A low production two seater with a manual transmission, turbo-charged four cylinder and factory Koni suspension from the eighties certainly sounds like it would be a sought after classic these days. But what if no one remembered it existed? Or it was overshadowed by the unconventional looks and sluggish performance of its more basic sibling? This is the story of the Ford EXP Turbo which seems to have been largely forgotten.
It is no secret that Ford was aiming for the youth market with the regular Ford EXP as they figured a sporty, more affordable car than the Mustang might do well. It is also no secret that it did not really work out, with the EXP having less performance than the Escort it was based on due to an additional 200lbs weight gain despite the removal of the rear seat. The turbo version developed by SVO was to finally allow the EXP match its sporty looks with expected performance.
The year is a 1984 and you are looking for a sporty two seat runabout. There was an embarrassment of choices available with drive layout options ranging from front engine/front wheel drive, front engine/rear wheel drive, and mid engine/rear wheel drive. Engine choices included normally aspired four cylinder, turbo four cylinder, V6 or rotary. This crowded marketplace with more than one standout is where the Turbo model (and to a lessor degree the regular EXP) found itself.
The main party piece to the EXP Turbo is the turbo-charged 1.6L engine producing 120hp, quite good for the era. Unlike the base model EXP, this engine was fuel injected as well as turbocharged. Up to 8psi of boost could obtained but unfortunately not observed as no boost gauge was fitted. The five speed manual that was first available optionally in 1983 was the only transmission offered on the Turbo. No automatics could be had. This lead to a 0-60mph time of around 9 seconds. Again, pretty decent for the era when a Toyota MR2 or Pontiac Fiero V6 offered similar acceleration.
In addition to the boosted engine, the Turbo model also had a number of other upgrades to the bodywork, interior and suspension. The ride was lowered 0.75″ inches with stiffer springs and thicker sway bar and Koni shocks were utilized at all four corners. All Turbo models received power steering as standard as well as improved brakes. Ford Tempo CV axles help cope with the additional power over the standard 1.6L engine. TRX rims and P185/65R365 tires were equipped as a path towards more high performance rubber. That 365 rim size was metric and fell between a 14″ and 15″ rim size. The TRX tire was ultimately a dead end but it was billed as a performance upgrade at the time. They generally handled well but were apparently prone to crumbling under hard braking. These days replacement rubber in the correct size is simply not available beyond some new old stock tires from the 1990s which are not suitable for driving on anymore,.
On the outside, a body kit shared with the TR model was fitted that toned down the EXP’s unusual looks, especially the underside of the nose. A red “turbo” script on the rear bumper was the only rear external indication that the car had enhanced performance potential. The body kit also managed to reduce the visual impact of the high belt line inherited from the donor commuter Escort platform. The rear “bubble back” hatchback from the now discontinued Mercury LN7 was fitted with an additional spoiler. Regular EXPs also got this hatch from 1984 on, without the spoiler.
EXP information is hard to come by these days but there was also a TR model available starting in 1983 that offered the visual and wheel/tire upgrades of the Turbo model without the turbo engine. The suspension was similar to the Turbo but tuned for slightly less performance. I spotted this example about a decade ago in a back alley wearing non-stock rims likely due to the TRX tire availability issue. The high, center stop lamp in the wing gives this one away as a 1985 model.
The Turbo model benefited from the revised dashboard introduced for 1984 and added a three spoke sport steering wheel and sport seats. The steering wheel changed again to a less attractive two spoke design for 1985 which was the final year of the Turbo and the first generation EXP. The EXP continued but looked extremely similar to the Escort GT. Motor Week retro has a period road test of the EXP Turbo but the lovely valve cover on their pre-production example seems to have not made it into regular production.
It is no secret that Eighties and Nineties nostalgia is big right now. Could this see the EXP Turbo finally seeing some recognition on the collector scene? The biggest issue is almost no one remembers them. While there are a few more rare EXP variants like Ford approved aftermarket convertible, EV and natural gas conversions the Turbo model is pretty rare in its own right with claims of as little as 1,200 to 10,000 produced. No matter the number there cannot be too many of these left as the survival rate is likely low. But if you want an EXP the model would be the most desirable beyond the lone supercharged and turbocharged Ford EXP McLaren ASC prototype.
