’s Mazda-based formula (look who’s come crawlin’ back), while the zaftig 1996 Taurus wound up replaced by the even bigger, lackluster Volvo-based 500. While Ford has managed to bring us some superlative small and midsized cars over the years, other than the original Taurus, none have been homegrown. Perhaps that’s just as well, as relying on foreign partners for the lion’s share of your mainstream cars’ engineering is a very successful formula, now copied by GM and Chrysler. Now, if only I could find someone to do my work for me…
Related reading: Mercury Tracer LTS, 1981-1990 Ford Escort and Mazda MX3 GS
When you let someone else do your work, your so called “core competency,” then you get what they like and not necessarily what you want. Nice going FoMoCo.
Still plenty left on UK roads,the 5 doors are most common.
plenty of the European Escort yes, like the white ’92 five door pictured about halfway through.
As Perry points out though that’s a completely unrelated car. I’ve never seen one of the featured US market Mazda based Escorts “over here”.
As a footnote, Perry I think you’re off base suggesting that 90s Euro-Escorts were poorly received. Certainly the early Mk5s (like your pictured ’92) dropped the ball, but their predecessor and successor models were both class leaders and hugely successful cars. The Mk5’s lackluster dynamics were fettled for the ’95 Mk6 refresh onward, making good where the earlier car fell short.
Think of the Mk5 as a mis-step that was swiftly corrected, rather than symptomatic of any difficulties at Ford (Europe) with designing small/medium cars.
I could write a book on these, especially my misadventures with my ’93 wagon. The 1.9 really did have a frightening lack of power up hills, and with the air conditioner on……yikes! Then it blew a head gasket on my way to work, the already remanufactured when I bought it transaxle slipped out of gear at will, but not always, and the chassis electrical system was hit or miss. Ever try replacing the instrument cluster bulbs on one of these? Have you ever on any car? I did…once again, yikes! Oh, and the rust….they all rusted around the rear wheelwell, catastrophically (at least around here).
Sadly, I still kind of liked that stupid old wagon. The dashboard picture brought back a lot of memories, because I spent quite a bit of time behind the wheel of mine or my wife’s (then-girlfriend’s).
The Laser was all over oz like a rash. Caught this one around the corner.
That red Familia reminds me of the most exhilarating ride of my life in a JDM fully sickened rollcaged six point harnessed teeth shattering suspensioned ride across both lanes with oncoming traffic on the old road up to Eagle on the Hill in Adelaide in a car looking exactly the same as that. Will never do it again but thanks Papa Squid.
Ditto re NZ and the Laser; also ditto re an exhilarating drive of a JDM Familia identical to the red one (albeit black). A mate had a GTX 4WD turbo that was somewhat modified. It still rates as the quickest accelerating car I’ve ever personally driven – it felt so loose in the body (like the engine was drivetrain was trying to tear itself free) that I wished it had a roll cage and harnesses…!
It’s worth noting the Australian/NZ cars had a single cam Mazda engine, not the Ford 1.9L.
On that note, does SEFI stand for single point EFI, rather than being the ‘proper’ name of the engine?
My 1997 Escort Wagon is the reason I’ll have to look at Mazdas when car shopping. The 2.0 SOHC engine that replaced the 1.9 was just the same – low down torque and gutless at freeway speeds. Fortunately the chassis dynamics tried to make up for it.
FYI, the Fusion came out in 2006, and was considered the replacement for the Taurus, not the 500.
It effectively wasn’t, though.
Mr. Snitkoff is exactly right. The Fusion/Milan were direct replacements for Taurus/Sable sedans(both were midsize vehicles) and after a year of the Taurus and Fusion being sold side by side(2006) the Taurus shuffled off to be sold as a rental car only for a short 2007 model year. The Five Hundred was to replace the Crown Vic which was to soon shuffle off to only fleet/rental sales.(in fact the Five Hundred was actually more roomy then the Vic(due to it being FWD)
As MY2007 rolled to a close, Ford was shocked that more 2007 Rental car/Fleet Taurus and Crown Vics were sold then Five Hundreds and a the Name Taurus was affixed to the Five Hundred and off it went
This is the car I bought my (now) wife just before we got married. There are a lot of bad things I could say about it (NO power, hard shifts, the most uncomfortable driving position possible), but the truth is that it was a very good car from a reliability standpoint. It was generally easy to work on, and didn’t have to be worked on often.
