(first posted 9/6/2015) Compact. Intermediate. Full-size. Once upon a time, it used to be so simple: if a Nova was too small, you got a Chevelle. Need more space? There’s an Impala for you. Easy. But American cars bloated so much they needed a crash diet in the late 1970s, and that’s when you ended up with Fairmonts sized like Granadas but priced for less, and compact Volares that became Plymouth’s largest sedan. From this confusion, cars like the Ford Tempo and Mercury Topaz sprung, tweener sedans that weren’t quite intermediates but were bigger than what had become the normal size for a compact. And although the market had changed massively during the 1970s and 1980s, these two sedans would change very little during their lengthy production run.
By 1984, the compact Fairmont was getting a bit long in the tooth and a replacement was needed. However, Ford was quite cash-strapped during the early 1980s and so the new 1984 Tempo and Topaz were derived heavily from the new, front-wheel-drive Escort. This meant independent suspension front and rear, but uneasy handling and a mediocre ride. However, they were wrapped in modern, stylish and aerodynamic styling.
Unlike the GM X-Cars, the Tempo/Topaz weren’t offered with a V6 at all, initially. Hell, even the Escort-rivaling GM J-Cars got a V6, beginning in late 1985. Of course, Chrysler, Honda and Nissan’s intermediate offerings were several years away from getting a V6 so such an omission wasn’t unheard of. What was unusual was the engine the Tempo/Topaz featured: the 2.3 “High Swirl Combustion” four, a cut-down version of the 200 cubic-inch Falcon six, completely unrelated to the 2.3 Lima four used in the Pinto and Mustang, and initially with 90 hp and 125 ft-lbs. Carburetted at first, the HSC four gained fuel-injection in 1986 although power dropped slightly. There was also a “High Specific Output” (HSO) version of the four available shortly after launch, but it only had an extra 10 hp and no extra torque. The HSO was dropped after a few seasons.
The Tempo/Topaz may not have been a delight to drive, but that didn’t stop the buying public from lapping them up. Sales were extremely high: 531,468 Tempo and Topaz sedans were sold in 1984, around 4/5ths of those with the blue oval badge. In 1985, the Tempo was the tenth best-selling car in the US, and sales remained high throughout the rest of the decade.
Which brings us to 1988. Tempo and Topaz sedans received heavily revised, crisper exterior styling and a new dashboard, while the coupes made do with the new dash and the new front fascia mated rather awkwardly to the old body. The Topaz sedan received a more upright roofline than its Ford counterpart; while it was nice to see greater differentiation between Ford and Mercury models, the very formal Topaz sedan made for a curious juxtaposition with its swoopy Sable stablemate.
The revised models were rather handsome (well, more so the Tempo sedans) but they were about as extensively revised as the Chevrolet Cavalier had been for 1988: that is to say, not much. Ford’s financial situation had improved thanks to the success of the Taurus, Escort and yes, the Tempo, but this mostly cosmetic revision was the most Ford would lavish on their tweener sedans. Three years later, a long-awaited V6 engine, the Taurus’ Vulcan mill, was introduced with 135 hp and 150 ft-lbs.
The only automatic transmission ever offered in the Tempo and Topaz was an antiquated three-speed unit. The lack of a fourth speed had a big impact on gas mileage: EPA figures showed a HSO four Tempo with a five-speed stick was good for 21/29 mpg, but the automatic saw highway gas mileage drop to 26 mpg. There was an even larger gap with the V6: 21/28 with a stick, 20/23 with the slushbox. As for the base four, the gap between highway gas mileage in the manual and the auto was an astonishing 6 miles per gallon.
The Tempo and Topaz were looking more and more antiquated in an increasingly competitive lineup of cars. The Mazda 323-based 1991 Escort/Tracer were the most impressive cars Ford had ever entered into their segment. The Taurus and Sable received new duds for 1992. There was a smart new Probe coupe. Only the ancient Mustang made the Tempo and Topaz look fresh, although it at least had enthusiast appeal. The Tempo and Topaz were selling on price: by their last year on sale, a fully-loaded V6 Tempo with automatic transmission and air-conditioning was available for less than $14k. That was MSRP, so no doubt incentives would have driven that down even further. This was cheaper than a fully-loaded Corolla, let alone a Camry.
Somewhere along the way, the domestic automakers had decided certain segments weren’t worth investing a lot of time and energy into. The Japanese strategy in the early 1990s was to build the best possible car and price it high enough to be profitable. The Korean strategy of the time was to build the best car they could, given their generally lower level of expertise, and price it aggressively. The American strategy, sadly, became to simply build a car (any car) and price it cheap.
Offering these blue-light specials may have netted the domestic automakers a lot of sales, but it sabotaged their efforts to go back upmarket. For 1995, the Tempo/Topaz were replaced with an Americanized version of the Mondeo “world car” badged as the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique. Vastly better in every way (except rear cabin space) than the old fossils they replaced, Ford naturally priced them higher to help recoup the $6 billion dollar investment in the new platform. But buyers baulked at the price tags, and sales were far lower than their predecessors.
The domestics made another crucial strategic error. The downsizing of the late 1970s had thrown existing lineups in disarray and the stability of gas prices in the 1980s had further derailed the domestics’ plans. But the aftermath of this was Ford, GM and Chrysler all offered two mid-size platforms each. With Honda and Toyota, you went from Civic/Corolla to Accord/Camry. Having become accustomed to having a fuller lineup and the resulting sales volume, the domestics saw the need to replace their “tweener” models, while the Japanese were satisfied simply offering lower-spec, four-cylinder models of their intermediates. Imagine if the money spent developing cars like the 1990s GM N-Bodies and the Americanized Contour/Mystique had been spent on a wider range of more thoroughly developed compact and intermediate offerings. Choice is a lovely thing and volume is also splendid, but Honda and Toyota came to decimate the domestics by offering just one core compact and core intermediate model each. Food for thought.
On the note of saving money, Ford could have saved some by not developing the all-wheel-drive Tempo and Topaz. While an AWD sedan was quite a rarity in the 1980s, it was a baffling decision by Ford to develop an AWD system only for use in what was becoming quite an old platform. Why not an AWD Taurus? Although it would probably have sold little better, it would have allowed for an AWD Taurus wagon (which perhaps could have taken off) and also resulted in an AWD Continental. Hindsight may be 20/20, but even at the time the decision to make an AWD Tempo was probably a head-scratcher. It was a relatively simple affair designed more for wet-weather traction, and could be switched on and off and sold slowly from its launch in 1987 until its axing in 1991. It was one of the various, curious offerings in the Tempo and Topaz lineups, like the Mazda diesel-powered examples of the mid-1980s and the sport-themed Topaz XR5 and LTS.
