(first posted 9/15/2013) The original 1960 Corvair Monza coupe introduced and pioneered a European-inspired category to the US: the sporty compact coupe. The formula: a new roof line, maybe some other body changes like the Monza’s enlarged rear wheel openings, bucket seats and tasty interior trimmings, upgraded engine performance. Most of all, it had to have style, at least more than the donor sedan it sprang from, otherwise it defeated the whole purpose. The formula has been applied endlessly, to greater and lesser effect. But sometimes it’s just abused; probably never more horribly so than with Fords EXP and its stablemate, the Mercury LN7. They actually ended up looking much worse than their donor, the Escort. What a feat!
This particular 1985 EXP is a bit of a one-year wonder, as it sports the bubbleback borrowed form its Mercury LN7 stablemate, but still has the goofy original front end that was revised and smoothed-over in for 1986.
Here’s how it looked in its initial form. Whatever happened to the old technique of throwing a bunch of sandbags in cars being shot for PR photos. This poor little thing looks like its waiting for a flood. Bubble-back or not, this car is just plain ugly as sin. Where to begin? The front end isn’t worth wasting words on. Moving on. The real problem is the same issue that bedevils so many cars of this genre: too high of a cowl line. Obviously, Ford wasn’t going to spring for a whole new inner body structure, and the tendency for small FWD cars was already moving towards being taller rather than shorter, for packaging reasons.
Obviously, the one major exception to that was Honda, which made a trademark of low cowl lines that adapted themselves perfectly to its sporty coupe, the CRX. That little gem made life miserable for everyone else in this category, but none more so than the EXP.
Ford undoubtedly had good intentions for the EXP, trying to get away from the bloated excess of their notoriously overwrought and overweight 1970s cars. And the timing was spot on, with the EXP arriving just at the height of the early eighties “small is good” era. It was also a bit of a trailblazer, arriving two years ahead of the CRX. Ford wanted a small sporty car that could get by with only two seats for obviously childless households. And Ford had gone down that road once before, with the original 1955-1957 Thunderbird.
From wiki: “Comparing the EXP to the original Thunderbird, Ford Division General Manager Louis E. Latalf said: “We’re introducing another two-seater with the same flair, but the EXP will be a very affordable, very fuel efficient car matched to the lifestyles of the eighties.” Anyone who who would be willing to compare the EXP to the low and stylish T-Bird was obviously deranged or a career salesperson. And given that the T-Bird quickly morphed into a four seater, it’s all the more odd. But then the EXP just was odd.
Even though it was of course based on the world car Escort, which was very successful in Europe, there was no suggestion of the Europeans showing the slightest interest in the EXP. It would have bombed equally from its ugliness and the lack of a back seat; the whole European coupe concept based on a sedan inevitably left a back seat, at least of some sort. And it had to look more stylish than its donor.
Two seaters need to either be genuinely sporty (CRX), or at least look that way (Fiero). The EXP was neither. In fact, it was less sporty than its Escort donor, due to gaining 200 lbs in the transformation. And that’s without a rear seat. How did they manage that? All that rear glass?
Given the asthmatic little 70hp 1.6 CVH four that powered the initial version, it was anything but zippy. An 80hp version was soon thrown at the problem without solving it. Eventually, an EXP Turbo Coupe, emulating its big brother, came along in 1984, with 120 hp. Good luck finding one of those now!
We’re going to plumb the depths of the early Escort’s dynamic qualities when it appears here before long. But lets just say that it was not sporty. Later versions started to get there, but what was sold here in 1981-1984 had little similarity to what the Europeans where getting. It’s as if they forgot to install the shocks or something critical like that. And the 1.6 CVH was a whiny little brat, endlessly complaining about its lot in life. Almost a perfect polar opposite to a Honda engine of the times. A turbo 1.6 was briefly available, but didn’t find any traction in the market.
It’s fair to say that the EXP’s pathetic sales performance was as much because of its questionable styling and packaging, as well as the blistering competition from Japan. Who would possibly have wanted to spend the extra bucks for an EXP when a Civic hatchback did it all so much better, and hadn’t been beaten with the proverbial ugly stick?
OK, I’ll kill my credibility of admitting I kinda liked the car. Probably having something to do with never having driven one.
Best thing I can say about it: It wasn’t a brougham.
+1. I didn’t think the original, frog-eyed version was so bad looking, either. In fact, I like it better than the ‘improved’, later versions. To me, the rear end, with those huge taillights, are worse than the front.
I’m glad it got an ‘ugly’ sin rating as opposed to a ‘deadly’ sin, too. The EXP/LN7 might not have done anything even remotely well and might have been a sales dud, but it wasn’t so bad as to have an indelible, everlasting effect on the company (not like some of the worst GM cars that had the ability to get many former owners to swear off GM for the rest of their lives). A former EXP owner probably wouldn’t have found the experience so horrible as to never buy another Ford product.