My eldest daughter finally killed it at about 170,000 miles when the cooling system froze up (had a little too much straight water in it) and bad noises came from the engine. I was not too sad about scrapping it since most everything else on the car was used up anyway.
There are still a bunch of these on the road here in my part of the Midwest.
I’ve always entertained the prospect of an Escort GTR/Tracer LTS 5-speed hatchback since I found out about them…
I owned an ’86 Mazda 323 hatchback and enjoyed it a lot. I did not have any seat time in this 2nd generation Ford Escort, but I took a 3rd generation Escort for a spin. My conclusion: Leave it to Ford to mess up a good thing.
The second generation Escort deserves respect for what it is. In particular the station wagon was the ultimate in small car practicality. But I would never put one in my driveway because of these hideous automatic seat belts.
Oh, I am fully aware that the generation count is wrong for Europeans. They might start with the dog bone Escort.
“Dog bone Escort”, I’ve never heard that term but I know which one you mean.
That was our family car in Oz in the early 70s when I was little. We had a few adventures in it — getting bogged in deep mud, long detours for flooded creeks in wet season, tyre blowouts, windscreen shattering from a flying rock, breakdowns in the middle of nowhere.
Motoring in rural NSW and QLD was wild back then. Even the Bruce Highway up the QLD coast was primitive.
I had a 1995 (Euro) Escort, bought it new and drove it for 5 years. It was a dark green metallic 3 door with a GT badge, 5 speed manual. 1.8 liter 105 hp 16v DOHC (Zetec) engine. It served me well, just routine maintenance. Nice all-rounder and decent fuel efficiency. The paint quality was only moderate though.
At the same time dad drove a 1994 Escort Van at work. Also 5 speed manual, the engine was a naturally aspirated 60 hp 1.8 diesel. Once it picked up some speed, which took a while, it just kept on rolling till eternity. Dead simple technology from bumper to bumper and for such a compact vehicle it had great cargo space. It had a pretty rough life, some off-roading now and then and it also had to pull a tandem axle trailer quite regularly. Reliable little truck, sold after 13 years.
My dad bought a ’91 Escort LX 5-door hatch in about 1992 or 1993 and drove it until 2007 or 2008. It was the car he owned the longest.
I got to drive it a handful of times and always liked it. I liked it 1,000% better than the ’86 Escort it replaced.
Dad’s next car, the ’06 Focus I now drive because I bought it off him, was more powerful and handled better — but my memory of the ’91 Escort was that it felt no smaller inside and felt a lot lighter and airier, and it’s not like that Escort handled badly. It was a great in-town car, and okay on the highway as long as you didn’t need to pass on a two-lane.
I don’t recall clearly what repairs Dad needed done on that Escort but I remember them being few and far between. Rust was that car’s greatest problem. It had taken over the rear wheel arches by the time he ditched that car.
I’ve driven Fords and Mazdas long enough to form an opinion. The 74? Courier was, of course undecided as to what it was. Always had yeoman service from the Mazdas and so-so dependability from the Fords. Now my driveway is two working japanese and one non-working classic. Probably going to keep those two Japanese cars till they (or I) croak.
All I have to say about these is that they were much better in design, ergonomics and style than the first-gen models.
Other than that, no sale, for I was still a solid Chrysler fan in those days, and already having had my fill of the Tempo/Topaz twins, Ford was kind of a dirty word in my book.
However, at least the rear glass popped open on the Escorts…
I give Ford credit here. It knew that the Escort needed replaced, and it also knew that small cars weren’t its specialty. (Although I wouldn’t call the first-generation North American Escort “atrocious” after its 1985 revamp. It was a dependable, serviceable car by that point. Several family members and friends had 1985 and later Escorts, and all gave good, if uninspired, service.)
Ford turned to its Japanese partner and used a very competent platform as the basic building block for the next Escort. Given that one of the criticisms of Detroit during those years was the “not invented here” mentality, Ford deserves credit for admitting its weakness in this segment and using a cost-effective way to address it.
We have to remember that at least 95 percent of the customers at that time had no clue as to the Mazda connection. They saw a competent, up-to-date small car with the Ford nameplate on it, and bought it. The years of service these cars provided helped Ford over the long run.