Related:
CC 1985 Ford EXP: Ford’s Ugly Little Sin PN
Michelin’s TRX Tire: Reinventing The Radial Tire Didn’t Work Quite As Well As Inventing It PN
No boast gauge.Ford wasnt trying that hard were they?. May be they were scared of it taking to many sales away from the more expensive Mustang SVO
I remember the EXP. I was in my 20’s and owned a Scirocco and would not even consider an EXP as an alternative. It was so blatantly an Escort. The cars you show in the comparison test with the exception of the CRX had unique chassis’ and even the CRX was so different enough and so good that its relationship to the Civic was not a detriment. I think that cross shoppers would also consider as an alternative to the EXP, the Celica, 024 and TC3 from Dodge and Plymouth, Eclipse, Fuego, Scirocco, Prelude….The EXP was simply out of its league.
I don’t know what amazes me more about the EXP – that Ford actually sold 100,000 of them in 1982. Or that Ford expected to sell 200,000.
Ford EXPected the youth market to be all over this car, but dang… like you said it was blatantly an Escort, and with a bunch of drawbacks.
My recollection is that sales tumbled after the initial year, and for the rest of the EXP’s production, sales were about 20-25,000 per year. The fact that the EXP got an turbo upgrade after a few years was rather surprising, as this car was probably quite an albatross for the Ford folks.
Me also…I had a ’78 Scirocco I bought 40 years ago, which I had 5 years till I bought my ’86 GTi….haven’t strayed from VW since the Scirocco, I have an ’00 Golf as my only car.
Still, I had friends and family that bought (mostly Escorts). My co-worker traded in his ’74 Audi Fox for an ’81 Escort Wagon, and my surviving youngest sister had an ’86 that I helped pick out for her…knowing she was a different audience for cars than I …she needed a sporty automatic, and I only owned manuals, plus my Scirocco didn’t have A/C, we’d moved from New England to central Texas, and though I lived without A/C for years, I finally gave in, didn’t want to retrofit it to the Scirocco. The co-worker had bought the ’81 Escort because he had 3 kids since buying the Fox, needed roomy but inexpensive car, and financing for new cars was much better rate than the 24% rate another co-worker paid on his used ’80 Pontiac Sunbird.
Never got to ride in it, but another co-worker long ago had an EXP, I didn’t know him well, this would have been about 1984, working for defunct company called Datapoint (they had local area network in 70’s before Ethernet came from Xerox). He needed a ride home; he had taken the EXP in for service and taken the day off to watch the Boston Marathon. I doubt it was a turbo, just a regular EXP.
One other reason not to get the EXP vs Scirocco for me was that I was inexplicably in a carpool with 2 other co-workers, all of us had 3 door hatchbacks, and the Scirocco wasn’t the smallest (the two other drivers eventually married, the man had a ’78 Ford Fiesta, and his fiance (at the time) had a ’79 Datsun 310 coupe. At least the Scirocco had a back seat, small as it was, which I don’t think the EXP had…it was maybe even smaller than the ’78 Fiesta.
I will admit to having liked the looks of the EXP at the time, but not enough to buy one. Had I been interested in a 2 seater back then, there were others that I found more appealing. For a practical 2 seater, the CRX was the ticket, and for exotic 2 seater it was the RX-7. This EXP was compromised in both of those categories.
Count me as one who had forgotten all about these. But I don’t see these as becoming hot items for collectors. The market has spoken (in both 1984 and now) – 5.0 Mustangs are where its at.
These used the same doors (frames excluded) and front fenders as the standard Escort, right? Sure looks that way anyway. The proportions are just off, the beltline and cowl obviously designed for a car with a higher roof – like the Escort GT Turbo which was basically this car with better looks and a back seat. Same seats (but higher up) and dash.
You can get wheels that look like the Mustang TRX rims but actually take normal 16″ tires now. But nobody will ever do that for the EXP wheels.
Yes, I believe the door bottoms and fenders were the same. The front windshield was tinted lowering the roof line so new door window frames were required.
The Toyota Paseo (both generations) had the same relationship to the Tercel that the EXP did to the Escort, and looked pinched for the same reasons.
As a Brit that grew up with 80s and 90s fast Fords everywhere, this looks so odd to my eyes! But so cool at the same time.
I see it’s a turbo’d CVH engine, same as the Escort and Fiesta RS Turbos. But these made about 130bhp. Am I assuming it’s exactly the same engine but with emissions kit added?