As to the better CRX, the reason the EXP sold at all was largely due to the typical Honda dealer markups of the time. Yeah, the CRX might have been better, but you definitely had to pay more to get one over the EXP.
+1 You and Syke beat me to it – I actually rather liked these too. Odd, yes, but not horribly awkward at least (well, except for the rear quarter view). And I’m a sucker for the bubble back. I always wished my 87 Mustang hatch had the Capri’s bubble back.
+1 I agree, put into context of the mid ’80s these were groovy little cars. I friend had the LN7 version, and most of us were envious of his cute little sports car. He drove that little buggy for six or seven years until it succumbed to rust and I don’t recall him doing more than routine type wear and tear repairs to it. Would love to find one now, but they are very thin on the ground these days…
The 1986 and later EXPs benefited from a facelift and engine upgrades. The new front and rear styling, along with better-looking (and, if I recall correctly, bigger) wheels, made the cars much more attractive.
Exactly. I drove an 82 EXP and really liked it. I gave it to someone who needed a car more than me. Also as you (Rudiger and Postmandougie) said, it was very reliable and even had I not cared for it, it would definitely not have turned me off of Ford products.
I like it the same way I like French Bulldogs,it’s so ugly it’s cute!
I like them too, they were unique then, and still are now.
It’s amazing how much the facelift improved the looks of these. My uncle had a facelifted Sport model when I was younger, and I always thought it had a very sharp mini-Mustang GT look to it. I remember he wasn’t a fan of how it drove and got rid of it shortly, however.
Having owned one of these abominations, I can confirm pretty much every criticism levied against this car: Underpowered, horrific ride, terrible handling and (very) questionable build quality. To top it off, mine had an electrical problem that blew a fuse every time I turned on the A/C while any other accessories were running (radio, headlights, etc.).
Luckily, I was able to dump it off on some other poor soul and for the same amount I paid and then bought a Honda Civic.
Loved mine it was a great little car and fuel mileage was freaking crazy good. It’s not anywhere near as bad as you are making it out to be. I find most guys like you that make that comment actually never owned one our drove but just like getting on here to bash Ford
The EXP’s looks weren’t that bad, for the period. Also, IIRC, Ford wasn’t exactly flush with cash, either.
Still, for me, Ford had earned a very bad reputation through the ’70s w regard to rust and build quality. Even if I had been able to afford a new car in that time period, any Ford would’ve been a tough sell.
I never had the (mis?) fortune to drive one of these. Based on the article, the performance must not have won many converts.
The early ones were butt assed ugly but the 1985.5 to 1988 versions looked good with the restyled front end. 87-88 models got a fuel injected 1.9l that put out 90hp and with a 5 speed trans, that allowed the car to hold its own on the highway and merging into traffic. I had that engine and trans combo in my 1990 Escort and I was always impressed with what it put out. Was it a race car no but as a commuter car it was not a bad car. The ride was pleasant for a small car.
I read some where that Ford sold about 225,000 EXP’s (and Mercury LN7(1982 only) so that comes out to be about 37,500 per year for 6 years of production that while not figures that set the world alight, are respectable for the niche type of car they were(2 seater cars are not a big seller in general)
The EXP certainly was no glamour girl, but it was decent looking enough that I considered one in ’83 to replace my awful Honda Accord. Sure, my Honda drove better, but I wanted something halfway reliable. Ultimately, I bought another nearly new heap somewhere else. I did like the exhaust note on these, especially compared to the fart can sound coming from a riced out car.
Those Honda Accords were never known for being reliable. It’s no surprise that they’ve been such a failure in the US.
I certainly did way more head gaskets on this era Accord than this era Escort. I think I did maybe 2 Escorts of this era but at least a dozen each of Civics and Accords if not more. I also replaced lots of engines in this era Civic and Accord but I don’t think I ever did in a single Escort of this era. Despite the fact that the Escort outsold them both in this era, it was the best selling car in the US for a couple of years before the Taurus took it’s crown.
Upon its introduction, Car and Driver referred to the front styling of the EXP as “a frog at the moment on castration.” Nice that in those days CD didn’t love everything.
My first thought also – I can almost remember the article – probably written by PJ O’Rourke.
Also, regarding the quote; ”Anyone who would be willing to compare the EXP to the low and stylish T-Bird was obviously deranged or a career salesperson.”
That’s a slight to the mentally disturbed and all retail professionals – such an outrageous comparison could only come from someone truly skilled in the art of exaggeration and nonsense – a career politician………..
I love the Civic’s low cowl but don’t think that was the key issue for the EXP. Chrysler’s K-car based coupes (LeBaron and Daytona) had high cowls but at least partially compensated for them by offering greater tumblehouse and different door sheetmetal than their donor sedans. In the Daytona’s case, Chrysler pulled down the door sill considerably so the greenhouse didn’t look so much like a turret.