One has to compare Ford’s approach in this segment to GM’s approach during these years. Both realized during the early 1980s that they could not make money on subcompacts. They also realized that this led to cost-cutting mischief that hurt both companies in the long run.
GM’s answer was to spend billions on a new division, a new small car and a new factory to produce it. The result was the Saturn SL.
Ford, meanwhile, borrowed a very competent platform from a subsidiary and turned it into the next Escort. This car sold reasonably well and certainly didn’t hurt Ford’s reputation in the 1990s.
In the long run, GM lost a huge amount of money on Saturn, produced a car that wasn’t any better than this one, and ended up with another division that funneled development dollars away from Chevrolet.
I’d say Ford’s approach with this Escort was pretty smart, all things considered.
(Also note that Mazda would have gone belly-up without Ford’s injection of cash, so it’s not as though Ford was the only one to benefit from this relationship. Mazda would be gone by now, or looking like Mitsubishi, if Ford hadn’t bought that stake in the company.)
But why was it so impossible to make money off of a small car?
No one’s saying it was a dumb approach, it’s just interesting that it wasn’t hailed as a world car, where it was a success in Asia while Ford’s previous world cars weren’t especially popular.
My point is that Ford got a lot out of the situation whereas Mazda didn’t sell too many cars.
But why was it so impossible to make money off of a small car?
Because The Big Three’s overhead, benefits and legacy costs were much higher than the Japanese transplants. It was sort of a key issue about Detroit’s problems. GM dealt with it through bankruptcy. Ford also got some UAW concessions, but the real trick has been to bring up average transaction prices, made possible by getting production back in line with real demand, better quality small cars, and better equipped ones.
Another key aspect is that the small car market is just stronger now; in the 90s, they were poverty-mobiles; everyone really wanted an Explorer or Expedition.
The Big Three needed to keep small car volume high in order to meet CAFE regs, because of all the trucks they were selling, so their (ultimately flawed) strategy was to de-content them and sell them on low price. Also, keeping the factories running, even with a small loss per car, was a lot cheaper than shutting down a plant, given the legacy costs involved.
It was a sick business strategy, but in part necessitated by CAFE, shrinking market share, and legacy costs. Thankfully, they’ve worked themselves out of that ugly hole.
“The Big Three needed to keep small car volume high in order to meet CAFE regs, because of all the trucks they were selling”
No from the beginning truck CAFE has be separate from car CAFE. That is why you had Chrysler using every loop hole in the book to classify the PT Cruiser as a truck so it helped the truck CAFE target as their real trucks MPG was the worst in the business at the time.
But Chrysler was always golden in car CAFE because after the 5th Avenue/Diplomat, they had no big v8 RWD gas hogs. Chrysler built up so many credits during the early days of CAFE, it was years before they burned through them all. But Ford and GM continued selling V8 performance and luxury cars that pounded down their fleet averages, making a good selling small car essential.
As a car the PT Cruiser’s CAFE MPG stunk but as a “truck” it was great.
Yes; I shot that off a bit too quickly. As Jim said, the Escort helped boost CV and Mustang EPA numbers, and such.
My understanding was that Chrysler did make a respectable per-car profit on the Neon and probably would have even without the last-minute cost-cutting spree. (Perhaps not as much, but given the Neon’s reputation, it would have been a worthwhile tradeoff.)
Just because a car is smaller doesn’t mean it costs less to design, tool, certify and assemble. Sure there are a few less pounds of metal, cheaper tires and a few other cost savings related to the size of the vehicle but those costs are minor compared to the others. Meanwhile people buy cars “by the pound” and generally aren’t willing to spend as much on a small car as they are on a bigger car. Sho the mfg saves maybe $300-500 vs making a larger car but can sell the larger car for $1500-2000 more.
I’d agree with this, but also the exchange rate of the Yen back in the 1980s would make their imports more attractive.
“But why was it so impossible to make money off of a small car?”
In my view it was because gas in the U.S. was hovering a bit above $1/gal and most people wanted larger cars. Add in CAFE that penalized makers who sold too many large cars, and we wound up with a situation where the Escort could not just be sold as an Escort (as had been the case with the Falcon in the 60s), but was instead a tool for raising Ford’s CAFE average as much as possible to permit the sale of as many profitable larger cars as possible. This required the Escort to be sold on price as a sort of loss leader, in order to move as many units as possible. The Escorts only value was in making Mustang GTs and Grand Marquis’ possible.