Having owned a Fox-body Mustang and an Escort during the years that the EXP was produced, I always felt like this was a love child of the Mustang and Escort that combined the worst virtues of its parentage. Usually the good performance pieces could be had on the Escort GT, which was less expensive, lighter, more spacious, and – dare I say it? – better looking despite being a utilitarian hatchback.
The automotive press at the time reported that the EXP was to get concealed headlamps. I don’t know if that was truth or wishful thinking, and I’m not sure even that would have fixed the “frog eyed” front fascia.
The only one that ever caught my eye was a convertible version that appeared in an episode of Trapper John, MD. Alas, I was later to find out that it was an aftermarket conversion, of which only a handful were built.
I’m fascinated how the EXP weighed 200 lbs more than an Escort, and without the Escort’s rear seat. How the hell did Ford manage that one? Are there lead weights in there, somewhere?
This was Ford’s Fiero-fighter and, as such, really wasn’t so bad. I don’t recall if the Fiero’s foibles garned it a GM DS, but I’m not quite as adament that the EXP is in the same category, mainly due to being an ugly little turd (unlike the Fiero which at least looked good) that never sold nearly as well as the Pontiac, and I rather like the EXP frog-eye front end of the 1st gen cars. It’s not quite in the same ‘it’s-so-bad-it’s-good’ category of, say, a 1961 Plymouth, but it’s close.
I might even go so far as to suggest that the one-year-only, 1985 version that retained the frog-eyes but gained the Mercury LN7’s bubble-glass hatch may one day be an affordable car show classic, sort of a latter-day Nash Metropolitan. Although maybe the last generation Mercury Capri convertible would be a more fitting comparison to the Nash.
These would be a star at a Concours D’LeMons type car show. So obscure, rare and unloved in the world, a mint running example would be impossible not to appreciate if only for the fact that it still exists.
You are absolutely right! This is my LN7 in Concours d’Lemons on Aug 14, 2021 in Seaside, California. The interest in the car was off the char! I was interviewed by multiple newspapers and a local TV station KSBW.
All the Turbo models had the Mercury LN7’s bubble-glass hatch. That started in 1984.
It will definitely be in the so obscure its cool category rather than a blue chip investment classic.
As a fairly large fan of the Blue Oval, I thought these cars were….interesting(?) back when they were new, but Ford and Chrysler both produced ” sporty coupes ” that were longer AND heavier than the plain jane sedans they were based on. Obviously, neither company really understood it required more than looks to capture customers for this market niche.
As a sort of amateur car (re)stylist, I spent quite a bit of time considering what I would do to improve the looks of this car if I owned one. I actually liked the ” bubbleback ” look of the later model years, but the front half of the car just seemed too resistant to any efforts. I hadn’t thought of hidden headlights but did consider aerodynamic, clear plastic covers for the scooped headlights like those offered for Z cars. With the lifting of constraints on headlight shapes that would eventually hit Detroit, I suppose a better looking/more appealing front end could be designed.
But as much as I liked Fords, and small ones at that, a car that was longer, heavier, and uglier, than most of its rivals…and slower than most competitors was a no sale in my book..
Later EXPs did use the 1985-1/2 Escort front pieces, which helped the car look more like a Fox-body Mustang if you squinted enough. But the squashed-roof, high-cowl look that gave away its econobox origins still showed through. Around that time Ford also started calling these the Escort EXP.
pic:
I’ve seen model kits of the EXP that replicate it with a back seat, which makes me wonder if it was intended as a 2+2 and changed at the last minute.
There was also an Escort GT Turbo which would’ve been more credible in its’ class than the EXP version given that it was more practical, weighed less (as rudiger pointed out) and at a guess probably cost less too. A bump to 1.9 liters for all Escort engines at the midyear 1985 facelift (starting a tradition of Ford revisions to their compact line that would continue to the last facelift of the Focus) brought the end of the 1.6 turbo, replaced by a “High-Output” NA 1.9.
Apparently the EXP was discontinued for a time before being brought back after someone at the factory put the 1985 1/2 Escort front clip and GT bodykit on an older EXP. It still had its’ first-series taillights, though. Granted, the wagon did too but wagons were bought for utility while coupes were supposed to be style-leaders…
For the first year only the was a Ford part number for a rear seat kit to turn the EXP into 2+2. Hard to know if they sold any. But one can add a regular Escort seat to an EXP to replace the chrome towel bar in the back.
