Although the powertrain provided adequate motivation, no one would ever mistake one of the vast majority of Tempo/Topazes with a milquetoast 2.3-liter, four cylinder engine and three-speed automatic for any flavor of sports car. But would the addition of a Vulcan V6 engine make it at least sporty?
When the original Tempo/Topaz debuted back in 1983 (as a 1984 model) it was clothed in aerodynamic styling that might have presaged the daring 1986 Taurus. Despite its sealed-beam headlights, it was certainly more slippery than anything in its price range offered by GM and Chrysler; what’s more, the improved aerodynamics paid off in less wind noise and better fuel economy than its rear-wheel drive Zephyr predecessor. While the front-wheel drive Tempo/Topaz might have looked like a brand new design, it actually borrowed heavily from the Ford Escort; it sat on what was essentially a stretched Escort platform (the Tempo/Topaz did use a different rear suspension, but the cars were very similar to the Escort from the firewall forward), and the inevitable weight gain meant the Escort’s CVH engine would no longer do.
Instead of using the 2.3-liter OHC inline four found in such various rear-wheel drive vehicles as the Mustang, Thunderbird and Ranger, Ford chose to develop another 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine. Looking to the past for a strong and torquey motor, Ford based the new engine’s design on the old inline six from the Ford Falcon by basically cutting off two cylinders and updating it to 1980s acceptability with a feedback carburetor (multi-port fuel injection would be fitted later). The result was about as far from sporty as one could imagine. The engine quickly ran out of breath and was quite thrashy, even at moderate rpm. What it was, though, was an engine very well-suited to a three-speed automatic and the driving style of most North Americans. While the standard manual transmission eked out more miles per gallon and trimmed down 0-60 times, the 2.3-liter’s low-end torque characteristics did not encourage enthusiastic driving. A Mazda-sourced diesel engine was also available during the car’s early years.
The suspension was a bit mundane, with struts front and rear, but at least it was fully independent–certainly a cut above some of the rear straight axles used by its competitors. Brakes were class-standard front discs and rear drums. The four-cylinder models did without a rear anti-roll bar, but you can bolt in one from a V6 model if you were so inclined. I’ve had a lot of time behind the wheel of a couple of base-model L coupes, and the body roll can be pretty dramatic. Steering was rack-and-pinion; on the first generation it could be had with or without power assist, but after 1988 only power steering was offered. The phrase “unremarkable but competent” comes to mind when describing the handling (and perhaps the whole car).
Photo source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/1988-1991_Mercury_Topaz_%281%29.jpg
In 1988, the Tempo/Topaz sedans received a exterior redesign, although under the skin things remained pretty much the same. The Tempo received a grille featuring thick horizontal bars; the Topaz, aiming to be different, sported a grille of thin vertical bars. Topaz four-door sedans also got a more upright, formal roof line.
While the sedans got a full makeover, the coupes soldiered on, with a face lift most noticeable up front, thanks to new grilles and composite headlights in place of sealed beams. The rear tail lights were also changed a bit, but their overall shape remained similar. If you look closely at the two-doors, you’ll notice that the front bumper is higher than the rear bumper as a result of blending the restyled front end into the otherwise largely unchanged body. They even tried to hide the fact that the bumper rub strips don’t line up by using a thicker front strip, but once you’re aware of it, it’s impossible not to notice.
The interior was redesigned for both two- and four-door models. I always thought the first generation had a more vertical design, and the second generation more of a horizontal layout that is (at least to my eyes) much more attractive. I do have to say that the two rotary dials flanking the gauge cluster work very well. The block of buttons for the HVAC system was a little less intuitive, but they worked well enough once you’d memorized the layout.
photo source: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2084068/1989-ford-tempo/
Actually, it wasn’t uncommon for a button’s face to fall off after a while. I distinctly remember repairing the rear defrost button on my parents’ car with a bit of plastic model-kit glue. It took a bit of the black paint off at the edge, but the repair held up for the rest of their ownership.
The 1992 model year brought another visual refresh that included body color bumpers and trim. The bumper height mismatch was now much harder to notice. Once again, grilles were updated: The Mercury got a fake light bar, while the Ford received a body color grill. As seen on our otherwise rather nice example, the light bars tended to yellow with age.
photo source: http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/1993-Mercury-Topaz-Pictures-c2823?picturesTabFilter=OTHER
Back to the crux of our sporty argument – the V6 engine. Starting in 1992 a 3.0-liter Vulcan engine was borrowed from the Taurus. Although a redesigned camshaft made it a bit less powerful, it still made a healthy-for-the-car-size-and-era 130 hp (135 hp in 1994), with 150 ft-lb of torque. When combined with the Tempo/Topaz’s relatively low weight, it yielded an entirely respectable 0-60 mph time of 7.8 seconds, and a quarter-mile run of 16.1 seconds at 85 mph. Because the five-speed manual gearbox from the four-cylinder car couldn’t handle the V6’s torque, a similar but stronger gearbox from the high-performance Taurus SHO was used (which opens up visions of a SHO DOHC V6-powered Tempo/Topaz for those of us who enjoy imagining possible engine swaps). While the wiring would likely be the biggest challenge and you’d have a fast car to show for it, at the end of the day you’d be left with a Tempo/Topaz that’s not (yet?) retro-cool in the way a Pinto is.