In contrast, Ford appears to have carried over onto the EXP the door sheetmetal from the Escort. That gave the EXP an awkward, overly boxy look. In fairness to Ford, Toyota made a similar mistake with the Paseo.
That said, the EXP is a powerful example of how in the early-80s Ford’s U.S. operations were still suffering from what Brock Yates once dubbed “Grosse Point myopia.” If the EXP had been designed by Ford’s European arm it would have been a much more competitive car, both in terms of styling and performance.
Ditto about the re-used door; it gives it too high a beltline since the roof is lower than the Escort’s.
Another aesthetic mistake Ford made with the Escort family was the huge dash, I’m guessing an attempt to make it seem like a large car. If so, they didn’t fool me. Compare with the minimalist Fiesta or Honda dashes.
BTW, replacing the flabby factory shocks (which with struts, was expensive) improved my ’81 Escort’s handling considerably. It had surprisingly neutral cornering, probably because of its unusual IRS.
It would have been better executed if there had been a small +2 folding seat back there for the occasional small passenger/large dog that otherwise hid a large storage cubby. . Sort of like the one in the Karmann Ghia as opposed to the Beetle, they both had the same underpinnings. I never drove an EXP but I did drive an automatic 1982 Escort as a rental while my car was being repaired and it was an underpowered dog. The 76 hp 1.6L Rabbit that was in the shop handled so much better and had more oomph.
Such potential and Ford blew it. I would have loved a domestic two seater with great handling and decent mileage that wasn’t a ‘Vette.
Somewhere I have a 1/32 Monogram model kit of the EXP that has a back seat not too different from a standard Escort’s. I wonder if making it a 2-seater was a last minute thing.
I had that model kit as well – was yours a street version of Bob Glidden’s funny car with BBS-style rims?
Ironically, Honda offered an occasional rear seat on the CRX in Japan and Europe, which drew no end of nasty criticism from the British press. Putting a rear seat in the car just reminded them that it was pricier and less practical than a B-segment hatch.
I remember when these came out back in the day. Though they may have been sans back seat in 1981, I think they got small bucket type rear seats, either in ’82, or 83 and I think only lasted until the redesign in mid 1985.
That said, I’ve always liked these, frog eyed notwithstanding, but then again, I do like the bug eyed Imprezas from 2002. 🙂
Then again, any odd looking car, there was a chance I might like its quirky styling.
Never drove one of these, but did drive a 5-door Escort once. The one I test drove was a used LX grade 83 two tone blue one with the 5spd manual in 1985. Glad I didn’t buy it, but good friends did, and it ended up saddled with the cracked head issue that the early Escorts were plagued with.
I found the ride and handling not bad, but comparing that with cars I WAS familiar with, I was not aware of how GOOD handling could be, that is until I bought the ’83 Civic in 1992.
So where did Ford US get its Escort from not the UK by the look of this, Is this yet another disaster mounted on a Mazda floorpan like the horrible Crapi?
Bryce, you’ve asked this question too many time now 🙂 The gen1 US Escort (1981-1990) was a “global Escort” which shared much with the European Escort, except that it came out half baked, thanks to cost-cutting and weird chassis tuning. Full story here: 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/
Is there some collection available here of car nicknames or “alternative” car names ?
I’ve got a feeling one can start a parallel car universe with those model names.
Or perhaps “Carpi,” with a fish-mouthed nose like the ill-fated 1958 Packard Hawk. (Look it up…)
I did look it up….it’s (h)awkward.
British Leyland comes to mind. Both in the German language and in my Dutch dialect it’s often called “British Elend”. (Elend pronounced as Leyland without the L, the word itself means misery.)
Depressing.
It was a depressing car when it first came out, and it is depressing now. Hard to believe one of these actually still exists.
Ah yes we got left off the list when that was released the Antipodean market was supplied from Ford OZ via Japan. Only later in NZ do I see European Escorts.
I thought I was going to be unique by admitting I liked the looks. Good to read the comments before spouting off. What I didn’t like was seeing them stalled in the parking lots of Houston and I sure wouldn’t have ever bought one. That rear window (which looks sort of Barracuda-ish) would indoctrinate you to the ugly side of solar heating in any summer in the South. Looks alone, it’s good to me.
I wonder if this might have been Ford’s exploration of a model that might replace the Mustang back in the early ’80s back when fuel economy was a big deal (even though it was a 2 seater rather than a 2 seater with a very small back seat as the Mustang was)? Later on in the 80’s wasn’t the Ford Probe also a “possible” higher-fuel economy model to replace the Mustang? It seemed that fuel economy became less of an issue as the decade progressed, and I guess by the early 90’s the Probe was gone, while the Mustang stayed.