By 1993, sales had begun to taper off and a lot of that remaining volume consisted of fleet sales. There were plenty of bargain hunters and “Buy American” shoppers, but eventually the dated sedans reached the end of their natural lives in 1994. By this point, most of the arthritic, cut-price domestic sedans were starting to shuffle off this mortal coil: the Tempo’s main rival, the Chevrolet Corsica, would be axed after 1996, and the even more decrepit Buick Century and Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera were finally euthanized at the same time. And so, the long and difficult healing process had to begin for the domestics: their lust for volume, their greed for easy profits and their sloth in updating old platforms had earned them the wrath of consumers.
Do you want to know why the domestics have been losing in the intermediate sales race for years now? It’s not because a Camry or an Accord is really tangibly better than a Fusion, 200 or Malibu. In part, the reason was past deficiencies in quality and reliability. But it’s also because of the dangerous precedent set by cars like the Tempo and Topaz.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: The General Motors N-Body
These, like the Corsica and Spirit/Acclaim, seemed like cars that were sent directly from their factories to BHPH used car lots. It’s just hard to imagine a car shopper going into a dealership and buying one brand new. I can see someone specifically seeking out a Taurus, but I feel like the only allure of the Tempo/Topaz by the end of their run would be a newspaper clipping that read “Brand new sedan: $10,000 out the door!”
One of my childhood babysitters had a maroon early-90s Tempo with matching maroon velour interior (bought used, of course). I remember thinking it was an uglier version of my grandparents 1992 Taurus. To a five year old the two cars looked remarkably similar, right down to the shape of the door handles and a lot of parts-bin interior components. It had already become so problematic and worthless after only a few years that she dumped it before the year 2000.
Too early in the morning – I misread ‘velour’ as ‘yellow’, and went “What???” But even that would be a bit far-fetched for Ford QC – surely!
“I feel like the only allure of the Tempo/Topaz by the end of their run would be a newspaper clipping that read “Brand new sedan: $10,000 out the door!””
Yeah, ultimately that’s what got me, a 16 year old with a job, and my parents into the Mercury dealership in 1993. Bought a brand new 93 Topaz GS Sedan with alloy wheels for $9995.
Very nicely written, and you raise some interesting points. I absolutely agree that much of the pain the domestics are suffering relative to imported brands, even today, stems from the remnants of the bad reputations they earned in the 1980s. For example, my Father-in-Law, the Camry man, likes the looks of the current Fusion. I’ve had the Fusions as rentals and liked them a lot, and I encouraged him to check them out. He did “Test drive a Ford lately,” but did not bite. Why not? “It’s a Ford, so I just don’t know how good it’ll be. They probably cut corners somewhere.” His words, not mine. The boring, bullet-proof Camry rides on unconquered.
This car would certainly be a poster child for being half-baked. For example, the archaic three-speed automatic: could it have really been that much more to offer an extra gear? It would have done wonders for performance and economy but couldn’t have raised the costs that much. The “sandwich” situation for the Tempo/Topaz was also odd. If you really wanted cheap, there was the Escort/Lynx, and if you really wanted good, there was the Taurus/Sable. I would imagine that those cars alone could have enabled sufficient volume to keep the factories humming, making the Tempo/Topaz completely redundant. Plus, given the price point and discounting, I doubt the Tempo/Topaz made much, if any, money for Ford.
This is one of the few times where I think the Mercury version is better looking than the Ford. It is also interesting that they felt the need develop the highly differentiated sedan rooflines in the refresh. Sadly, too much of the rest of the car were identical, and mediocre, so it was really just more wasted effort directed at the wrong things.
Ford seemed to have gotten a little bit confused about roof styling for 1988. It’s a little bit strange that the restyled Tempo was given a version of the Mercury Sable’s glass C-pillar while the Topaz got a more conventional Taurus-mode metal C-pillar.
It was interesting how Ford did their rooflines in that era. No differentation between the Escort/Lynx/Tracer. Topaz, Cougar and Grand Marquis got a “formal roofline” compared to their Ford counterparts. While the Sable got a swoopier roofline than the Taurus though the Taurus’ was not a formal roofline by any means.
It isn’t the extra gear, per se, so much as the cost of designing a new gearbox. It is an American idea that the decrease in current earnings resulting from investment in improving products represents a decrease in functional profitability. It is, sadly, apparently one of our most successful exports.
Obviously, a functional profitability from a long term operation must take into account the costs of allowing for future success.
Fact is when the Escort and Tempo were introduced the take rate on manual transmissions in those segments was still pretty high so it didn’t make a lot of sense to spend too much money on the AT development and a 3sp was the norm among competitors in their beginning.
The Taurus on the other hand was smack in the middle of the midsize segment where the AT was king so it made sense to spend the extra money on an OD AT. By the time that the AT take rate started climbing and the competitors were bringing out an OD AT the platform was to far in its life cycle to justify the cost of a new OD AT. Unfortunately the Taurus’ transmission was just too large to fit in the limited space.
Unfortunately management who take that attitude fail to realise the longer-term damage they are doing to their entire product line’s reputation in the mind of the buyer, when they fail to keep up with the currently-expected norm.
For that matter, why did they cut down the old Falcon pushrod six, when they already had an OHC four of the same capacity already in production? That always struck me as weird.
I don’t know for sure, but I assume it was a plant capacity issue. That’s the standard answer whenever you have an otherwise inexplicable product decision: “We don’t have a factory to build that, but we do have a factory to build this.”
They were barely able to keep up with the demand for the OHC 2.3 from the growing sales of the Ranger as well as the Mustang sales. The other problem is that the OHC was too long for a transverse application.
Meanwhile they knew they didn’t have a use for the Falcon 6 with the Tempaz replacing the Fairmont/Zephyr. So it was quick and cheap to make an engine that could use much of the tooling they didn’t have any other use for. It also was a known quantity that had proven durability.
The OHC was too long for a transverse application? Meaning it was longitudinally mounted in the FWD Escort?
Huh. Never realized that.
Chris: I’m not sure that the OHC Lima four couldn’t have been made to work in FWD, but it never was used like that; the FWD Escort never used that engine.