The small V6 badge ahead of the driver’s door is the only visual indication that this Topaz packs an extra two cylinders.
Our featured car is a GS, which means it is not the ultimate in Tempo/Topaz sportiness. That honor belongs to the Tempo GLS/Topaz XR5 two-door and the LTS four-door. Besides a standard V6, they came with stiffened shock absorbers, a thicker front anti-roll bar up front and a rear anti-roll bar. One-size-larger 15” aluminum rims (from the old Escort GT and EXP) completed the performance upgrades, and additional body cladding, fog lights and two-tone paint rounded out the visual upgrades. Inside were a leather-wrapped steering wheel, upgraded door trim, sporty gauge cluster and bucket seats.
Given that the base Tempo/Topaz was by then a rather old design, the GLS/XR5/LTS did not sell in huge numbers and thus were available only in 1992. With a total production of 4,203 units (including Fords and Mercurys in both body styles), they were rare even when new. With a mere 464 copies made, the Mercury Topaz XR5 was the rarest variant of all, and given the generally poor Tempo/Topaz survival rate, I have to wonder how many exist today. Does this mean you should scour the country looking for one to stash away in the hope of cleaning up at Barrett-Jackson in 2020? I wouldn’t count on it–but in any case, you’d have one of the most rare Ford Motor Company performance specials of the 1990s!
The whole Tempo/Topaz line bowed out after 1994 to be replaced by the Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique.
I like the styling of the Tempo/Topaz coupes. Always have. In ’89, freshly graduated from college, when I went new-car shopping my first stop was the Ford dealership to drive a Tempo coupe. The price was so right. But the driving dynamics were just weird. The steering and gas were rubbery. And the Tempo has a completely flat floor — there was simply no place to rest my right leg or foot. On my somewhat extended test drive I couldn’t get over that. Reluctantly, I walked away from the Tempo and ended up buying a Chevy Beretta instead.
Car and Driver put it best when the caption for an early Tempo review read, “Automotive quiche for a bacon-and-eggs America”. I think the ‘bacon-and-eggs’ car to which they were referring at the time was the Reliant/Aries.
The thing I remember most about the Tempo/Topaz is they used those damn motorized mouse seatbelts for what seemed like the longest period of time of any car. Because of those belts, alone, I think I’d have went with a Reliant/Aries instead of the Tempo/Topaz.
I’ve owned both a Tempo (1988 base L coupe) and a K-car (1986 LeBaron). Overall I preferred my LeBaron but perhaps since it was quite different than anything I’d owned before being a bit of a mini brougham with a padded roof and red pillow seats. Handling wasn’t great on either it must be said and I don’t yearn to repeat ownership of either.
This was my Driver’s Ed practice vehicle… I remember you sat down REALLY low in these cars- they had an unusually tall dashboard and cowl for their time, and small windows with high sills. Of course, it may not seem like that if I sat in one now, with car’s having much higher beltlines these days.
These were out drivers ed cars too, they were equipped like police cars, rubber floor covering, no radio and a chicken brake for the passenger.
In a reverse CC effect, I saw a sedan version of this Topaz (same colour) when I was coming out of a Diner on Sunday. My father and I both stopped and took a good look at it, since neither of us had seen one in a while.
The tinworm has killed off 99% of these in my area. I Have seen a couple of the original body style around recently, but not this generation. They used to be everywhere too!
When I was in college, one of the students in some of my classes had an AWD Topaz. It was the first one I had ever seen. However, there was some sort of malfunction in the AWD system and it was too expensive for her to fix. The mechanic she took it to disconnected the AWD, making it a RWD Topaz. Now that must have been rare.
With the AWD disconnected it would be a FWD. The AWD models used the same AT as the FWD versions. To add the AWD the transmission pan is removed and a transfer case is substituted. The gasket between the two is selective fit to set the backlash between the ring gear and the transfer case’s input gear.
You know, back a few tears ago I regularly visited the Jalopnik site, and there was a regular commenter who went by the handle FordTempoFanatic. He’d owned several of them and frequently shared info about the Tempo/Topaz twins. Other folks would tease him about how dull, bland, boring and crappy those cars were, yet he took the criticism in stride. In time, he gained respect for his defense of and love for those rather unloved cars.