I looked at one of these briefly early on in ’82 (well, the LN7) at a Lincoln-Mercury dealer..my brother-in-law had bought a Capri (with TRX wheels back then!), when they were new…my only other encounter was when I was giving a ride to the shop to a co-worker (whom I didn’t know very well) who had I think a ’83 EXP, this would have been early in 1985 (I think around the time the Boston Marathon was going on, this guy was a big runner and was talking about it). They seemed pretty rare (particulary the LN7) compared even to Lynx models let alone Escorts throughout their availability years. Never got to ride in one (only in an Escort, which both my Sister and one of my good friends owned, at different times).
I wonder if the insurance cost was high being a two seater (is there an assumed insurance rate increase for two-seaters vs models with even a “token” back seat?) (even with the low power, certainly compared to a Corvette 2 seater). Wonder if the CRX had high insurance rates?
The Probe wasn’t a possible replacement for the Mustang it was the replacement for the Mustang until the Mustang faithful let it be known that they would not buy a FWD econobox. Too late to back out of the project they came up with a new name for it and let the current Mustang soldier on for a few years while they went to work on what would be known as the SN-95 Mustang.
Oddly enough the EXP was a casualty of the Mustang replacement controversy. After the Stang faithful ripped Ford a new one for even thinking about replacing the Mustang with a FWD Mazda and Ford decided to just to bring the Probe out as a car to be along side of the Mustang instead of replacing it. They faced a problem. They now had 3 sporty coupes in the lineup so they dropped the one with least sales(the EXP)
If they had just offered the EXP with the turbo 2.3l and a 5spd stick all would have been golden
If you had to buy American, a Plodge Omnirizon “Charger” would give you a backseat and better handling, plus the loud-but-torquey 2.2 would be preferable to the loud-but-gutless Escort motor.
Ugly cars the Ford EXP and the Honda CRX. But they both managed to build the world’s ugliest wheels! I still remember as a kid seeing the 84′ CRX with those dog-gamned ugly wheels with the little ovals. I never saw those similar ones on the EXP’s I have seen.
I rented on for a weekend in “82. I liked it, especially after I had to make a radical evasive maneuver in which it acquitted itself quite well.
It was this blog, back in July, which reminded me that these odd little runabouts ever existed; when Jason Shafer mentioned them during his piece on the 1984 Shelby Charger:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1984-dodge-shelby-charger-lets-take-an-econobox-and-turn-it-into-a-muscular-car/
Prior to that, I hadn’t even thought about the EXP in a couple of decades. I remember a few cluttering up the front lot of my local Ford dealer (sorry, “retailer”) at the time… and then the odd one on the roads (slow lane, usually) in the years after that… and then nothing. Gone. Vanished. No resto-mods. No V8 conversions. Pintos command a more devoted following.
And even after having my memory recently jogged thus re the EXP, until today I had still forgotten there was a Mercury version. I have a pretty good automotive memory, but if you’d quizzed me a week ago, “What is an LN7?”, I would have come up blank.
The EXP/LN7 were pointless and forgettable — as latter-day fixed-head-only two-seaters usually are. I mean, I love the 1st-gen AMX, but I understand why nobody bought them. Was there ever talk of a drop-top EXP? That might have made at least a little more sense.
A V8 conversion would be quite a feat, not that it couldn’t be done but it certainly wouldn’t be easy. What would be cool but I just don’t think is possible would be a SHO engine. I know some have been transplanted into Temapzes using their 5sp but it was very tight all the way around and the Escort’s strut towers are closer together. Not sure about the fore-aft clearance.
What could be done though would be putting it in the arse end….snakes under glass!
SHOgun style?
Hideous. God bless those little hooligans over at Ford for comparing this to the original TBird.
Did anyone else notice? In the advertising artwork, the B pillars are pencil-thin, and the window frames aren’t really distinguishable at all. Sure, the car might have been nicer as a pillarless hardtop (in the manner of a mid-1980s Corolla RWD sport coupe), but this amounted to misrepresentation.
Now that you said something I had to go back and look. I wonder if the original plan was to have it be a hardtop or at least frameless front door windows and that is a shot of a prototype. It certainly doesn’t match the production cars.
Nice catch of a car you just don’t see anymore. The 2 seat concept must have been a nod to the competition provided by the CRX, Fiero and MR2 a few seasons past the EXP’s introduction.
The restyled EXP was more in line with the bigger offerings from Ford, the SVO Mustang and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. A visually pleasing car if you will, but this one? I’m not sure just who they were trying to reach. Somebody who yearned for a Fiero 2M4, but was NOT that daring of a buyer or driver?
I had the misfortune of renting one of these back in the early ’80’s, and I wouldn’t hesitate to call it the worst car I’ve ever driven. It was summer in Utah–every day several degrees above 90–so using the AC was just about mandatory. What a slug! I’m anything but a horsepower junkie–my daily driver at the time was a Mitsubishi Colt–but this thing gave the impression of not wanting to move at all.
I always have liked the looks of these. Even the high stance, no worries about breaking your facia on a curb with these. A lot of today’s CUVs can’t make that claim.