Ah, for some reason I thought the Escort GT got that engine. Now that I think about it, (and that you mention it) that isn’t right.
Dad bought a new 5-speed Topaz LS coupe in 1984. I drove the car a number of times and it felt coarse and crude compared to my Honda CRX. The engine was rough and noisy and the shifter felt imprecise. The quality of assembly was unimpressive, particularly in the interior. The car handled decently but that was probably due to the optional TRX suspension and tires. Dad ended up hating the Topaz and traded it in on a new Sable wagon in 1986 – a better car all around. I rented a couple of Tempos in the early 1990s and time had not improved the car.
I had a Tempo as a loaner in 1989 when my ’84 Cavalier was damaged in an accident. Even though the Tempo was new and had air (it was a hot summer) I was still glad to get my Cavalier back. A friend of my sister had a Tempo as well, and she seemed to have endless problems with it…to the point of walking into the showroom of the Ford dealer she bought it from and complaining quite loudly about it in front of several potential customers. Oddly enough, she soon traded it for a Cavalier and had much better luck with it. I liked the Tempo/Topaz when they first came out, but after a while they became kind of “meh”… especially when I started hearing horror stories about them.
These cars were such a mixed bag. Engines that didn’t care to rev past 3000 rpm, a three-speed automatic that made driving faster than 60 mph painful, and let’s not forget the motorized seatbelts.
My father purchased a two-door new in late 1988; my sister later received a four-door 1992 model in 1993.
The 1988 model was a five-speed that routinely gave 30 to 33 mpg and it was as reliable as the rising sun. My dad had it for 165,000 miles and the only issue was the cooling fan puking its bearings and a cable in the dash that caused the HVAC system to blow air on the windshield. It still ran like a champ when he traded it off.
My sister terminally wrecked hers in 1995.
To play Devil’s Advocate…Let’s remember this was the 1980s and some people did not have Asian cars anywhere on their radar due to their lack of rust protection and interior room from a decade earlier. European cars were either VW’s (small) or Mercedes & BMW (expensive). It’s a phenomena not unlike those who were burned on an American car a long time ago and still refuse to entertain them.
While I had never thought about the AWD technology being a better fit on a Taurus, you have a terrific point. An AWD Taurus wagon could have out Subaru’d Subaru.
Let’s not forget Peugeot. It is a fascinating thing to me that Peugeot did not grab the American market by storm with their exceptional 505. It was so ideal for American motoring in so many ways- and better built than anything not from Sweden or Germany.
Hmm – I’d guess a lack of dealerships?
In the US the 505 was priced closer to a W201 or the Audi 80/4000 than anything of similar size out of Detroit or Japan. Throw in the general French reputation at the time for poor build quality and the only niche left for them were Peugeot loyalists and people who didn’t think Saab and Volvo were quirky enough.
Peugeot has really bad rust resistance though.
People complain about the Tempos and the K cars and the J cars but they all sold and in huge numbers. They were in the tradition of the Falcon, Valiant, and Nova except being front drive and more economical with a smaller footprint. They sold at low prices, were roomy enough for most families and would last a long time. They were built in America by workers earning a living wage The mistake of Detroit was not these cars but spending money they couldn’t afford to bring Japanese and Euro style cars that the buyers of these cars could not afford. Many happy Tempo owners were not going to look at the Contour as an improvement, and not just because of the price increase.
Back then cars from different countries had a different feel. For the most part, American car buyers preferred the American feel of the cars. Ditto Japan. Ditto Germany. Ditto Sweden. None of this was allowed to continue. Cars are no longer specialized for the local market. What a shame.
A legitimate to me complaint about the Tempo was that it did not share the amazing space efficiency of the K, J, or X body. On this, they were more in the Maverick tradition.
I insult the product on its merits, or lack there of.
I do not give it a pass because a great many people were stupid enough to buy it. I wonder what percentage of Tempo, J and K buyers test drove non American competitors?
Defending cars because they sold so well isn’t a very good defense. These cars did sell well, so well in fact a massive percentage of the current population have encountered one and have their own bad story to tell about it. I’ve always argued the styling of the Tempaz was attractive, I catch a lot of flak for it, but people have such bad memories of these cars for every other aspect that that one positive trait gets dragged down with it.
The real mistake Detroit made with cars like these was making the styling so European and then saddling the rest of the car with drivetrains that were Jerry rigged adaptations of 20 year old designs. These cars and your other examples may very well have been adaptions of the Falcon/Valiant/Chevy II formula, but the big difference is the big three still essentially had the compact market to themselves, the exception being that pesky VW, by the 80s there was A LOT of pesky competition for Detroit, and cars like these answered them only superficially and by price, neither of which did Detroit any long term favors.
I do agree wholeheartedly however that automakers have shed their regional identities.
According to the article Ford spent 6 billion bringing over the Mondeo to replace the Tempo, and has a result sold many fewer cars. They probably could have spent 10% of that and given the old Tempo a new body, a 4sp auto, port injection and balance shafts. Along the lines of the J car refresh of 95. Keeping the price the same would have sold many more units.
Selling many units keeps factories humming and profits at the dealer level. There are also people with good memories of the Tempo, With FI, there were less stalling than the say seventies Maverick that it replaced, it got much better millage, took longer to rust and the engine still probably outlasted the car. Many of the stories we hear are from people who owned them as old beaters, not the first owner, whose satisfaction is Fords concern.
“They probably could have spent 10% of that and given the old Tempo a new body, a 4sp auto, port injection and balance shafts. Along the lines of the J car refresh of 95. Keeping the price the same would have sold many more units.”
I don’t think that would have worked out as well for Ford as it did for GM. The Cavalier was the bottom rung Chevrolet (excluding the Geo Metro), where as the Tempo was not in Ford’s hierarchy. Ford was selling Tempo’s for less than the smaller Escort, even before the obligatory discounts. A 1993 Escort LX 3 door was listed at $9,364, versus $9,110 for a Tempo GL 2 door. There was a very good reason for this as well; the new 1991 Escorts were superior vehicles. Also, the gap created in price between the blue light special Tempo and next step up Taurus likely forced Ford’s hand into offering more cash on the hoods of the later than they would have liked. It really made no sense for Ford to invest further into that aging platform at the time. They sold to shoppers who seemingly were only concerned with price.
Those six billion spent on the Mondeo wasn’t to take on the American market alone, quite the opposite. In fact I wonder if the American market wasn’t an afterthought, no matter how much of a “world car” they said it to be.