Now this Topaz GS V-6, 5-speed coupe is rather intriguing. Back about 1992-93, I had a thing for the Taurus SHO, but I don’t recall ever seeing an ad for the Tempo V-6. That blue sedan in the ad somewhat resembles a downsized Taurus to me.
I would say any Tempos (and Topazes) are moronic by design, and putting a V6 and 5 speed (probably not the most enjoyable to shift to begin with) in a decidedly unsporty sedan that drives like an SUV (tippy feeling, and you sit high in the car), is even more moronic. They’re hopeless. They’re best sent to China and be turned into washing machines, refrigerators, and such.
Back around 1990, a guy who used to run around with my post-college buddies had a fully loaded two-door Tempo with a five-speed. It had to have been equipped with the HSC engine, given the timeframe. I don’t recall him being especially proud of it, but he kept it immaculate.
What’s funny is that he special-ordered the Tempo this way when he was stationed in Germany, through Ford’s program for the military, which at the time seemed rather generous. I kept thinking, “Dude, you’re in Germany and you went out of your way to special-order THIS?!?” Unfortunately, I lost track of him after he moved away; the last I heard he suffered a brain tumor when he was about 30, which may or may not have been related to his military service in Desert Storm.
My mom also drove one of these (a 1988, four-door rental spec version) for a couple of years until she traded it for a Mustang. The only good thing I can say about the HSC is that I believe that some of its technology related to breathing and fuel injection may have made its way into my 1993 F-150′s wonderfully torquey inline six, but perhaps even that’s a stretch…
“Dude, you’re in Germany and you went out of your way to special-order THIS?!?”
You made me laugh out loud. I would have thought the same thing at that time.
The brain tumor may or may not have been related to him special ordering the Tempo… just saying.
Yeah, that thought DID in fact cross my mind as I wrote that, but I was a bit afraid to write that down…karma has a way of biting me at times!
I always liked the styling on the original Tempo/Topaz – these came right after the TBird/Cougar and took the new Ford Jellybean styling language to a new plateau, at least until the Taurus came out a couple of years later. These had a really clean and smooth look to them, quite unlike anything up to then.
My stepmom bought a 88-ish Tempo sedan. It was a good looking car, fairly well optioned, in white with red interior. It was, though, a 4 cyl/auto. The car seemed more solid than the 82-ish Cutlass Ciera that she replaced. It was sort of out of character – as much as a Ford guy as my dad was, the wife’s car was more often than not an Olds. For some reason, she did not keep the Tempo that long, trading it on an Acura Integra around 1990 or 91.
I will echo some others – I have not seen one of these in quite some time. A Mercury with a V6 and a 5 speed is a cool find indeed.
Also, what is it about Ford that kept making two completely separate engines in the exact same displacement? If I knew that there were two completely different 2.3L fours, I had forgotten it. I am also thinking of the 351 – Cleveland and Windsor. Wasn’t there also a 351M that was different yet?
I guess Chrysler sort of did the same thing with the 318, but at least there it replaced an old engine with a new one. With Ford, they kept making and selling the two concurrently. Confusing.
In the case of OHC vs HSC 2.3L it was a case of Ford not having any more production capacity on the Lima (OHC) line. Meanwhile they had the old “Falcon Six” production line sitting idle. A few relatively quick and simple changes to that production line and they were ready to go.
Never drove a V-6 model, but the Tempo otherwise was an absolutely wretched car. I tried one out when they first appeared, and it was like driving an irrigation pipe. As far as I am concerned, their purpose in life was to be recycled.
I always looked at these like the Sundance/Shadow V6 and Cavalier/Sunbird V6. Decent little cars with a good sound, nice torque and a sporty attitude. I always thought it would have been nice if Ford had put the 4wd system into the V6 versions. That would have made a swell winter beater.
Originally, I was impressed when these first came out – my anti-Ford bias began to evaporate in the mid-1970′s – but when I compared one to our 1981 Reliant, I felt the interior room was much less, especially in the back seat. I did feel that the quality was overall better than our humble Plymouth, but I came away feeling they were clumsy, so no deal.
I REALLY began to out-and-out HATE the twins when, no matter what I did, I ALWAYS wound up with a rental version each and every time I flew into Grand Rapids on business from 1993 – 1996!
Yes – that hate will always remain, no matter what!
Our delightful 1981 Plymouth Reliant we owned for 7 years is below.
I drove a brand new Tempo as a rental car for one day! For a half a day, it was better than the Fairmont station wagon I was driving making deliveries!
I’ve rented a few Tempos and they were pretty lame – compared to an Accord. But a huge step up from a. Maverick.
Dang it, now you have me dreaming about how insane a Tempo/Topaz would be with a 200hp DOHC engine swap from a Taurus! Sort of like a skateboard powered by a riding mower engine.
That’s actually a good comparison, considering it wouldn’t really be fast, but it would be terrifying and on the edge of control.