I’ve never been in one though. Sounds like a pretty awful car.
For 1986, Ford made a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Ford brought out a revised EXP that featured flush-mounted headlights, new grille, smoother front and rear bumpers, reworked taillights and different wheels. Those changes, combined with the drivetrain and suspension upgrades also given to the Escort, really did improve the looks and performance of the EXP.
Those later EXPs may not have been a Honda CRX, but they were a big improvement over the original. They look good today, in my opinion.
Paul, are you recycling old CC posts from TTAC? I thought this car looked familiar. It looks amazingly similar to the one featured there about 3+ years ago… 😉
The only thing I will add to this conversation is that there were a whole range of other cars that were cheaper/faster/better than this one. At best it was a good idea, but the execution was awful.
Yes, and have been for a long time. Believe it or not, on nice summer Sundays I actually would rather do something else than write a new CC, since you didn’t send one in 🙂 It’s work you know; they don’t just appear magically.
No worries, Paul. I knew that you have been doing that for a while.
I noticed that this one has the Oregon plates while the old CC from TTAC has Arizona plates. I’m assuming that this is the same car, after migrating to Oregon.
One of these days, I REALLY will do that COAL on my old Yugo… 😉
I owned 2—- a 1984 TURBO with airdams and TRX Suspension, a rocket on rails and a 1986. Loved the 84, great little car.
What folks need to remember was when these cars were being designed, we were still feeling the Carter Malaise period. Designing a two seater commuter car for the 1980s just seemed like a no-brainer. According to President Carter back then, if we could find gas, the price would have been prohibitively high – over a buck – many two bucks a gallon! The Carter Administration and it’s supporters believed that the 1980s were going to be the cusp of a new era of downsized American life.
Detroit was making their new front wheel drive cars their new foundation for Malaisetopia! GM was converting their iron into diesels, using Nintendo-era computer technology for their V8-6-4 Cadillacs and sinking billions into something that eventually became Saturn and NUMMI.
Who knew how long Americans would be able to drive to work in the new Malaise Era predicted by so many “progressives”? Many heeded the President Jimbo’s call for the “moral equivalent of war” towards a new energy frontier; bend over, tuck your head between your knees, and pray that we can find something to squeeze out of Colorado oil shale to get you to the local hardward to buy something to fend off the swamp rabbits attacking presidential watercraft.
The EXP makes sense during this pitiful excuse for leadership during that time. If the Escort was going to be the new basis for Ford, then naturally, there was also a need for a two seater sporty commuter car based on the Escort. Icing on a cake! Who knew just how low the US economy would fall under the malaisetastic leadership of a President Mondale? With enough federal subsidies, perhaps by the end of the 1980s, the 1990 Ford products would be propelled by alternative energy, say an EXP driven by cow farts and moonbeams?
We recognize how horrible US cars ended up when Uncle Sam began telling Detroit how to reduce smog, fasten seat belts, drive safer and s l o w e r (55), get more miles out of every drop of gasoline imported from Dubai, put stylish cow catcher bumpers on cars, and just plain gum up every phase of auto enjoyment. We ended up with Mustang IIs. Well the fun continued right on into the 1980s, as auto designed to face the Third Wave of Toffler forecasts, gave us craptastic vehicles like the EXP, Fiero and Chevette.
Your comment is a deeply mangled version of history, politics and cars of that period. I’m not going to touch the politics, except to point out two significant details: Carter didn’t exactly engineer the energy crisis. And the direction he pushed the country to greater energy savings has of course been crucial in the vastly more efficient cars, houses, appliances, and industries we have today.
Have you ever actually read his “Crisis of Confidence” speech, which was the origin of the “Malaise” reference, by a reporter. Read it some time, without your political blinders on:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis/
BTW, don’t forget that it was Carter who hired Paul Volker as Fed Chairman, with the order to finally kill inflation. Which he did. One of the single most important political/economic acts in modern US history. And who endlessly gets the credit for that?
Back to cars: don’t blame Jimmy Carter for what was built in 1980 or so. What was Honda offering in 1983? Four brilliant different new Civics; a sedan, hatchback, CRX and the tall-boy wagon. Shall we blame them on Carter too?
The real malaise lay with the Big Three, who couldn’t wake up to the fact that it was a new world out there, and that it wasn’t going to be 1959 forever. They’re the ones who brought you the Chevette, EXP and Fiero, while other brought you the VW Golf, Honda Civic and Accord, etc…
Where you even around back then? Or did you pick up your knowledge of history of the seventies from Jalopnik or TTAC?
As one who lived through those years, I can attest to the truth of your reply, especially about the politics of the day. I spent the mid ’70s and early ’80s driving a few 1965-68 Mustangs, and a ’69 Olds 442. All of which were plentiful and cheap if you didn’t mind a little bondo.