The Mondeo was primarily a European car, and it was benchmarked against the European competition. Mostly the Opel Vectra and the VW Passat, but also at Volvo and Saab. The slightly larger wagon version was benchmarked against the Volvo wagons, where Ford hoped to capture some conquest sales.
The Mondeo was placed smack right into the middle class demographic, and mid management fleet sales. And the Eurpean market was cutthroat at that time, and still is. The players were in a bidding war to out engineer each other, these were the European “fat content” years. Like when VW made the stellar Golf IV generation, Ford had to up the ante with the Focus.
And it cost Ford a lot of money to stay in that race, but the question is if Ford would even have a European presence today without the Mondeo and the Focus. These were crucial years to stay in that game, Ford knew that, and wisely put a lot of money into r&d. I don’t know how much it sold in the US, but I don’t think US sales was crucial for the success of the Mondeo.
The Mondeo played in a higher priced strata in Europe. The Contour was sold in much lower numbers and had it’s own set of problems. Bringing it to the USA was an expensive disaster. A cheap Tempo refresh could have gone no worse than the financial disaster that happened, and probably gone much better for Ford’s level of debt. People think there was some sort of massive market for Passat equivalents in the USA. The Passat was always a fringe player in the USA. The cheap Tempo had a huge market that was pissed away by not maintaining a sellable product at that price point.
It turned out that almost nothing of the European Mondeo wasused in the NA version. The only parts that were actually the same were the windscreen, front side windows, front mirrors and door handles.
Ford’s colossal boondogle was in trying to please two different markets with one size car, initially thinking they could save money. That totally backfired, and there little doubt that it ended up costing them more than if they had just created a Tempo successor for the US on their own. And it would have been a more viable competitor.
I realize the European Mondeo was reasonably successful, but Ford really bungled it in terms of seeing it as a world car. The program overall was an expensive disaster.
The first Fusion, based on the Mazda 626, was much more suited to the US, and wasn’t as fragile.
They did give the Tempaz 2.3 port EFI relatively early on. It came with this restyle.
You are correct, I should have checked. Ford didn’t seem to get the power bump from this that GM did when done to the iron duke or 2200 engine. Chrysler never got around to it on the NA 2.2 or 2.5,they knew the Neon engine family was on the way.That leaves more money in my dime store Tempo refresh for airbags and abs.
Ford Tempo or How To Get The Most From Your 200 Six & Escort Tooling.
Will, this is truly one of your most insightful articles!
As others have already commented, you raise some excellent insight regarding how American automakers are still struggling today against Japanese and now Korean automakers in the mid-size and compact segments based on their choices in the past.
Heavy investment in intermediate (“in-betweener” as I like to call them) cars like the Contour/Mystique and N-bodies was obviously a mistake. They were never profitable and generally had the image of a fleet car or relatively early cheap used wheels – things that hurt their overall brand.
And fleet sales are another thing. Because these cars, as well as larger and smaller ones from Ford and GM, and by the 2000s, Chrysler, were not competitive, they were dumped upon fleets. Again, this only further degraded the cars’ and their automaker’s overall perception and respectability. Even today, this is still an issue not only for domestic automakers, but for companies such as Toyota. Although the Camry hasn’t been exciting in a long time, I feel it looses much of its remaining aspirational qualities when 9 out of 10 taxis I see are Camry hybrids. Honda has largely stayed away from this practice, continuing to be very sparingly with fleet sales.
Chrysler meanwhile, began a different path in the early-1990s. Finally replacing the EEKs, they appeared as they were trying to make some truly competitive offerings, with all-new platforms, engines, and modern styling. Of course, these cars were still held back by their quality, and then with the Daimler takeover, Chrysler fell back completely to square one. Even today, I’d still consider cars such as the 200 inferior to even GM and Ford offerings.
I don’t have massive statistical evidence, outside of perusing junkyards (which can give you insight to how well a car holds up). But I do hear a lot more complaints from people who own American (GM and FCA particularly) cars of recent vintage than that of foriegn cars of similar vintage.
That being said, they at least look competitive now, which Is far more than I could have said a decade ago.
The Camry gets a lot of hate for being generic, dull, boring, lifeless, etc. But having driving a current generation Camry and a 2015 Chrysler 200, let me say that the Camry runs circles around the 200. More fun to drive (not a typo), more comfortable seats, nicer looking and feeling interior, just an overall more confident feel. I really wanted to like the 200, but there was just too much not to like in it.
I’m not getting the ‘tweener thing. Escort: sub-compact. Tempo: compact. Taurus: intermediate. The ‘tweener is the Contour which fit between the Tempo and the Taurus which had gotten larger in it’s blowfish iteration.
Tempo was the same size as the Reliant, Citation/Corsica, the Ns, etc. Toyota had the Starlet/Tercel, then Corolla, then Corona/Camry. Plymouth Horizon, Reliant, Fury. Pretty standard across all manufacturers, domestic and Japanese.
The Tempo was far shorter than the Fairmont, which was Ford’s “compact” of the late 70s along with the Granada, a true “tweener” being the size of current mid size cars and becoming the LTD II.
Standard line-up as it had been for a couple of years. Tempo was sold as a compact in the same way the Falcon, Maverick and Fairmont were, just as the Escort was sold in the same segment as the Pinto.
The restyle of the Tempo was a regressive one with that confused c pillar and the generic look of the front. Tail lights could have been cribbed from a Buick. It’s interesting to me to see how much the early 00s Sentra resembles the 84 Tempo.
The general consensus seems to be these cars were mediocre, but that’s SOP coming from the Big Three. They’ve resisted putting their best efforts into their small cars until just recently. They’ve never understood why people would buy these small cars when they could have a full size or an SUV.
You have it right it was the Japanese that didn’t have a full line up and ended up with the tweener cars, at least for a time.
As you mentioned the Tempaz was the compact offering from Ford with the Escort below it and the Taurus above it. Over at Honda and Toyota they had the Civic and Corolla in the subcomact market and initially the Accord and Camry in the compact segment. The Accord and Camry grew and for many years they were the tweener size, not quite a real midsize but bigger than a compact. Of course Honda and Toyota continued to grow the Accord and Camry until they were right in the thick of the midsize market and in the case of the Accord squeaking into the full size segment.
I used to despise these cars but have really mellowed on them over the years. Really, I guess I just miss the days when cars didn’t look like they were designed by Japanese Comic book artists.
“The American strategy, sadly, became to simply build a car (any car) and price it cheap.”