Can someone explain to me why OHV engines have often been said to be more torquey (and thus better suited to auto trannies) than comparable OHC? It seems irrelevant, in that you can do whatever you want with OHC profiles & timing.
I read somewhere (Wikipedia?) that Ford chose the 200-derived OHV design because they had no spare OHC 2.3 production capacity.
Just a guess – could it be that the pushrod design of an OHV has a lot more reciprocating mass and is often not very good at higher rpms? I have understood that it is a cheaper design that is happiest at low revs, also partly because the common OHV design requires valves to be in a line, thus limiting valve area (and breathing). Chrysler got around that with dual rocker shafts on the original Firepower hemi, but it was an expensive solution. I would love to hear some of our more engineering-oriented readers’ take on this. Obviously, anything that develops most of its torque down low would be happier behind an automatic, particularly one with few ratios as was common before the 90s.
To add a little,
The pushrods (usually) take up space that could be used for a larger valve or somewhat compromise the intake ports on the heads. Small valves aren’t going to flow as much air, but will happily produce some nice low end torque, so that is how that type of engine is usually tuned. The other side to it is it is costly and complex to make a multi-valve cam in block engine pushrod engine vs. say a 4valve/cyl head on an ohc engine.
The cam in block engine is usually lighter for a given displacement, has a lower center of gravity and is physically smaller than a ohc engine of similar power output. Ford has the great Coyote 5.0, GM has the LS3 6.2. Similar power, but the LS3 is less expensive to make, lighter, has a lower center of gravity and is physically quite a bit smaller than the Coyote. All depends on how you want to approach the same goal of going fast…
That is the reason they built the HSC engine: they had excess capacity on the transfer lines that built the small six; it was cheaper to adapt them to build a four-cylinder version than to expand the Lima production facilities.
This was not an uncommon occurrence; engine production facilities are designed around a specific basic engine design, and not readily changed. And they have a certain production capacity, which can’t also be readily changed. Adapting the six cylinder line to the HSC was very expedient.
There is nothing intrinsic about OHV engines that makes them “torquier” than OHC engines. It has everything to do with their overall configuration, most of all their breathing capability, valve size and tuning, combustion chamber etc.
Historically, most American engines have been large-displacement low-revving OHV engines tuned for a torque peak that comes on sooner rather than later. But that’s all a matter of tuning.
Hall Scott built OHC hemi four-valve truck and bus engines that were famous for their prodigious torque output. And there have been very modest tuned automotive OHC engines. Likewise, there have been very highly tuned OHV engines all along too. The Honda 500 V-twin was an OHV, yet turned 10,000 rpm easily.
It’s just too simple to make generalities about OHV vs OHC. As has been shown with many racing engines (NASCAR, etc) and the Honda 500, OHV engines can run up to 10,000 rpm.
No one would accuse the Pinto Lima 2.3 OHC engine of being a rev-happy motor either. In fact, if you compared the torque and hp curves of the Lima OHC and the HSC OHV 2.3 L fours, they’d probably be very similar.
It’s a rather complex subject that gets reduced to generalities too often.
Thanks, that makes sense to me. When Tempo/Topaz came out, I remember being baffled that Ford would produce a new OHV engine for this size car, after the Pinto 2.3 & Escort CVH. That they would recycle a 1960 engine for an ’84 model suggests to me that “good enough” was all Ford cared about under the hood. “Dumb Americans won’t know the difference, so we can save money on tooling” they must’ve been thinking.
What’s even more maddening is that Ford could do so much better. Consider the GAA, an 18L, 450hp state-of-the art all-alumimum twincam V8 built in the ’40s by the thousands for … the Sherman Tank.
This was an era of radical downsizing and Detroit was intent on reusing their ’50s engine tooling on the small engines needed for the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements of the ’80s. GM had just botched the launch of their intended import fighters, the J-car Cavalier and Pontiac J-2000 by equipping them with 1.8 liter pushrod motors built on ancient tooling while the rest of the world’s J-cars got OHC engines from day one.
FWIW, the Chevy OHV was not built on “ancient tooling”. It was a new design, using many of the design elements (even a few parts) from the 60 degree Chevy 2.8 V6, which was also a new design.
That’s not defending it; in fact maybe that even makes it worse, the fact that Chevy could design and build such a coarse new little mill.
I remember a friend of mine telling me that they ran a OHC 2.3 on a bench in the engines lab at their university and he said the bottom end could take up to 9000 rpm.
It’s mostly a matter of cam profile, valve sizes, and head design. Even without computers or fuel injection, you certainly can build a high-revving OHV engine with lots of top-end power and not a lot down low — the original Camaro Z/28 engine, to name one.