President Carter had some issues with micro management, but he was far more intelligent than any of the people who belittle him today. Graduate nuclear engineer, successful businessman, governor, what have his critics accomplished? . Hard as it is for lesser minds to understand, if this country had followed his calls for more energy conservation, our economy and the world’s environment would be much better today.
I can vouch that the Hondas of the early 80’s were nothing like what Detroit was shoveling out to it’s customers as they were leaps and shoulders better than their US counterparts.
I had the ’83 Civic hatchback, just your plain Jane mid grade 1500DX hatchback that was loads of fun to drive, in fact, it was balsey fun to drive. Now, it didn’t have the handling goodies of my current ride, the ’03 Protege5, but it was no slouch in the handling department itself.
And I had more fun driving it like a mad man, with all of 67HP on tap too.
Detroit didn’t have anything like it to offer. My Dad’s ’83 Chevy Citation was a turd and was NO fun to drive, even though it was reliable, for an X body Chevy that is.
Mind you, I bought it used in 1992 when I was 27 years old and drove it for 6 years and had more fun with it than just about any other car other than my current ride, which has one thing over that Civic, it’s handling much like it’s on rails, thanks to the handling goodies that came stock on it.
My Dad (and he had to wait three months) did wind up with an ’80 Honda Civic DX – 5 speed, no A/C. The car truly WAS a blast to drive. The only downside was the belted Bridgestone “Skyway” tires. Noisy and handled/rode like a baby buggy. Old man soon replaced with Bridgestone radials. Now it was a REAL car. More like a sports car. Meanwhile, a buddy had an ’81 Mercury Lynx wagon. Four speed. Slug of an engine – well, not really, but it took lots of high rpms and putting your foot into it to make it somewhat “quick” . . . . Too many compromises in the early U.S. Escorts to “dumb them down” to Mr. and Mrs. America. Aside from complicated carbs, there was no touching the Japanese between 1971-1990.
To be fair, mine did have AC, and while it no longer had the original tires, I forgot what it had when I bought it, but they were OK, not the best in the wet though, that is, until I replaced them with some Michelin X radials.
Now THOSE tires were simply the best and then the Civic handled even better, especially when wet, which it often is around here during the fall through early spring months.
I had one of these…the similar to the white one above, but in two tone grey…for about a month…until the door strike pulled off with the door one day..the used car dealer took it back to fix it but I never saw it again..instead they gave me an 85 K Car in it’s place….I really liked it..even though it was kinda ugly
Sorry, folks. The 83-84’s (and it’s LN7 cousin) I thought were ugly then when introduced and the battered survivors I see – they’re still ugly cars. ’85 1/2 with the flush headlamps was an improvement, but these cars will still underwhelming. I think most potential buyers wound up with a 2-door Escort hatch, or a four or V-6 Mustang LX notchback.
I could never figure out the point of these cars. Ford already had the Escort as a three-door hatch, hot hatches were a recognised thing in Europe – but Ford goes ahead and rebodies the Escort into this? I could understand a 2-seater or 2+2 hatch if it was good-looking, but this sure ain’t. And who in Ford’s design studios looked at this and said “That’s beautiful; put it into production just like that”?
Weird.
My Mom bought a used 86 EXP Sport Coupe in white from a Honda Dealer. I recall her calling me, I was in high school, freshman in 1988… and a car enthusiast. I liked small sport cars like the GTI and FX 16 GTS. I knew from road tests it scored pretty average. But, those cars that rated higher were also cost inefficient. The EXP was reasonably attainable to my Mom, a single parent running an IC distribution company.
It was not really fast, but the 1.9 L H.O. motor was more than adequate, she got that car moving a few times. The shifter was reasonable smooth. The dash was easy to read. The over head light thingy was kind of dumb. Some of the plastics cheap, the FM stereo radio was decent sounding. I think it was a really good looker. The rear spoiler say well on the bubble hatch, the front end of this generation looked European.It gripped the road well enough and seemed fairly well screwed together. The gas mileage was decent too.
I would have preferred a VW GTI 16v, I have a 92 now. But a clean, low mileage EXP Sport coupe would be a fun enough ride.
I always equate this car with…nose picking. When I was stationed at the SEAL base in Coronado, one of my co-workers, a storekeeper 2nd class, owned one of these. She also had a Corolla FX16 GTS, which was by far the hotter car. But she drove the EXP. She was the least popular of the enlisted folks there, mainly because of her awful hygiene habits, the most noticeable was a tendency to pick her nose in front of everyone. I had duty one day and had to drive over in the duty truck to one of the boat units. I left right before liberty call and when I came back, there was the usual line of traffic going out. I saw Annette, and she was waiting in line, in her dark blue EXP, her finger all the way up her nose…I know it’s the strangest reason to be skeeved out by a car, but…
Replying to an old post here, but I found it very funny! BTW, I agree with Paul regarding Carter/Volcker and pretty much everything else.