It was the production workers who saved the EXP for a second generation making mocking one up with a selection of first and second generation parts.
Some EXPs have been converted to four-seaters by putting an Escort/Lynx rear seat in it – the floorpans are identical. There won’t be enough headroom for most adults though.
Didn’t know about the rear seat being available as a part. I don’t recall adverts or brochures mentioning it, instead implying that not having a back seat was enough to make the car sporty.
It was a parts guy from the era who mentioned that there was a parts number for the retro fit kit on microfiche.
There is a period ad on YouTube that shows a EXP helping a broken down or out of gas Dodge O24 only to leave the driver of that car stranded in the snow since the EXP is a two seater!
I had to view that a few times to figure out what was going on there. I think Ford is trying to imply the 024 wouldn’t have run out of gas if it got the EXP’s higher fuel economy, not that driving a two-seater (if you have a passenger with you at the time) gives you a good excuse not to have to drive some stranger to a gas station and back, lol.
Microfiche! As 1984 as the car!
These cars weren’t planned on being sporty. They were planned in the depths of an economic depression the likes the US hadn’t seen in generations. Gas prices were incredibly high and malaise was being served across the US. Bad time ahead?
So these cars weren’t planned to be sporty. They were planned to be commuter cars. They were planned to be cheap. The idea of dedicating an entirely new product to what was seen to be a almost disposable car, wasn’t used. They were stripped and designed from cheap four seaters. Many of these two seaters ended up with high cowls and windows from their donor cars. The Fiero was a parts bin car with a slick plastic body. The EXP was an Escort. The NSX was a Sentra. The Omnirizon twins were donors and the basis for Chrysler’s entries.
But what happened was the economy bottomed out and then went into hyperdrive. Gas prices stabilized and the worst was over. Consumers were buying again and larger cars were finding favor once more. What do you do with all these little commuter cars?
They tried to make them “sporty”. Over the next four years, we see these cars become sportier. However, their mission in life was to provide cheap two seater commuting. Since that market never materialized, then these little cars became smaller versions of the compact sporty cars also offered at the same showrooms. The manufacturers ended up fighting over a shriveling market, and fighting against their more profitable compact sporty cars. In the end, there was no reason to keep them.
The CRX and the MR2 were magnificent. Both were outstanding rides, fully developed and fully credible. Nissan tried hard with the NSX. Mazda had an amazing little V6 that no one asked for. The Fiero and EXP tried to be both commuter car and sports car but with a sharp looking Camaro/Firebird and a Fox Mustang as competition, there was no reason to keep either around.
There is good reason to look back at these cars and wish there were new versions today. Yet, we also know that the market for any sedans or coupes doesn’t support them. While I see the CRX, the MR2, and the last year of the Fiero worthy of restoration, I do not at this time, see the EXP or the LN7 at the same level.
Good points!
Somehow the Escort GT seemed much sportier to me than the EXP did. The GT (from ’83 on anyway) at least looks like a respectable hot hatch rather than a malproportioned squashed bug. The EXP too obviously used the Escort cowl, front fenders, and lower doors, making the beltline look too high (something Ford tried and failed to disguise with that thick black molding below the window – or is that just paint?). The Toyota Paseo also too obviously looked like a squashed Tercel, again due to reusing some body panels. Chrysler at least invested in all unique body panels for the Omni/Horizon based coupes (whose names seemed to change every two years).
The EXP was referred to as the “sporty” variant back in in they claim 1978 but more likely 1980 on this Motor Week preview. They talk about automakers using sporty versions of small cars as a profit driver after the J car bit.
https://youtu.be/-x7EmXT-Sf4?t=1565
Nice write up! This is one of those cars that deserves a moment in the sun, but if one were to wait for a running curbside example, it would be a wait somewhere between forever and eternity. Somewhere somebody must have a primo EXP Turbo in his garage! But this car is too quirky and obscure not to admire, so thanks for profiling it.
Personally, I never struggled with any feelings for the EXP. I just didn’t like them at all. Unlike many 80’s cars I didn’t care for at the time, this one has not gained much of my esteem with hindsight. I just can’t find anything to love. GM offered much of the same concept in a MUCH better looking package. At least EXP customers weren’t lured in by the pretty shape only be disappointed. They got to be disappointed at first sight!