However, by the ’60s, bread-and-butter OHV engines tended to be designed for low production cost and low-end torque at the expense of most everything else. The assumption was that most Americans had automatic transmissions, almost never revved their engines above 4,000 rpm, and had air conditioners and lots of accessories to power at idle, so torque in the 1,500 to 3,500 rpm range was more important than peak power. As a result, the big valves and hot cams were generally reserved for the performance cars and there didn’t seem to be much point to spending the money for cross-flow heads or hemispherical combustion chambers, much less overhead cams.
There was the Pontiac OHC 6, but that didn’t last since I assume it made little market sense when with cheap gas, one could have a big ‘ol V-8. Another technological false start from the Mark of Excellence.
Forget the SHO bits, what this car needs is the good bits from a Contour SVT.
Way too difficult. The SHO block is the same basic Vulcan block so it fits in with only a few custom pieces. The Contour is the new OHC V6 with a different bellhousing pattern and different transmissions making it an almost all custom affair. The SHO swap has been done.
Back in the day I was traveling east from Dallas in a rental Tempo. In spite of the 55 speed limit then traffic was moving along at about 85 which, as I recall, was as fast as the Tempo would go.
The only thing about these I remember is when I was at a Lincoln-Mercury dealer looking at a Continental sedan and seeing a Topaz next to it and the striking similarities of style. I remember telling the salesman, “Why should I buy the Continental when I can buy TWO of these (pointing to the Topaz)?!?! It looks just the same!!”
I don’t know what the hell I was doing looking at the Continental anyway. I certainly was in no financial position to consider it.
1993 Mercury Topaz sedan:
1993 Lincoln Continental sedan:
Mercury Zephyr was a twin of the Ford Fairmont. It was one size larger than the Topaz, not its predecessor.
The Topaz did “replace” the Zephyr in Mercury’s line-up, even if it was a bit smaller. This was consistent with the general trend of downsizing that was going on all over the market. The Chevrolet Citation and other X-Body cars replace the much larger RWD Nova and its clones. The Escort replaced the Pinto, etc…
The Zephyr disappeared in 1984 when the Topaz came along, but its basic body was recycled into the Fox-Marquis.
And oddly enough the Mystique that replaced the Topaz was quite different than the Topaz. I’d say more upscale perhaps more like what the Zephyr was before it.
It is interesting that the Topaz and Mystique were polar opposites. The earlier car was somewhere between dull and unpleasant to drive but competent and durable. The later car was a joy to drive but was reputed to be an ownership nightmare. I guess the Mystique made a better new car, but the Topaz made a better old car.
“Dull, unpleasant, durable” Topaz = American platform
“Joy to drive nightmare” Mystique = European/world platform (Mondeo)
Tell me about it! Having driven many examples of both, and of course owned a Mystique, it’s true. The Topaz was dull but pleasant, and the Mystique was a revelation to drive, but constantly needed mechanical attention. However, every time I see a nice one, I want another one…
It will be interesting to see what buyers used to their reliable Mazda-based Fusions think of life with their new Mondeo-based Fusions, which are as ambitiously designed as the old ones were intelligently designed.
I stand corrected. I guess the Topaz did replace the Zephyr in the product hierarchy.
Once again (as in Pinto / Escort/Cortina and Mustang II / Capri) Ford chose to spend limited R&D funds to develop a half-baked new car when they could have adapted the much superior, similarly sized and styled (although not FWD) Sierra. If BMW could sell the 3-series worldwide, why couldn’t Ford do the same?
Ford did sell the Sierra in the US under the Merkur, it was far from a success.
It didn’t sell “the Sierra”. It sold a uniquely configured car based on the Sierra, with a US power plant, and at a price that put it up against the BMW 3 series.
There’s no question in my mind that the Sierra was a tighter, better-handling car than the Tempo, and it had smoother, more modern engines. But FWD was the big thing in the US, plus the “not invented here” syndrome was undoubtedly a factor.
The Tempo/Topaz was really just a scaled up US Escort, as a look underneath will make obvious.
I’ve got seriously mixed feelings about the Tempo/Topaz in general, but these late-era V6/5-speed coupes are pretty sweet. It seems like Ford put a shocking amount of effort into their ’92 update, far beyond the typical half-assed restyle you’d expect on a car that already has one foot firmly in the grave. It’s too bad most of them came with that “HSC” turd engine, in fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Mercury version in coupe/V6 form – and barely a handful of similar Tempos.
I’ve only ever driven one example of this breed, a ’92 or ’93 HSC/automatic, and I thought it was easily the worst modern 4-cylinder engine I had ever experienced… the rest of the car didn’t really leave much of an impression, but it was also only a short drive. Given the suspension design on these, I’d be curious to see what the GLS/XR5 models are like, and wonder how well they cope with the heavier V6 up front.
Really well written article, I had always wondered where the manual transmission came from on the V6 models. I’ll have to Google “SHO-powered Tempo” when I get home, I’m sure somebody out there must have done it already.