According to an Executive I knew who worked at Ford during this era, Ford did make money selling these Escorts, an average of around $500 each and that was what the dealer made on them too. The money at this time was in the Explorer as each made on average about $5000.
The Escort was also viewed as the “gateway” to Ford. The Japanese were busy introducing larger and more expensive cars in the 1980s. Ford (along with GM and Chrysler) wasn’t about to send all first-time buyers to Honda, Nissan and Toyota showrooms, with the expectation that they would trade up to a domestic vehicle when they had outgrown their Civic, Sentra or Corolla. The Japanese were now offering larger vehicles to meet their needs, too.
All mfgs do consider their sub-compact models a necessary evil, to one degree or another, as they want you to come to their family and move up to their more profitable vehicles eventually.
As others have noted, the cost structure of the Big Three prevented them from making money on subcompacts. Also note that, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Japanese subcompacts were able to undercut their direct domestic competition on price. The Japanese were selling higher quality products at a LOWER price than their American competitors at that time. That was one reason why the Reagan Administration negotiated the temporary “voluntary” import restraints with the Japanese in the early 1980s, which gave the domestics some breathing room and ended up raising the actual cost of Japanese cars.
I don’t mean to criticize the article, which is well-written and gives us a nice perspective on a car that blended into the streetscape from day one. I just think Ford’s strategy was a smart one, and also note that the Ford connection basically saved Mazda. If I recall correctly, Mazda was in danger of going out of business in the early 1990s, despite the success of the Miata. What Mazda ultimately got out of the Ford connection was the opportunity to stay in business.
It is interesting that Ford didn’t trumpet the world-car connection when this car debuted. Of course, one of the reasons why the first North American Escort had been panned by reviewers was because it didn’t share much with its European counterpart. The ads, meanwhile, certainly didn’t give that impression. Ford was rightly criticized for this. Perhaps Ford wanted everyone to focus on what was new and right about this Escort, as opposed to what it didn’t share with the Mazda.
Frankly, I think Ford had learned the lesson that trumpeting a car’s roots in Europe or such didn’t really amount too much if the car wasn’t up to par. They certainly learned that lesson with the gen1 Escort. If a car is good, there’s no need to play up its roots; Ford’s prime example being the Taurus.
I think part of the issue is simply that in a lot of non-U.S. markets, C-segment cars like the Escort occupy a different stratum in terms of price and buyer expectations. The U.S. market still tends to consider anything smaller than a ’55 Chevrolet to be a little car, whereas elsewhere, C-segment sedans and hatches are mid-range offerings that represent a step or two up from automakers’ smaller and cheaper models.
I often get the impression — perhaps unfairly — that domestic compacts are engineered with the mentality that they shouldn’t be too desirable lest they discourage buyers from stepping up to the bigger, more profitable models. I admittedly haven’t tested a lot of the current crop of domestically branded C-segment cars, but that was certainly the vibe I got from their predecessors.
I have a similar take.
Well said…especially the part about the comparison to GM and Saturn. It was a smart move by Ford; if only they had done something similarly smart with the Contour/Mystique cars.
Drove a rental right when these first came out, and was very impressed, especially compared to its predecessor.
My two SILs both bought Escort wagons when Ford was selling all three body styles for $9,999; they both had excellent experiences with them, and one just got rid of hers last year.
“Ford deserves credit for admitting its weakness in this segment and using a cost-effective way to address it. ”
It was more cost benefits than anything. It is wasteful to have unique platforms for ‘national pride’. Ford used their at the time, 33%, controlling interest division to make a compact car.
And yeah, Saturn was a waste of $$ just to claim ‘we can make a small car!’.
To GM’s credit with Saturn there were admitting that their current process was broken and they needed to start from scratch to avoid the previous problems. The problem was that they took it a few steps too far. By making every nut and bolt on the car a Saturn nut and bolt they essentially ended up throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is no reason they couldn’t have used some existing parts like starters, alternators, AC compressors, door locks, latches and other “invisible” parts and they would have saved millions and maybe got the car to market before it was obsolete.
Always like the looks of this generation Escort. Finally ended up with an 02 sedan as a second car.