The Japanese alternatives worked better (and were also better looking). It’s a testimony to the loyalty of Ford’s buyers (or their kids) that they sold any of these at all. I wish I could find something appealing about these other than their rarity and obscurity today. Maybe they were reliable?
“Again, pretty decent for the era when a Toyota MR2 or Pontiac Fiero V6 offered similar acceleration.”
This serves to highlight how far advanced Toyota’s 1.6 Twin-Cam was, with the other cars needing either another 75% displacement and two cylinders or a turbo on the same displacement engine to be competitive in this aspect. I, being a huge turbo fan, can only imagine how peaky that 1984-era turbo was and if the Fiero was a V6, it’d be the 2M6 version of the car which seemed overshadowed by the cheaper 4 and its issues.
I remember that issue with the comparison test, I also remember when reading it that I would have desired the MR2 or RX7 the most (sort of a tie), then a CRX (wondering why they didn’t use the Si version though), and then the Pontiac and Ford didn’t really matter. Almost 40 years later it’s still the order I’d want them in, but it takes work to find any of them but the three Japanese cars are still spoken of with admiration and are becoming appreciating assets, while the Fiero is considered a flawed oddity and the Ford just forgotten.
That’d be an interesting magazine article to see again here though, my copy doesn’t exist anymore.
1985 was 1st year for Si
I had the 1.5 and it was brisk and try as I might, I always got at least 38 mpg
the hatch was amazing, carried a sofa on the highway
Yeah, I know, 1985 was the first year for the MR2 and the V6 Fiero as well as I recall.
My rank: RX-7 > CRX > MR2 >>>>>>>> Fiero >>> EXP.
The Japanese trio is hard to choose amongst, so much to love about each of these famously fun-to-drive cars, yet they’re so different. As for the Fiero, “sporty” and “Iron Duke” don’t belong in the same sentence, but at least it’s nice to look at. The EXP looks frog-eyed, feels cheap, and has no strong points other than better cargo space than the two mid-engine cars.
The exp turbo was a good idea, however the front wheel drive traction was challenging, and the one I owned went through one turbo, and two axles. They pretty much asked for it back as it was still under warranty. I think most of the front wheel drive cars were not properly prepared for the power, although once I got used to it, it was a great car to drive. Unfortunately the mechanics didn’t hold up. It did spank most cars in its time. I drive a 1984 Mazda Rx 7 Gsl Se now. Much more refined and reliable. I still miss the exp when it wasn’t broken down.
I remember my Grandpa bought one of these in 1982 or 83. Non turbo model. He had it 2 days and asked me to drive him 700 miles to visit my Mom. It was such a POS that he traded it in before it was a week old. While at my Mom’s place he drove her new Civic. For those last 10 years he drove nothing but Hondas, even though he had retired from FORD and got the good sweet employee discount on new FORDS. Grandpa was old, but not stupid…
These just look awful. Cheap in a cardboard suitcase kind of way.
Anything going up against the first gen RX7, MR2, or CRX was going to need to be a magnificent world-beater of a car, as those three are among the all-time best efforts of those three Japanese manufacturers. Sometimes car makers walk into a buzzsaw of a comparison, when lined up against other, similar choices. The EXP (and the Fiero, for that matter), walked right into the buzzsaw, as did a bunch of other ‘80s sporty offerings.
As a Ford Loyalist these kinda appealed at the time, but if I was buying new I doubt this is the one I would have picked from all their offerings.
But still, fun to see—and I knew basically nothing about the car, actually.
Interesting about the weight gain–the engineering is a mystery to me, too!
I seem to remember that in the last year or two of production that the factory making them put the front clip from the Escort GT on these as a cheap facelift and delay Ford’s closure of that factory.
A couple of the regular EXP’s came through Dad’s repo lot back in the day. I was the yard guy at the time and had to do basic stuff to keep them running for the bank to reclaim them—start them up every couple of days, make sure they had gas, move them around the lot.
One of them needed a new door lock mechanism (the original had been damaged by the repo guy) so I had to break the door down to replace it. I remember that job being as painful as being in a Chrysler of the same vintage—thin, sharp, bendy metal, cheap door cards, cheaper plastic, brittle fasteners, and terrible engineering. If I recall correctly, it was a pain in the ass, I sliced myself open several times, and the door did not go back together without a fight. And they were only 3-4 years old at this time. No thanks.