The Tempo/Topaz was a mixed bag; Ford was trying to do something ambitious with it, but it came off suffering from what was obvious: not enough development money. Too may compromises, like the noisy but feeble HSC four, the jerky automatic from the Escort, and handling that wasn’t properly sorted out, at least in the first few years.
It took a similar path like so many other new FWD cars from Detroit: it just wasn’t ready when it arrived, and it took a number of years to slowly fix or improve to the point that it was relatively competent.
Stephanie and I rented a Tempo in 1985 for a week of driving all through the upper half of New Mexico, all two lane highways, back roads, and even rough gravel and dirt roads, some more suited to four wheel drives. The Tempo had a fairly supple ride and decent ground clearance, thanks to its stance and fully-independent suspension. But its handling was not sorted out, very much like the early Escorts. It felt rather queasy and tippy in spirited cornering. And the engine moaned terminally.
Compared to an Accord, the Tempo was a pretty much a POS. But it found a ready market for folks wanting a car that looked very modern and aerodynamic. It was mostly an unwarranted impression, and it didn’t really fulfill its promise.
I suspect strongly that Ford was really stretched thin in the amount of money it had to spend on the Tempo/Topaz, as it was coming out of a lean era and was shepherding a whole new line of cars then. It would appear that the Taurus got more money sent its way, as it was a much more thoroughly developed and complete car from the get-go.
That transmission is worth additional scorn. We rented one in ’84 or ’85, and it was a shock to a family used to Chrysler Torqueflites. As you slowed to a stop, it was slam into each lower gear. The same behavior spared my mother from buying a Merkur XR4ti. The Taurus we rented in 1986 was better, but still not exactly a paragon of smoothness.
I had a friend who purchased a 94 Tempo 2dr in 1997. Of course secondhand these cars were cheap. The 4cyl version with a 5spd manual was decent in that car. I’ve never seen the v6 with a manual in the Tempo/Topaz cousins.
Overall the car held up well to his abuse and was comfy and got good mpg.
I drove it a couple times and all I could think of was how sloppy the 5 speed was compared to my 10 year old Honda.
Side note: The 3.0 engines were plenty cramped in a Taurus, much less the Tempo.
I also didn’t realize that was a different 2.3.
I always thought these were OK, nothing special but good looking for their time. In-laws got over 200,000 miles out of one without much trouble.
The odd thing about the 2.3L was it was unique to the Tempo/Topaz line. The Taurus used a larger 2.5L variant for a short while but the four cylinder Taurus models didn’t sell in great numbers.
Yeah, I remember the Taurus MT-5. I think it was offered only in ’86, maybe in ’87. That had the base 2.5 mated to a 5-speed manual.
I remember thinking how dumb Americans were for buying so many of these things. If it wasn’t for the fresh looking aircraft style doors and association with more premium Ford products this would have been a real dud. You don’t see cars like this any more selling like crazy, and then being discontinued. I guess people weren’t that stupid after all.
I have never driven a V6 Tempaz with either transmission, though I would really like to. Sticking the Vulcan 3.0 was a strange enough move in itself but offering a 5sp with it was insane, as evidenced by the extremely low numbers produced. The even stranger thing was that despite the failure of that combo they chose to offer a V6 5sp version of its replacement the Contour/Mystique in the US.
I wish they would have kept the AWD option and offered it with the V6 AT instead of producing the 5sp. The 4cyl AWD was just about unstoppable in the snow. The modest power of the “HO” version of the 2.3 working through the ATX and Track-Lock rear differential didn’t stand a chance of spinning good snow tires. A ~30% boost in power would make if fun to drive.
When I was growing up the local priest had an AWD Tempo, he had been assigned to two parishes 10 miles apart, largely separated by state hwy. Normally that wouldn’t be a problem but of course on early Sunday mornings and Saturday nights (there was a 7 pm mass at one of the parishes) you couldn’t always count on ODOT to have things plowed. And the hearty German Roman Catholics he served expected to have church, blizzard or not.
That could be an interesting CC topic …. oddball AWD cars that found homes in areas of heavy snow and ice (in the US at least). I remember being in rural Vermont about 15 years ago and seeing more AWD Tempos, Subaru Justys, Colt Vistas and AMC Eagles in a few days than I had seen in years. Of course, maybe all those cars have gone to rust heaven and are now replaced with 20 year old SUV’s.
Regarding the Bumper height mismatch; That wasn’t really a result of the restyled front end, but carrying over a compromise stuck with the coupe bodyshell. Prior to the restyle both the coupe and sedan had mismatched bumper heights, which, as I recall, was done to meet headlamp and bumper height standards for the time. The 83-88 Thunderbird/Cougars have the same mismatch if you look closely.