Very stout body, willowly suspension. Cracked me up with it’s “sensory speed alarm”: If the speed crept up to 75, the noise and vibration of the struggling engine would warn me to slow down, which, in a way, was an advantage over the smooth, quiet engine in my Civic, that was just as happy at 85 as it was at 70.
Having been spoiled by both a Mazda and a Honda, the Escort was a bit of a let down: cruise control switch, idle air valve, the ABS, twice, struts, and it developed a nasty cold start rod knock at only 60K, in spite of regular oil changes. Fortunately, the only insturment light that failed was the gear indicator, and the counsole was easy to pull up to get at the bulb.
Due to the knock, I dumped it at a used car lot. Unfortunately, the check engine light came on (caused by the leaky idle air valve) while the guy was looking at it. Fortunately, he figured it needed a tune up, rather than the valve ($100+ installation). I looked at that lot’s web site from time to time to see what they were asking for it, but they never had the car on the site. Either they already had someone looking for an Escort, or they dumped it at auction after they started it up the next morning and heard the death rattle in the engine.
“Sensory speed alarm.” I like that phrase, and I may have to steal it.
Having driven a few Escorts with the CVH/auto combination back in the day, that awful powertrain dominates my memories of the car. It may have been loud and thrashy, but at least it was unresponsive. It always seemed to be in the wrong gear in city driving and the vibration at higher speeds discouraged cruising above 70 mph. The chassis may have been nice, but that engine and transmission did not encourage spirited driving. I never got the chance to try one with a manual, but I’m sure it would have seemed like a different (and better) car.
I’ve driven both. The manual was great up to about 60 or 65 mph where the above noted speed alarm popped on. The automatic version was pretty much miserable at any speed.
It always seemed to be in the wrong gear in city driving
I frequently shouted “wrong gear!” at mine. Being pre fly by wire, if I gave it some gas, the engine would immediatly rev….then I’d wait while the rest of the drivetrain caught up with it. Amazingly disconnected feel to it.
I never got the chance to try one with a manual,
I tried a 97 wagon with a stick a couple years before I got the 02. It was just as slow, and I had the additional entertainment of the “upshift” light on the dash constantly nagging me.
All that being said, I kind of liked it. Something about it’s crudity was appealing. I never worried about driving in a bad neighborhood, nor in road salt, nor leaving it outside in bad weather. In spite of the odd issue, like the day the front left wheel sensor for the ABS quit, leaving me with 3 wheel brakes, it never really failed to get me there.
“…while the zaftig 1996 Taurus wound up replaced by the even bigger, lackluster Volvo-based 500.”
The Five Hundred was a full size car, not meant to “replace the Taurus”. Only reason people think that is because the Chicago Taurus plant was retooled for Five Hundred/Freestyle/Montego. So all the news stories said ‘Taurus replacement car’ and whined about the higher prices.
The Fusion replaced the ‘bull’, and is now breathing down Camry’s neck.
I agree here. The 06 was the last of the real Tauruses. No coincidence the Fusion came out n 2006. After the lukewarm reception of the Five Hundred, Mulally wanted to bring back a familiar and storied name.
Wikipedia does say the Five Hundred replaced the Taurus, and the Taurus replaced the Five Hundred. But in terms of market positioning the Fusion is closer in size and price to the original Taurus and current Camry. Taurus was kicked up market, and is now more “Avalon” than Camry.
I have no measurements to back this up, but it seemed at the time like from the early 2000s Taurus, the Five Hundred went half a size up while the Fusion went half a size down. I think that there had been a gradual upsizing of many size-classes of vehicles and by 2005 or so, the original Taurus was too small for a D car and too large for a C.
Yes the Fusion was a slight down size from the original Taurus (2000 Taurus and 2010 Fusion in my driveway) while the Five Hundred was larger than the original Taurus. The fact that the Taurus was on the larger end of the midsize segment was why they brought out the Contour to compete against the smaller midsize cars such as the Accord and Camry of the time when they started that project.
I think what you meant to say was that the original Taurus was too small for E segment (full-size) but too large for D segment (mid-size). “C” segment is compact. Just a nitpick.
GM had the same issue with the W-bodies in their last 10 years or so – they were always larger than most mid-sized cars and by time the final W Impalas were sold in the mid-2000s, they had grown so much that they were usually marketed as “full-size cars” above the Malibu/Aura/G6. It certainly helped that they were some of the last sedans to retain 6-passenger seating and a floaty old-school ride, neither of which the Epsilon Malibu/G6 offered. Ford went basically the same route sizing the Five Hundred above the Fusion, but it was decidedly more international in design than the Impala.