The EXP debuted during my college years and a girl I knew whose father was a FoMoCo executive drove a brand new one. The EXP was ungainly and awkward from any angle, but what I remember most is the total lack of acceleration when she volunteered to drive me to the airport. She floored the accelerator on the on-ramp and barely missed getting crushed by an 18-wheeler doing all of about 45 MPH on a congested rush-hour expressway. That car also lost several trim pieces in the student parking lot as frozen rain got between the trim and fender and the expansion and contraction of the freeze-thaw cycle caused the plastic to fall off. The EXP did not last long and the following school year, my friend was driving a new Fox-body Mercury Capri 5.0, a much more tractable and attractive vehicle.
I had a regular EXP as a one-way rental driving from Lancaster, PA to New Haven CT, via Tom’s River, NJ on a business trip in 1982. It was not a pleasant drive, due to traffic and weather, and certainly not helped by the EXP’s modest power, uncooperative transmission and poor visibility.
I really enjoyed this great writeup – thanks, David. I had no idea before reading this that the turbo EXP actually accelerated among the better cars in its class. Nine seconds to 60 was great for the times, and for this type of car.
One question, though, and I didn’t see anything in this essay or in the comments… That press photo from Ford, with the black and silver example. Does that not look like a production model to anyone else but me? The door and window frames seem way too thin (and stylish).
And then, there’s Ford’s usual trick (dating to the late ’70s on Pintos and Mustang IIs) of visually recontouring the bottom of the side windows using black paint to give the illusion of depth and a slightly different shape. In the lead-off photo of the red example, the black paint under the windows is clear. In the press photo, though, the driver’s door window line gracefully dips down a little bit to make the same shape.
It’s little differences like these that took what I still consider to be basically an attractive design to the actual execution that didn’t quite look as great. Still, I remember liking them when new and was glad to read a great, new essay about this one.
Ah yes, the towel bar handle on the rear parcel shelf…. As an 18 yr old toting a cooler full of beer to the beach, I hit the brakes too hard at a stoplight causing the cooler to slide forward, hitting the towel bar and spilling 48 quarts of ice and beer in the rear foot wells.
I had an 85 na in Oxford white with the 1.6l and auto. Acceleration was sloooww. I recall racing my future father-in-law at a stoplight in his caravan and losing by a large margin. Never heard the end of that.
I will say that the interior materials were pretty good for the era.
I dodged a bullet when these came out. The advertisements and initial dealer allocations featured lots of these in Lime metallic green. It looked interesting enough. One day a local Ford dealer had a green one on display out front. I stopped and took a look. I was interested in driving it and had some questions. No one paid me the slightest bit of attention. I thought about going in and finding a salesman. I was also hungry and ready for lunch. I gave it one more look, decided I had seen enough, said “Fuck it” and left. If anyone at that dealership had made the slightest effort they might have made a sale. I have no regrets.
The Wiki page on these talks about Ford stuffing the famous Yamaha SVO V6 in a few test mules. Gosh that would have fixed this cars problem. No power. I drove a nice green LN7 once. Ride was good. Handling was good, but it was so slow my V8 Scout would run off and hide from it. I slept on the dealers offer called them back the next day and said no thanks. Got a Ford Ranger V6 short box short cab the next year with the four speed stick. It also was quicker and after a few additions from the Motorsport catalogue could be made to handle just as well and haul my toys for almost the same gas mileage. Ford just crapped the EXP out half baked and did not support it. Reminds me of the Aztec. Just another missed opportunity.
The 84 1/2 to 85 1/2 production Escort GT Turbo with the IHI turbo equipped 1.6 Kent motor was the one to get. Try finding one today. I saw 1 in person back in the day 1986 and almost bought it. Then there was the Escort SVO. The car supposedly Ford never built…in the US. They already had them in the UK with the same 1.6 Kent motor. They did exist.
I owned an ‘84
After the turbo being replaced under warranty twice and a third on it’s way out it was time to sell it off. The numbers below should explain why there was such a low number of replacement parts available. That and those trx were NOT a snow friendly tire lol
The production numbers i got from Ford Canada were:
1984 – 114
1985 – 24