Almost. Build any car quickly, price it on the high side and offer “Rebates” to make it look like a deal.
My parents had a 1984 Tempo that they bought new. They liked it so much that they bought a 1988, making them a two car family for the first time. My sister had a 1985. They were all good solid dependable cars that were affordable to buy and operate. I think that a lot of people forget that for a lot of people, a good car gives them good affordable service, which frees up money that they can spend on things that are important to them. As long as their car gets them where they need to go, affordably, they are happy. In this respect these cars were a lot better than the press gave them credit for.
I’ve enjoyed reading WS’s chock-full essay today–and everyone’s reactions. I “reply” here ’cause I think my 2 cents is closest to P’s. I knew plenty of people who probably didn’t expect a lot, but got a basic, reliable car that didn’t cost much up front or over the years.
“You can always find a decent used Tempo,” a friend swears, and here’s one with 77K at $1200 that’s not a rusted mess. If all you want is basic transportation, you could put a lot of cheap miles on it, even if some things need repaired along the way. ( = tempting, if only as a winter “beater”): http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/5209015916.html
The ‘tweener strategy worked out quite well in the end, as many of the ‘tweener cars eventually became today’s midsize market while some of the classic midsize models grew up to take the place of the traditional full-size cars after they died out.
I remember a few things about the Tempo that an ex of mine once owned. I had to replace one of the gauges, I want to say fuel, but I’m not sure now. Anyway, it was like a 5 minute job to get one out of a junker and another 5 to put it into hers. What sticks with me the most however is how horribly light the steering was. Granted, the joints and such probably needed to be replaced but still, the thing felt more like a bumper car than any other vehicle I’ve ever driven.
Briefly, to the author: Firstly Mr. Stopford, I’m a fan of your contributions here, and as a fellow New Yorker (at least for another short while) I’ve been inspired to keep a keener eye out as I wander the boroughs. The “cc effect” was strong just this weekend as an errand took me up Frederick Douglas Blvd and I passed the same gold and black early 300ZX that I’ve seen on the blocks between 150th and 155th before. My first thought: “I would be surprised if Stopford doesn’t spy this before the year is out.” I’d have taken a shot or two, but was without my phone. Keep up the great work, its appreciated.
I think these cars were just phoned in by Ford. A friend has one of these in the later ’90s, think it was an ’86 model. Was surprised how small and cramped it was inside. Seats that weren’t that comfy and cheap interior materials. He had nothing but trouble with it and traded it for an ’88 Chrysler minivan.
So-so styling, outdated mechanicals and low-quality components rendered these cars also-rans from day one. By comparison my Focus wagon seems light-years better. Maybe Ford has learned something since the bad old days of the ’80s/’90s?
good article….wish we had Jalopnik’s Fordtempofanatic to chime in on this
Last I remember, FTF seemed to have dropped off the face of the earth a few years back, unfortunately.
I have not seen him recently on Internet Movie Car Database either. He lives in Alaska and from my understanding would be about 25 years old by now.
Perhaps you see it wrong. Perhaps the big 3 understood that with their lazy, combative workforce, and their inferior tooling, they could not create a competitive product to sell directly at Toyota and others. So instead, they created something they could sell competing on price- like Hyundai.
Besides the ‘meh’ styling (Car and Driver called the Tempo “automotive quiche for a bacon-and-eggs America”), I remember these most for those infuriating motorized mouse belts. It was one of those picayune, nickel-and-dime crap things Ford did, along with stuff like the turn-signal stalk horn and eliminating the ‘cancel’ button on the cruise control, that made me swear off Ford products. Even GM, the master of cheaping-out on parts to save a fraction of a penny, didn’t stoop so low.
And it didn’t stop with the bean-counter crap either. Just like today’s stupid GM thing of having the back-up lights come on when their vehicles are remotely unlocked, I once had a Taurus rental that drove me crazy with the most annoying seatbelt reminder chime, ever. To this day, I remember the loud ‘boyng, boyng, boyng, boyng, boyng, boyng, boyng!’ that went off repeatedly every five seconds if you committed the egregious sin of not immediately buckling up.
I worked at Lowes for many years and saw a lot of cars come and go among the employees. One that sticks out is a mint condition bright blue Ford Tempo, I believe it was an ’88 or ’89, that an employee got from a “little old lady” with only 25k miles on it. The guy that got that car beat the crap out of it, so much so that at times I couldn’t bear to watch the way he abused that car. Granted, it is a Ford Tempo, but no car that has been coddled for so many years should be subjected to such abuse. I always felt bad for that car, like it was crying its final tears before death.
It may not have been all on him. I had a formerly-old-lady-owned ’84 Topaz in the mid 90s, somewhat higher mileage but still way below average, and as much as I tried to keep it up at first it went to clunker status faster than anything I’d owned before (although those were all already clunkers when they reached me) or since, just from the rigors of actually being driven.
Ahh- the typical Tempaz bashfest. I’m not surprised. After all, if Road & Track says it’s bad, who is anyone to disagree?
Yeah, this and that were soooo terrible. I love it when people make judgements based on an example of something that’s been rode hard and put away wet.
To counter everything point by point would be far too long so I’ll say I disagree with most of it. I agree with assessment of the automatic transmission; though it is for the most part a durable, dependable unit, it is old-school inefficient in a time when they knew better, especially since the Tempaz’ calling card over larger cars was good fuel economy. The 5-speed really is leagues better for fuel economy.
The emissions carb on the ’84s was the pits but that went away soon enough. The motorized belts are easily dealt with; simply pull the plug on ’em and climb in behind ’em. Was that rocket science?
Yes, revving the snot out of a 2.3 HSC is pointless. Solution: don’t do it. Bask in the abundant low-end torque. I don’t know what is so great or crucial about offering a V6: for one thing these aren’t sports cars so if you are looking for tire-squealing excitement perhaps you are shopping the wrong market segment. And I can get a felony speeding ticket in any of my Tempos so really what would I do with even more power? The litmus test for whether I need more power is, do I often have it at WOT and wish there was more? Answer: No. Get real.
Nice to see someone rise to the defense. Like I said above, this car (and its owner) were in my life for about 6 months at one point. It was a 2-door, I forget exactly what year but it was either a ’92 or a ’93 (maybe a ’94). It had ~some~ pickup when you stepped on it so I suspect it was a six.