I prefer the design of the 3rd generation Escort to the 2nd generation.
I owned a beater ’97 Escort. Other than constant issues with alignment, it was a decent car that returned decent mileage. It had a decent interior at least.
The Escort is a perfect example in how Ford’s target has never been to be equal or better than Toyota or Honda, but just good enough to be slightly better than GM or Chrysler.
Lately, though, GM’s been doing quite a bit better. Ford’s current Focus is having a much tougher time staying ahead of the Cruze than the Escort did with the Cavalier. But it still remains to be seen whether either is up to the Corolla or Civic.
The ’91 Escort was soooo much better than the one it replaced, though I really liked the looks of the Mk 1 3-door in “GT” trim which is how they were all sold in California.
Roomy, easy to get in and out of and, for the time, a stiff body structure. The ’91 felt solid as a rock. I really liked the wagon model.
I had a 1991 Ford Escort LX 3 door hatch as my first real car. Red with red interior, A/C, Cassette, 5 speed manual, ‘Light Group’ and power mirrors. It was an early build 1991 (built April 1990) and that car was a solid little car. There were a few issues, the A/C stopped keeping me cool because the rubber seals dried up, due to lack of use – lesson learned – life is too short to save a couple cents with A/C off – and the battery finally died after almost 7 years – my bad I guess. The engine wasn’t Honda smooth, it did have a lot of low end torque, the shifter was quite smooth, handling was OK for an economy car, lots of room to truck things to and from college, the seats were comfortable, it went on a couple of road trips from Vancouver to LA, and it seemed to be theft proof – I had a habit of leaving the keys in the trunk keyhole and no one ever stole it. The interior was in great shape when I traded it in on a used 1993 Acura Integra GSR that was much more fun and luxurious (relative sense) but wasn’t as reliable. Thank you for posting this little unsung hero. Brought back some great memories!
I had a 95 Escort GT, it was a decent little car. Being a later model car, it had the redesigned interior with dual airbags and as such no motorized belts. It was adequately powerful, I couldn’t imagine how terrible to drive this car would have been when hooked up to the smaller motor and an auto.
The Mazda engine was actually a little smaller, displacement-wise, than the 1.9-liter Ford CVH that was the Escort’s base engine. Displacements were 1,840cc for the Mazda, 1,859cc for the Ford. The Mazda 1.8s all had 16 valves, however, and the version in the GT and Protege LX was DOHC with a dual-runner intake manifold.
In 1994 I had visited several dealerships with my dad while car shopping. We did come across a Ford dealership with brand new 2 door Ford Escorts including a shiny new black one and the price must have been around $15,000 before fees and taxes (Canadian funds). My dad was actually looking for a 4 door sedan and I remember that Ford already seemed to have a bad reputation for transmissions going bad around that time. We ended up with a used 1990 Pontiac Tempest (rebadged Chevy Corsica clone available only in Canada) instead.
Plenty of these still wandering around our roads – albeit with ‘Laser’ badges on ’em. My aunty had a ’94 5 door; two acquaintances had 3 doors; a best mate’s mother still has the 1.6 Ghia her late mother bought new in ’94.
I’ll be the naysayer here though, as I think they’re a huge let down versus the previous Laser (aka Tracer). The previous model was the perfect size (for a small car), had great running gear (and a huge range) and looked great inside and out. By comparison the ’94 was an overweight pile of unfun ugliness. It marked the point where the Laser’s success in NZ jumped the shark and descended into obvlivion.
The equivalent Mazda looked so good, I never understood how Ford could turn it into one of the most willfully ugly cars of the 90s. That flat top rear wheel arch, the bulbous sides (because they used the narrow floorpan of the previous Laser?) the general air of discordance…bleargh.
Here in Chile, we got both the US Mazda-based Escort shown here, and the European (I think British) Escort. To distinguish them, the latter was sold and badged as “EuroEscort”. At the same time, Mazda also sold their 323.
I test drove one of these once it was a wagon of similar vintage even in light traffic I have never felt so unsure of a vehicle. It just felt cheap and wobbly, although it did not help that the air bags were blown as someone had hit a deer in it at one point. I was just glad to get it back to the seller and walk away.