My grandparents owned one of the very few Topazes exported to Europe, a navy ’89 LTS they bought when they still thought of American cars as the best available (they came from a ’79 Chevrolet Malibu, which was a very solid car). After this, they went to Volvo not to return. My mum drove it for about a year, when it wasn’t standing still. The oil spill never completely washed off the driveway. I found it unbelievable somebody dared to sell this kind of junk, even the very underpowered Renault 21 that followed it was much, much better. Was THAT what Americans really drove?
The Topaz was sold in 2000, never seen it or any Tempo/Topaz again even with an American base in the vicinity, and I thought all of the small number must have long been scrapped until last Sunday I saw one in Belgium (with no plates).
What country was that? I find it pretty amazing that someone in Europe would buy a Topaz, or almost any basic American car from this era. They were so decidedly inferior to European cars of the time, especially in therms of their handling, performance, fuel economy, etc. All the more so, since the Topaz must have cost quite a bit. American import cars typically were priced 50% to 75% higher than they were in the US. I guess they learned that lesson!
Usually, the US cars that still sold in Europe then were cars that were decidedly different than anything available there, and had a genuine “Ami” character, like the Mustang, or big RWD sedans, or the early minivans. But extremely rare for a FWD mid-level sedan like the Topaz.
It was in the Netherlands, but I don’t know whether the car was an official or grey import, it was second-hand (3 years old when they bought it). It had a four-cylinder and a five-speed manual, typically something a European would request, not because it was a “sporty” version or so. What made it stand out were all the gizmos not commonly found on European cars at the time, such as air con, 4 power windows, power seats (inflatable), and an annoying seat belt alarm. That and the simple fact that it’s American are probably the only reasons it was on this side of the pond.
All American brands did try to officially sell their economy cars in Europe at the time though, with varying success. For example, the Neon sold quite fairly for a while, while the ES (Dodge Shadow) was very rare. That makes sense, since it cost much more than a similarly equipped Escort.
I had one of these as a work vehicle until three years ago, thankfully used just for short trips of five miles or less — it was by far the lowest-priced vehicle in the motor pool except for an electric golf cart.
A horribly uncomfortable, cramped, wheezing, lurching explanation for the Japanese takeover of the US compact car market in the 80s. Ford weren’t even trying with this one. Detroit penny-pinching cynicism and mediocrity to the extreme.
I’ve got a V6 Tempo 4DR for sale, in southwest Florida. Car was rear-ended a year ago by an unlicensed driver doing 45mph when she hit it. Car’s still driveable and I can’t bring myself to have it scrapped. I know somewhere there’s someone willing to use the parts to keep theirs going; the engine is in excellent running condition and there are tons of good parts. We bought it 14 years ago because we liked the car’s layout but calling that 4cyl engine anemic is being kind. When I found this one we got a good deal on it. It was fun as he11 passing six cars in a row on US17 and not having a heart attack while doing so.
If anyone is interested I want to see it go to someone who will make use of it and keep another one going, email is cranvillesquare AT hotmail DOT com.
“When the original Tempo/Topaz debuted back in 1983 (as a 1984 model) it was clothed in aerodynamic styling that might have presaged the daring 1986 Taurus. Despite its sealed-beam headlights, it was certainly more slippery than anything in its price range offered by GM and Chrysler”
Your IMHO. I would argue that the 82-83 Cavalier Type10 had better aerodynamics if you’re basing your assumption on grille angles and headlamp pockets.
I couldn’t find any base price information on the interweb but I’d almost argue that there were more than a few unplucky GM dealers with the 2.5 IronDuke Camarobirds that were discounted well below sticker of TemPaz. Basing my assumptions on what I saw at the race tracks back in those years. Plenty of F-Body ProStock and IROC action. I vaguely remember some type of TemPaz drag racer but I dont recall what year it was in. I’m not saying that the TemPaz wasn’t aerodynamic but that it wasn’t as slick as you think it was especially when compared to cars in and out of its class.
+1 on the AWD models. Its been a long time since I’ve seen one in the boneyard or lemon lots.
From Wiki: The 1984 Tempo had a Coefficient of drag of 0.36 for the 2-door car (0.37 for the 4-door). There’s not a whole lot of sources stating the Cd of the first gen cavalier but automobile-catalog has the 82 2 door hatchback listed at 0.42.
I know that the 85 VW Golf GTI came in at 0.37, which was considered quite slippery for the day.
My point exactly. None of these numbers are stellar. Kind of like saying my brick is cleaner than your box. Or Paul trying to explain OHV vs OHC with out a mention of cylinder head or valves.Or rotating mass,et.al.
FWIW You cant trust anything wiki prints today. Quite a few examples have been quoted on this very forum.
IIRC the 83 TransAm with the W62 Aero Package had a cd. of .29. Probably why there were so many of them at Bonneville in the 80′s.