Anyway, I remember the dead and curiously disconnected (in feel) steering. The closest thing that has come to that in all the cars that I’ve driven was a beat up ’95 (or was it a ’96) Camry that I got from a body shop as a loaner for a few days a few years ago. I suspect the Camry’s steering wasn’t THAT horrid when it was new, and so perhaps neither was the Tempo’s (which was roughly 15 years old at the time of our encounter), but then again I just don’t know.
Be that as it may, I didn’t hate it, especially since I was going through beaters myself in those days so one sympathizes. Replacing the fuel gauge on it was fun (and painless) and over those 6 months that it was in my life nothing fell off or blew up. It did what it had to do.
My mother bought an ’88 Tempo that has the distinction of being the longest kept car in our family (having only been replaced by a ’09 Focus after 21 years). It may not have been the smoothest driving car (it wasn’t) but keeping it going wasn’t too taxing, and it gave us transportation when we needed it.
Originally my mother bought it because she gave up her previous car to my now deceased youngest sister so she could commute to college and later university (that car was much worse, a 1984 Pontiac Sunbird, which had 2 engines go on it in about 5 years). My Mother is hardly a car person, but does want to buy American cars (one reason she bought the Focus, rather than an import). She also looked at the Chevy Corsica, but with the problems we had with the Pontiac she didn’t really want to buy another GM car at the time.
She drove the car to her job up until she retired (22 years ago)…after that it was kind of an “extra” car which I would borrow when I was working on my own car and needed an extra car to drive to work (kept the pressure off me to get my own car working when I was having problems, and also used it to pick up parts when my car was down). Ten years ago my sister moved in with my parents, and she needed a car to go to work with, so I worked on fixing up some of the niggling problems the car had…annoying but not so bad as to keep you from driving the car. The remote fuel filler door release in the glove box stopped working so my mother had taken to opening the trunk and using the emergency fuel door release when she needed to fuel up. Also, one of the power lock switches died on the passenger side (her car was the 2 door, had power locks but no power windows). I replaced several relays and got those things working. Also, it kept having problems with alternators; I must have had 4 or 5 of them rebuilt for it.
The car wasn’t great to drive (it didn’t want to go very fast at all) but it otherwise was available…it was basic transportation, but lots of times you appreciated it for that (kept me from walking several times). It was the generic car, but I appreciated it for that.
By the way, Today is my parents’ 58th anniversary
Was the fuel door switch a relay issue or a switch issue? I strongly suspect Ford used the same remote switches in all of its cars back then, if so, I had one of those switches go bad on a Lincoln and, after the junkyard part turned out to be bad also (these switches are unobtanium now unless one pays insane ebay money for an OEM), had to figure out how to fix it. Turned out to be easy, the bracket inside the switch (that you press down by pushing the switch button) that creates continuity activating the solenoid in the trunk, that bracket tends to corrode right where it makes contact after many years of use. 5 mins of sanding it down does the trick.
Actually, thinking back on it it was both the switch and the relay. The switch I ended up taking apart and rebuilding…it was one of those round switches that was hidden by a piece of plastic that let you see the switch once you opened the glove box. After that, one of the relays near the driver’s leg
also needed replacement (couldn’t hear any “clicking” when I activated it).
At least the relay was available in 2005 when I was working on it, didn’t try to buy the switch, but I take your word for it that it is unobtanium now….guess you could try to find another round switch with an unobtrusive button that can clear the plastic of the glove box door as a replacement if you can’t buy the original one anymore.
I hope your parents are alive and well, since today would mark their 64th anniversary!
It is interesting as to why they choose the Tempaz to outfit with 4wd. They were able to do it with only adding a couple of sheet metal stampings to the floor pan to carry the diff and drive shaft center bearings. Of course they probably could have done the same with the Escort. However most of the competition was not adding 4wd/AWD to sub compacts.
The design of the ATX I think was the big factor in why they didn’t go with the Taurus. The transfer case just bolts in place of the pan and the output is driven directly off the ring gear. The entire transfer case probably cost them $40-$50 to make and it was a quick engineering job too. Much cheaper than a new trans and a better option than some of the systems that used an adapter than fit between one of the axles and the trans. Those can turn it into a 1 wheel drive quickly.
They money they saved there was put to good use, they put a traction-lock diff in the rear. So with and in-out transfer case and modest power level when you push the button you are almost certainly guaranteed that you have power to 3 wheels. Made them pretty much unstoppable in the snow with even half way decent tires.
My family currently has an 88 Tempo, 95 Taurus Wagon and an 93 Escort. The cars before this were a Caviler and a first generation Saturn. While none of these cars even has a glimmer of a wow factor, all of these cars have been good dependable and relatively trouble free basic transportation. This is all a lot people require.
The Taurus even with the V6 gets better mileage the Tempo because of the OD auto. And for some odd reason the Escort seems to be roomier in the front seats. I never actually measured though. The Tempo I bought over 4 years ago and it was a little old ladies car. Had 80,000 miles and a stack of receipts 6 inches high for everything that had ever been done to it. Paid $1200.00 for it have never regretted buying it.
“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten” – Benjamin Franklin
The is no telling how many loyal Ford customers switched to Japanese products because of these two little wonders.
The floor mounted gearshift was one of the ugliest I’ve ever seen in a car. The Escort/Lynx had it too.
I had a ’84 Tempo which was sporty and fun in the four speed manual transmission and our dreaded ’90 Tempo. I remember as a kid, age ten when the Tempo debuted and thinking it was a really original looking car.
I would add a couple of observations:
– Most of the Japanese automakers did have “tweener” models, they just weren’t necessarily sold here, probably due mainly to the voluntary import limits. In fact, the first Honda Quint (predecessor of the Integra, introduced in 1980) was conceptually very similar to the Tempo/Topaz — a stretched Civic platform with a bigger engine to fill the gap between the Civic and Accord.
– The perennial problem for U.S. automakers in this class was that Detroit looked at cars like this as little, which wasn’t the case for European and Japanese rivals. A car like the Accord was not a cheap compact by Japanese standards; it was a fairly big middle-class family car that was toward the upper limit of what many owners could afford both in price and running costs/taxes. So, you have a battle of philosophies; one side focuses on making things cheaper, the other on value added, with predictable results.
– The same went for engines. A 2-liter four was NOT a little engine for European or Japanese automakers or buyers whereas Detroit tended to see anything under about 2.8 liters as a loss leader. That said, the Japanese did much better by even their smallest engines than Detroit ever bothered. A 1.3-liter Civic engine was vastly more pleasant than the 2.3-liter HSC.