Personally I think basing the US Escort on the Mazda made it a better car. We had a 1995 Escort 5 door hatch for 15 years because it was cheap, comfortable, and worked, except for the cursed automatic transaxle that was rebuilt 3 times before we replaced it. Compared to the 97 Saturn SL2 it shared garage space with, the 1.9 was underpowered and vibratory but the handling was almost as good and the seats, ergonomics and carry capacity blew the Saturn away.
I also manage to drive a UK spec 98 Escort as a rental and while it was nicely put together it drove like the total beige mobile it was accused of being. The Focus was a major improvement.
I’m not so sure about that distinctness. Maybe there are mechanical specification differences. The bumpers and lights and sideview mirrors are prominently different (to comply with local regulations) and there are some minor style differences, but these similar-year US and Euro versions don’t look very different to me.
As to the subject ’94 car, my feelings toward them are probably best summarised as “grouchy”. I find the wagons particularly offensive to the eye.
Looks can be highly deceiving. Although some aspects of the basic body structure were shared, almost nothing else was. There are clear visual differences in the sheet metal, if you’ll take the time to look at both versions carefully. The US version’s structure was substantially different due to 5 mile bumpers, and little or any of the external sheetmetal interchanges.
That’s just a start. The US version has a totally different interior, the engines were drastically smog-strangled, the transmission and axle ratios were heavily changed to optimize its EPA numbers, and destroy its performance. And most of all, its suspension tuning was completely different, turning the initial US version into a notoriously crappy handler, unlike the Euro version.
I could go on.. It was a classic “lost in translation” disaster, because the US Ford ops were convinced they knew what American buyers really wanted in a small car: a rolling turd instead of a quite decent, competitive and good-handling car like the Euro version.
My CC is here with more details:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1981-1990-ford-escort-you-never-get-a-second-chance-to-make-a-good-first-impression/
Ah, sounds like one of many in a long, sad stream of Ford’s cynical Americanizations.
Superficially they are similar, but if you look at the detail of the folds and lines of the two it is obvious they don’t share most of the same external panels. I first saw an American Escort back in the mid-’80s so it wasn’t hard to find the European version to directly compare it to back then (it was the UK’s top seller at the time). Lets take just the front wings as an example:
1. Top edge of wing – US version – drops to the front, but sharply curves in to form top lip of the bonnet/hood line. European version – drops to the front but blends into leading edge of bonnet line.
2. Upper crease – US version – drops down to meet top edge of headlight/indicator opening and lower edge of bonnet/hood line. European version, drops less and sharply curves in to form top lip of the bonnet line (function served by 1 on US version).
3. Wheel arch – US version – narrow lip, extension has a slight convex section. European version – wider lip, extension is close to a straight angle.
4. Lower crease – US version – absent. European version – present
(Differing trim hides the other crease above this)
Finally, another obvious difference is at the back where on the US version the line under the windows stops where the C pillar flows into the side. On the European version the same line continues round the back to form a ledge round the back.
Now it may be that there are similar pressings in the underlying structure (perhaps even the front screen and roof), but virtually all the visible parts are different.
The wagons must have some structural differences as well – the Euro wagon’s hatch looks to be a bit more sharply angled and wraps over at all sides, the US model’s wraps over only at the top. And then the Europeans made a *two-door* wagon, and only a two-door until 1983, year three of the product line.
IMO just on styling the Euro model looked better at launch but the US model’s softer body lines made it easier to bring into the aero era. They both looked pretty dated by 1990, though.
For me (in the US) there is no comparison between the two cars. I had an ’83 and it was barely a car. Absolutely miserable appliance. It was the ”L” model, you know, the really nice one! The ’94, was a fun, economical, if not powerful, little car. Felt modern and very Japanese. Lasted forever too. The guy who bought it from me took it to 200,000 miles before it was crushed by a tree.
Wifey and I bought his and her 1994 Escorts at the same time. Her 5-speed was a great car. My Automatic was a DOG. I the bought a 1997 all new Escort. Drove like a dream with plenty of power. 33 mpg on the hwy. 26 in town. Traded that one for a 1994 SHO! AWESOME car!
I had a 1996 Escort LX wagon with auto. Bought it when it was 9 yrs old and kept it for another 8 until it was literally falling apart. Best car I ever owned and I dearly miss it.