In September of 82, I turned 16 and was ready for my first car. I drove my Moms Montego (which I still own) until Nov. 18th of 83 when I bought (for $625) a 71 2dr Maverick with 170 (which I also still own!). But back to 82. At that time the Ford dealer had the new 83 Models on display at the local mall. There was a Black EXP on display with fuel injection, 5-speed, AC, and a Sunroof with Black Interior as well. I fell in love with that car! Hey I was 16! I still remember it. Couldn’t afford it obviously. But I did not think it was ugly. And I still don’t think their ugly. Course I also like 80-82 T-Birds! In fact I think a CRX was a worse looking car. And I’m not just saying that because of this article. But my ideas of what’s attractive and not obviously don’t jive with many here. But that’s OK.
I bought one of the first ones at the local Dealership in 1981, I was only 19 at the time and it was my first brand new car. I kept it for a couple years, it was fun to drive and got decent fuel mileage, if you remember the early eighties was when gas started to go up and there was a “shortage”. I would love to have another one just for kicks and grins.I had the 1.6l with auto transmission, which was a little sluggish but not awful. Had a lot of good times in that car.
In the Fall of 1981, I was going into my junior year of college at the University of South Florida. I had been driving a ’69 Olds 442 without A/C that was killing me on gas at $1.00/gal.
I came home to Pittsburgh for the summer and my grandfather offered to get me a new car from a friend of his who was a Ford Dealer. I really wanted a new ’82 Mustang GT 5.0, but the Mustang was not going to be available until later in the year. I picked an EXP in Dark Gray with a White/Gray interior, 5 speed, TRX tires and A/C. I really enjoyed the EXP and autocrossed it for 2 1/2 years. Unfortunately, the Turbo wasn’t yet an option and my only complaint was that the EXP was underpowered.a After 36,000 miles i traded it for an ’84 Dodge Daytona Turbo Z.
Twice I rented EXPs for weekends in 1982. On one occasion I had to do a very sharp, sudden evasive maneuver. It handled the matter with considerable aplomb. My overall impression of the car was very favorable. I certainly would have considered buying one.
I will confess that I thought these were rather ugly mis-steps for Ford. So I deliberately (!) bought the sales brochure from eBay some time ago to see how Ford pitched them.I think I hated them more after reading it…
Urrgh 🙁
My eyes are bleeding !
And without any purpose.
Not sporty, not practical, not beautiful, not advanced in any way.
Why make it ?
Oh God…I had one of these as a rental car, back when they were new to the market. What a dog! It was blazing summer, but I didn’t like to use the AC because you could feel it drag the power down as it switched on. I hope all of them have long since gone to that big shredder in the sky.
I recently found a pristine example of a 1985 EXP. I loved the body styling. I get stopped and people fondly remember owning one. I replaced the one horrible thing about the EXP…. I put a Focus crate engine in it basically doubling the horsepower.
I actually owned one. For about 6 months. I actually thought it was an interesting design. But the thing was a mechanical mess. How is it so based off the escort of the time that it was a fairly ok car. And this thing was just one horrible problem after another. It made me stop buying American.
Goes to show ya Americans will by anything aslong as it says Made in ‘Merica.
ICK!
I’d even buy Japanese before these things. Not that I ever have. 🙂
Almost all the time I agree with what you write, Paul, but here, I’ll politely disagree. It’s not that I think that the EXP is the greatest looking car, but I like it, and a two seater is definitely a risk for a manufacturer.
Could see a restyled European version of the Ford EXP doing very well, especially if it was basically a 3-door (or possibly 2-door) coupe version of the 2-door mk3/mk4 European Ford Escort Cabriolets.
My 6th grade teacher was a preacher’s wife. Very soft spoken, too polite to handle a bunch of rowdy 6th grade boys. Dressed every day in dowdy polyester pantsuits, she must have had a hundred of them. And she had a brand new, banana yellow EXP. I never understood how that purchase decision was made. She was quite a sight in that thing. Maybe it was a “midlife crisis” type car for the preacher.
I have to be contrarian here. It’s so ugly it’s cute. I have enough first hand experience with Escorts and EXPs of the era to confirm they were dogs compared to a Honda. However, the world could do with some simple frog faced cars. Most cars these days look like they want to shank you.
Except for that stupid front end, the whole design just screams out Fox body Mustang to me. That white one in the Ford promo photo looked so Mustang-y to me, I was surprised that Ford did not use that as an advertising angle. “Get a Pony car lookalike for cheaper than a real Pony car, and you will have them all fooled!” Not a very smart move, you either bought a T-bird or a Mustang if you wanted one, or went total econo-box mode. I think these cars missed their mark, whatever that was.
It was an ugly car, with various design details that were never worked out. Ford (Ghia) designed some especially unattractive two seater concepts in the late 70s and early 80s, including the even less appealing ‘Super Gnat’. Which obviously influenced the EXP’s design.