– As I’ve said before, I think a lot of that was due to the fact that Japanese emissions laws forced automakers there to come to grips with emissions controls for smaller engines much earlier than elsewhere. (U.S. automakers could get away with bigger and slower in a way Japanese rules didn’t really permit.) European automakers had lots of fine small engines that couldn’t make the transition to U.S. emissions standards without being half-smothered, which didn’t really change much until European markets like German started requiring catalytic converters.
– I don’t begrudge the Tempo its cheapness and lack of verve nearly as much as I do the unhappy powertrain. If the Tempo and Topaz engines had been more pleasant to live with (even if they weren’t any more powerful), they would be less objectionable; likewise if they had four-speed automatics better matched to the engine. Even as a passenger, I remember wincing at the Tempo’s freeway drone. A Tempo with automatic was like that coworker who isn’t really good at anything and is always unhappy.
Size wise, it’s very different country by country. In the ’80s and early ’90s, mainstream vehicles in US were Chevrolet Caprice, Ford LTD such, something bigger than what Japanese companies could imagine ( as I recall about the most luxurious Toyota Century, it’s just marginally okay to me, I still prefer the bigger Cadillac Brougham though ) and I remember in many Asian markets, a three-cylinder engine with 0.9 displacement was standard equipment, one more cylinder with 1.3L was optional. Some cars had 1.3 as standard, 1.6 or 1.8 was optional, while 2.0 was sort of luxurious and big. 3.0 was unimaginable huge and unsuitable to private owners ( on the other hand, there were plenty of Valiant as kids’ first car, or drive school car in US ) It would be very hard for US automakers to imagine why in a market with Ford LTD, Mercury Sable, a middle-class family would downsize all the way to Tempo, especially when a Taurus was fairly affordable already ( and there were roomy Dodge 600 too, which was kind of compromise. )
Admittedly it was not the best in the driving department, but the Tempaz coupe looked like a mini-AeroBird. It may not have had the performance to back up it’s looks, but it at least had looks.
Anyone notice the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet in the lead pic?
Yes! Was going to comment but did a Ctrl-F and found you got it first.
My only memory of the Tempo was when a local Ford dealer advertised 5 year old Tempos and Topazes for $1999. This would have been in 1991 maybe so they were the first generation. They must have had a car rental company go belly up because there were over 50 on the lot. The not-yet-ex and I test drove one with mileage in the mid 50s and it had…problems. We could see it was already encroaching on POS territory so we got back into the ’83 Subaru with 140,000 miles where everything was still working and drove home. A friend of my thenwife cherry picked and got the best one, but it was missing a back seat. That was typical of the quality of what was offered. The salesman grabbed one from another car with a DIFFERENT interior color and she did the deal. As far as I know, it was okay for two, maybe three years and then she became afraid to do more than local trips with it.
Why does nobody ever, ever mention the success of the Ranger pickup as part of Fords turn around in the ’80s?
Good article and usually Tempos/Topazes catch my eye in Portland, OR especially the pre-facelifted ones. Here is an AWD Tempo I found in April 2015 in Missoula and I think it is the only one I have seen ever. The slight upsweep at the C-pillar for the belt line to match the trunk is quirky if that is the right word.
I have never seen a mint Contour and they all have battle scars and/or patina or no hubcaps.
I still like the styling of the pre-facelift Tempo. Early 80’s aero, done well. The Topaz doesn’t do it for me though–the wide, semi-formal C pillar doesn’t work with the rest of the car. Both coupes are good-looking as well, sharing their roofline.
And my admiration for them pretty much stops there. The vast majority of the stories I’ve heard have been negative. There are a couple still running around here, but they’re a rare sight.
The post-facelift sedans are still commonly seen as beaters. I’ve never particularly cared for the restyle though.
My parents had a black 83 or 84 2 door Topaz automatic. I was in high school, and managed to wring copious burnouts from the thing – just had to be on a hill going up, let her roll back to about 10-15 mph in reverse, floor it and drop it in Drive. Amazing I didn’t destroy the transmission when I think about it now. Did take it to prom my Junior Year though.
I have a soft spot for these cars, especially the rare ones. My first new car (thanks to blowout year end deals) when I was a junior in HS was a 1993 Mercury Topaz 2-door, 4cyl auto. A reliable and (I made it) fun steed, served me well for many years. Pretty much anything that could be said about the 2.3L HSC already has been said, and it was pretty much the case. I still loved that car though. That car led me to starting the TempoTopaz dot com website, which led me to discover the pinnacle Tempo/Topaz from the 11 years the cars were built.
Starting in 1986, the sportiest models were the Tempo GLS (2 & 4 door), and the Topaz XR5 (2dr) and Topaz LTS (4dr). They had a slightly sportier suspension, 14″ aluminum wheels, sportier looking interior with more bolstered bucket seats, and the 2.3L HSO engine. 5-spd equipped cars also got a shorter final drive ratio. It wasn’t sports, but it was the sportiest available.
1992 finally saw the introduction of the V6 engine, the 3.0L Vulcan V6 found in the Taurus/Sable, Probe, and Ranger pickups. It was more commonly mated to the 3-speed auto, but could also be had with the 5-speed manual trans. Only the Probe was available with the manual as well. The V6 was available as an option on the Tempo GL/LX and the Topaz GS/LS.
For the GLS/XR5/LTS… the V6 engine was standard. Also standard was a new gfx package; deeper front air dam with integrated round fog lights, deeper side skirts, and a deeper rear bumper with dual tipped exhaust. Suspension was upgraded, and included 15″ wheels from the previous generation Escort GT. The interior upgrades continued, with bigger bolstered bucket seats and red piping trim. Most were equipped with the automatic, but some were built with the 5-speed manual trans.
This ended up being a 1 year only combination. In 1993, all the sporty models were dropped. I did a little VIN searching to determine production figures (the website is down, or I would post them for you), and between all three models around 2000 were built. GLS being more popular, followed by the LTS and then the XR5. (I estimate with the take rate of manual trans, less than 200 of v6/5spds were built)
That’s what I had to have. The promise of 40 more horses (and more torque, don’t remember the exact figure), 5-speed manual, and rarity made it a have to have to compliment my Topaz GS. I found one and snapped it up, a Bimini Blue Tempo GLS 4-door.