I remember reading that the American-market W126 (S-class) suffered no loss to its Cd with rectangular sealed-beam headlamps. So it’s possible those cool Euro headlights were overrated in this respect. And sealed-beams don’t yellow, either.
The reason the composite headlamps on my 90 Riviera don’t yellow is because they are really made of glass. Made by Bosch on top of that. (insert smiley here)
One of my friends had the HSC 4cyl version of the Tempo back when I had my 82 Honda Civic sedan. Having spent time in both cars I can tell you that the Tempo was not competative with my Civic in any way, let alone an Accord. I imagine that the v6 solved the issue of that awful hsc engine, but that wouldn’t fix the handling. Seriously, the tempo handled like an escort with 2 flat tires.
Handling was not one of the hallmarks of these cars. However, I found them to be reasonably comfortable, smooth riding, quiet on the road, and, they had rather good interior acoustics. They all seemed to have good sound come from the stereos.
Not great cars, but at the time, they weren’t that bad IMHO…
My little brother’s pimped-out ’89 Tempo (pinstripe, luggage rack, landau top) was a griefbox but it lasted much, much longer than I thought it would. He bought it in 2000, drove it until he joined the military in September 2001 and then my father drove it until the catalytic converter fell off in 2005.
The car was from MA so it was mostly cold weld and duct tape by that time. There was always something wrong with it…brakes, wonky suspension, weeping radiator. Still it always started even in the coldest weather, which I guess promotes it to roach status.
I never see them here in VA anymore but we have plenty of your Cutlass Supremes and Centurys to spare, the real road roaches.
My mother bought an ’88 Tempo (2 Dr) new and had hers for more than 21 years (it is probably longest anyone in my family has held onto a single car)…it wasn’t fancy, but it kept soldiering along. Hers was the pedestrian 2.5 litre 4 with Automatic. It had its problems, but in general was pretty easy car to work on (I had the Haynes manual on hers)…right before my sister moved in with my parents I was inspired to try to fix some of the “sniggly” problems (like the remote fuel door release button inside the glove compatment door wouldn’t operate the solenoid to open the fuel door (my mother had to pop the trunk when she filled up and pulled a little cable that opened the fuel door before I got it fixed) and one of the power lock buttons on the passenger side woudn’t lock or unlock the doors (I think both were fixed when I replaced the relays under the dash). She had lots of alternator/charging issues too, but we got them rebuilt several times. The car didn’t seem to want to go very fast, both the engine noise and vibration were off-putting, but for low speed putzing around in traffic, it was fine…until the air conditioner compressor finally gave out…we live in Texas, so Air conditioning is important, but I really didn’t want to replace the compressor, so my mother got rid of it in a Texas version of cash for clunkers (replaced with Ford Focus).
My funniest story about the car is one time my mother had taken the car to some sort of voluntary emissions test the state was sponsering..it was getting old by then, and I think she was worried that it might not pass emisssions test should they become mandatory (turned out it passed with no problem)…anyhow, one of the local TV stations did a segment on the event, which I was by chance watching on TV. (I didn’t know ahead of time that she had taken her car to be tested..for some reason they started the film with a close up of the hubcap of the car, and for some reason I recognized the car as my mothers from the hubcap as they panned out and I could see my mother behind the driver’s steering wheel . I used to tease her that I knew her car so well, I could identify it just by looking at the hubcap (guess I hadn’t seen her style hubcap on many Ford vehicles, not sure how I got it right). Guess I should be better with CC Clues.
Most of the Tempaz I see on the road now suffer from the positive camber up front negative camber in the rear issue that affects so many of these and their related Escort brethren.
Why were these cars so unreliable? I rented a Topaz sedan in ’87 to take a girl on a date to a Luther Vandross concert because my Dasher’s water pump was being replaced. Neither the car nor the girl were worth the trouble. It was a four-banger with an auto trans. Not fast at all, and it felt…unfinished. I remember reading about them in Consumer Reports and all those little circles in the reliability chart were red (I think it was red, black means reliable, right? Oh, my memory)- body integrity, HVAC, engine, transmission – just about everything was considered troublesome.
My dad bought an 87 4 cyl 5-spd sedan new and I got it in 1995 when I was in college. It used to burn out a resistor wire in the tachometer all the time so that never worked but with that little motor there were never any excursions to the redline so it didn’t really matter. It got T boned one night so I got a mismatched junkyard door and for all of its supposed lameness that car was bulletproof: despite getting t boned it never leaked, it never squeaked, and if you want to learn how to drive a stick this car was great for that. Its total lack of power was completely unforgiving. Once mastered, I could start it on a steep hill in Ithaca without the parking brake without rolling back. After that I had a 98 Camaro with a stick and several company F350s and Land Cruisers with stick. I bought an 08 Grand Marquis new, which is my first automatic, because of how bulletproof that little Mercury was.