I used to collect car brochures as a kid, when the EXP was introduced. And the styling was a let down then. I remembered they did offer a leather/shearling interior option, at least on the ’82s. It was the only thing that stood out in the brochure at the time. Though the seats and interior looked pretty cheap in the pics.
Hey, don’t knock the “Sport Mirror” and “Stone Pecking”-proof paint coating! Those are premium options. Though the fact that Ford so blatantly thought the extended warranty was “well worth considering” might’ve given me pause back in the day.
The sheepskin-and-leather upholstery was an option on the ’82 Escort and Lynx too, on any GL (midlevel) or higher trim. I have NEVER seen one thus equipped, either IRL or online. Is there any evidence Ford actually sold any?
I’ve never seen any as well, and wonder too if they made production? It was a very unique factory option, on the lowest Ford offerings. But sheepskin seats were very popular aftermarket options back then, esp on the German cars. I even had a set installed in my 1978 Fiesta S which I got in 1984, following the German car trend…lol Oddly, you never really see the benefits of sheepskin covers being sold these days, I guess it’s a fad that’s gone. (which the Sheep are thankful for)
That picture is an appealing coupe. I guess the problem for the EXP was stretching it over Escort bones, plus giving it frog eyes.
For me, both the EXP and the Super Gnat concept share this awkward nose heaviness in their design. Combined with a high cowl, as Paul described in his article. Plus a tall roof on the concept car. As well as the way the rear of the car appears to trail off too quickly after the doors. Especially at the roof line. It doesn’t look sporty (or fluid) in the least to me.
Oh my; the EXP’s little brother. Which one is worse? Hmm.
Pesky little gnat; where’s the fly swatter?
I briefly considered an EXP in 1981, and remember feeling optimistically curious about a new domestic small/sporty car in a list of (several) Japanese and (one) German options. From the advertising I remember thinking it had possibilities. Sometimes you really want to believe!
I never drove it. Walking around it and sitting in it in the showroom was enough to knock it off the list. Turned out it wasn’t actually a car, but rather a badly assembled collection of mismatched cheap and ugly parts.
This right here was my mother’s first car. She was just out of college and of course flat broke. Given how the whole family had a credit at FoMoCo due to her uncle being an engineer for the company, she of course selected this Ford product. It was the cheapest lease available to her. From what she says, it did exactly what it needed to do and nothing more.
Her next car would prove to be something else entirely, a 1965 Mustang fastback pulled right from a farmer’s field. That affair went about as well as one could expect…
I don’t find this car ugly at all,underpowered? yes, cool yes, would i like to have one….absolutely!!!
I never cared for the first version of the EXP, but I’ve always liked the facelifted and improved 1985 1/2-88 version. Not a perfect car, but one I wouldn’t have minded owning. This was the EXP that Ford should have introduced in the first place.
At least they didn’t put retractable headlights (that never would of worked properly of course) on it. I think I drove one of these at a dealership but really wanted an Exscort GT. I ended up in a used VW Scirocco and was never sad about that car decision.
Me too…in 1981 I bought a ’78 Scirocco which is still my favorite of the cars I’ve owned.
Actually, these came out after I had bought the Scirocco, but I remember being at a Mercury dealership with my new brother-in-law and sister (who bought a Capri, but I looked at the Lynx. The Scirocco was small but this was too small for my only car (2 seater) so I’m sure I didn’t miss anything. My friend at the time traded his ’74 Audi Fox for a new Ford Escort stripper, so I got to ride in this platform. I later lent him my Scirocco for 2 months while I was away at “summer” graduate school (a special program the company I worked with had) since I didn’t need a car (they flew us to the school and we had use of school van on weekends).
I had a 1985 Exp. I liked it for what it was; a fun little version of the Escort. No it wasn’t fast but neither were many desirable cars like an MG or miata. Mine started out black then I had it painted silver with blue pinstripe. Had a 5 speed and your usual Escort engine. It wasn’t fast but handled better than an Escort since it was lighter and more aerodynamic. In the end, one dark night on the way home from a bar, my friend puked on the inside of the windshield and dash and chunks must remain in the defrost vents still. You didn’t notice the smell all the time. I sold it and didn’t say anything about that. Yeah I know but now that’s the dirty little untold secret of a used car that probably has been recycled into a Chinese skyscraper by now.
Going from a candy apple red 1976 VW Rabbit to the 1985 EXP (silver) at the age of 18 in 1990 was amazing. It looked cool to me, and with only 2 seats, I didn’t have to drive around a carload of people all the time. No, it was not a great car, but it was great on gas, could haul a lot and sure rode well. It could barely go up hills on much of any incline, yet when it was on a nice flat stretch, if flew.
That car served its purpose well for me at the time, and when it just wouldn’t go reliably enough anymore, it was offered up for a trade in ‘95. I’m sure they scrapped it, but I loved that car and the memories that came with it.
It was replaced by a ‘93 Jeep Wrangler that was terrible on gas, rode hard and couldn’t haul much of anything.