It was quite a bit different character than my Topaz. The larger wheels and retuned sportier suspension made it stick better than my base suspended Topaz. The engine/trans combo made it a really fun car to drive. Contemporary tests put 0-60 in the high 7 second range. After 100K miles, mine wasn’t quite that quick but it was much quicker than my 4-cyl. I surprised many with how quick the car was off the line. Torque steer was abundant, but that also made it a hoot to drive. I added 16″ Mustang Pony rims to it, and that just made it stick even more. I loved taking the car up into the mountains of San Diego and have a ball. The power was very accessible with the 5-speed manual.
I do miss that car, and there is a soft spot in my heart for it. I don’t know what I’ll do if I ever see another one for sale.
In the very early 1990s in Iowa, the advertised price of a new Tempo was often less than that of a new Escort. Of course, the Escort was a newer design and a better car, but I know I remember seeing these offered for less than $7000 brand new in those days (1990-1991 or so).
My mom once had an 89 Tempo sedan. to me it always looked like a mini Taurus. Other then a small oil leak the car was very reliable. Never left her stranded. We once drove it from Oregon to Minnesota and it ran drove great-and got about 27 mpg. My only gripe was it’s gutless engine. Great for a little old lady but terrible if trying to merge on the freeway. Or a lead foot like me!
We had fleets of these cars across the US for their entire run. Literally, tens of thousands. So i drove hundreds in every configuration. They all rode similarly whether 4 cylinder or 6, whether FWD or 2WD.
I really wanted Ford to do to these cars what they did for their other vehicles – but Ford never did. So these cars were sloppy, tippy, jiggly, and built in a sub-Ford manner.
These were cheap cars on par with other Domestics of this era. Not good. Not bad. Totally forgettable. Unlike the Fox body rides, I don’t want any Topaz/Tempo.
Bought a 1988 Tempo 2dr GLS. Needed a throttle position sensor from day one, only it took about three years to find the actual cause of the intermittent stalling. For what ever reason the car would quit at a stop light. Seemed temp related, usually happened
when temps were cool 30-50 degrees. Plug wires, scans, idle air valve replaced, idle air valve modification done, road tests. Nothing. Car would just shut off. No rough running on restart or when it quit. Just like you turned the key off and NO codes. Then one day it quit on the way home so I decided I would do a tap test on some of the engine sensors to see what would happen. When I tapped the throttle position sensor the car quit immediately. Did it several times and it quit every time. Back to the dealer, no codes. Tapped the sensor and it quit. Well I guess we will put in a new sensor. What gets me is no logic function in the engine computer that looks for a voltage malfunction from the throttle position sensor with the ignition on. Never should have a zero volt reading, Never. Simple.
Needed head gasket shortly after purchase, took me awhile to persuade the dealership that the burning anti-freeze smell meant something. Had to replace inner tie rod ends twice in 50,000 miles. Body rust thru at the seam where the 1/4 panel meets the rocker panel. Push button HVAC controls. One day I was punching up a change on the HVAC controls and all the buttons disappeared into the dash. The HVAC control was one of these assemblies that are held together by plastic tabs. Well the plastic tabs gave up and broke off. Replaced the T-stat as the engine started running a little on the cool side. New stat fixed that, then about three weeks later the new t-stat decides it done and its not going open. Later the hose running to the EGR pressure sensor cracked creating a exhaust leak that melted the EGR pressure sensor. The sensor shorted out, melted the wiring, hot enough that it fused the wiring strands into a single strand. No codes, car quit, totally dead. Again the cheap engineering was the cause. They used a rubber hose instead of a silicone hose. When the system is functioning correctly it senses exhaust pressure. There is no flow because the sensor is a dead end. The cheap hose cracks, now you have flow and you’ve got a problem.
Compact. Intermediate. Full-size. GM/Ford needed to quickly mimic the Japanese line-up: Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry, Cressida/Legend. Escort, Contour- so far so good. That leaves the ’86 sized Taurus as their full-size offering. Chevrolet/Oldsmobile would offer compacts based on the J- car. Chevrolet/Oldsmobile/Pontiac would develop a fully competitive intermediate- a better designed W- body. Chevrolet/Oldsmobile/Buick would provide a full-size car- the ’86 H- body. Buick/Cadillac would develop luxury H-body editions benchmarking the ’87 Legend.
Though I’ve never driven or ridden in one of these cars, I think that the Tempo and Topaz are far better looking than the Contour and Mystique. And the Tempo/Topaz, along with the 1983 Thunderbird/Cougar, helped to usher in FoMoCo’s Golden Age that culminated in the launch of the 1986 Taurus/Sable.
So simply put, I do have some fond memories of the Tempo and Topaz, in spite of whatever flaws they may have had.
I remember from Motor Trend in the late 70’s that Ford originally planned to replace Fairmont/Zephyr with a proposed “Monica” platform. No details about “Monica” were revealed except it would be FWD. However, “Monica” was cancelled, and soon the “Topaz” platform (Escort was “Erika”) was rumored. I can only speculate that “Monica” was dropped because of costs. I do remember “Taurus” was rumored in the early 80’s and there was talk of dropping the Panthers as early as 1980 and 1981. I would guess being a stretched Escort is the reason Tempo/Topaz weren’t as space efficient as the K cars and X body. I doubt Tempo/Topaz were any roomier than the J cars. At least Ford didn’t spend as much money developing so many new FWD platforms in the 80’s as GM did.
I have to correct my post above. My November 1979 issue of Motor Trend calls the FWD program to replace Fairmont/Zephyr “Derby,” not “Monica.” By November 1979, the “Derby” program was cancelled.
These were ubiquitous growing up in Central NY, typical family car and then later highschooler’s car. We had friends with a red exterior/red interior one, too little to remember if it was a V6 or not. In highschool my brother and I had one of our first brushes with auto diagnostics: a friend of his brought over his white 4cyl/auto Tempo over, said it would overheat after driving for a bit and was just a total dog. We start looking things over, on a whim I look at the tailpipe and see that it was bent shut against a curb or something! Bent it back out with a piece of pipe and presto, car is fixed.
I can totally understand the derision for these perfectly mediocre cars, but just like the GM A-bodies and larger K cars of the same era, they were a pretty solid value: roomier and more powerful/comfortable then a comparably priced import a class below, and notably less expensive than a comparably sized Accord/Camry (remember they were still classified as compacts in the early 90s). I used to be a major homer for the sportier-to-drive, better built Japanese cars, that’s what I grew up with, and I’m still a big fan of them, but I’ve grown to appreciate the qualities that these high-value domestics offered.