The Worse Fords in History

[Steve Caylor]

I ordered an 83 Lynx RS (aka Escort GT), the quickest model with the 88 HP EFI engine, 5-speed manual without power steering but with most of the other luxury options. I remember the mags tested it with a 0-60 time of 11.3 seconds, quick for the time for an economy car. The only warranty problem I had was with one of the ECM components (TFI?). Got rid of the car after four years when it needed new tires (TRX) and the size wasn't available (ordered a new 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe). I remember the other engine options being the 1.6L 55 HP diesel, the 1.6L 2V 69 HP, the HO 1.6L 2V 80 HP and the 1.6L EFI 88 HP. There was a turbo 1.6L EFI with 120 HP, but IIRC, the majority of those engines went into the 100 lb heavier EXPs and LN7s. Transmissions were a 3-speed auto and 4 and 5 speed manuals. I remember doing a fuel economy run from Inglewood (near LAX) to Hearst Castle and back on one tank of gas (that was with the optional extended range 13.2 gallon fuel tank). It worked out to 39 MPG.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Steve Caylor

[hermans]

I once (for 6 months) had a orange Ford Pinto SW. for a company car. It was quite the experience.

[StangBang]

I'm driving my 1991 Ford Probe LX V6 5-speed with 185,000 miles on it and it just won't die. I have only replaced the radiator, alternator and starter since I've onwed it. Quick nimble great handling car. It's the best old Ford I've ever had.

[silvrsvt]

Here is the sticker from my dad's '86 Escort GT, which was my first car

 

[Anthony]

Nice! I still have the sticker from my first car as well. 85 Renault Alliance convertible (my dad bought new). Stickered for $13k. That's a grand for every 4k miles it lived. Ha!

[F250]

The Fairmont is up there on the list of worst Fords. I would put the 1980-1982 Thunderbirds as worser, and the grand champion is the wretchedly ill-conceived 1971-1973 generation of Mustangs. They were heavy, floppy, rattley, slower, and poor looking cars that managed to grow in size and shrink in useable space. They fell well behind the Camaro in desirability and made that "me-too second placer" the American Dream car for an entire generation. The Mustang II was a good enough car for the times. It was marred mostly by carrying a name it wasn't really designed to bear. It would have been a nice addition to the Ford stable if a good, real Mustang had been present and continued on.

 

You don't know what you're talking about on the 1971-'73 Mustangs.

I owned a red '71 Mustang Mach-1 351C Ram Air and a '71 grabber blue 302 V8 coupe. The 71 was a Bunkie Knudsen era Ford of course but you have to remember at the time the design was approved Ford was loosing money on every Boss 429 they built because the engine was too wide to fit in the 1969-70 Mustang and those cars were modified by Kar Kraft at great expense to fit the engine. Decisions made in 1968-69 when the muscle car wars were at their peak didn't play out as planned when the '71s hit the showroom. Ford wanted the '71 to be able to fit any engine in the Ford arsenal including the Boss 429 which of course ended production in 1970. And with the bias ply tires of the era a little extra weight actually helped traction while the extra width didn't hurt handling when the performance suspension was ordered.

The 1971 Mustang was not "floppy, rattley, slower, and poor" they had a modern integrated power steering system far superior to the seperate leaky power cylinder and valve system on previous Mustangs. And The 1971 Boss 351 Mustang was faster accelerating than both previous Boss 429 and Boss 302. Yep, check it out it is a fact read road test of these cars when they were new. The '71 was also available with the 385 big block 429 SCJ for drag racers.

And the Mustang II...well it just sucked. The 1974 Mustang II was just a fat pinto, it was the only year a V8 was not available and the first year without a convertible. In 1974 the 2-door Maverick 302 V8 and straight 6 was FAR closer to the Mustang spirit than the Mustang II.

 

Edited January 25, 2015 by F250

[RichardJensen]

Here is the sticker from my dad's '86 Escort GT, which was my first car

 

 

 

Ah, I remember Ford sales materials talking up the overhead console.

 

I had a ton of mid 80s Ford sales brochures. I have absolutely no idea what happened to them.

[SoonerLS]

You don't know what you're talking about on the 1971-'73 Mustangs.

I don't know about the rest, but I will throw in with him on one thing--I think the '71-'73 Mustangs are, far and away, the ugliest of their whole 50+ year run. IMHO, even the Mustang II was a better-looking car than the behemoth it replaced.

[F250]

I don't know about the rest, but I will throw in with him on one thing--I think the '71-'73 Mustangs are, far and away, the ugliest of their whole 50+ year run. IMHO, even the Mustang II was a better-looking car than the behemoth it replaced.

 

Well I have to remember there is no accounting for taste. But I will say the Mustang II is quite rare today because they were toasters (no Pinto pun) they were transportation appliances with 13inch tires little German 2.8L V6 engines and zero enthusiast interest.

A look through Barrett-Jackson shows quite a few 1971-73 Mustangs bringing good money like a '71 J-code 429SCJ Mustang fastback that sold for $63,800 and the yellow Boss 351 that was owned by Bill Elliott (he must have good taste) that sold for $84,700. Can you imagine anyone paying anything near that for a Mustang II no matter who owned it?

Didn't see many 1974 Mustang IIs on the Barrett-Jackson site.

[F250]

Since we're talking about the Mustang II I'll give y'all a little history on those since I'm old and remember them. The first year was 1974 and the Mustang II was introduced with only 2.3L 4-cylinder and a 2.8L V-6 engines. More importantly Ford never intended to offer a V8 in the Mustang II so even the small for its displacement 302 V8 would not fit. This was a Mustang Ford's most popular performance car since it's introduction with no V8. Ford realized they screwed up and needed to cram the 302 in the Mustang II ASAP. So they had to totally re-design the new car from the firewall forward after just one year. You can tell without opening the hood the '74 has a deeper header panel and shorter hood while the '75-'78 has a shorter header panel and long hood. They had moved the core support forward and the engine itself used a unique short water pump and accessory locations.

Did Ford repeat this mistake or did they learn from this failure? Nope, they repeated the no V8 mistake with the Thunderbird/Cougar in 1989 forcing a redesign and this time a unique EFI intake manifold to fit under the MN12's low flat hood.

[SoonerLS]

Can you imagine anyone paying anything near that for a Mustang II no matter who owned it?

You don't think Farrah Fawcett's Cobra II from Charlie's Angels would bring some money on the auction block?

 

I never said the '71-'73 Mustangs weren't desirable or good cars, just that I think they're ugly.

[RichardJensen]

 

Can you imagine anyone paying anything near that for a Mustang II no matter who owned it?

Didn't see many 1974 Mustang IIs on the Barrett-Jackson site.

 

Ford isn't in the business of designing cars with an eye on their auction values 40+ years into the future.

 

The Mustang II was--despite the imperfect execution--the right decision at the time. Ford sold over a million of them in a four year period and reinforced the Mustang as the more mainstream pony car. GM, on the other hand, got to boast about better performance during a time period when 'high performance' meant 0-60 times that could be measured with a sundial.

[AlRozzi]

I recall the C&D review of the Fairmont, "Ford builds a Volvo and it works".

I recall something of the same, maybe MT, calling Fairmont an American Volvo.

[LincolnV]

Ford isn't in the business of designing cars with an eye on their auction values 40+ years into the future.

 

To the point and quite accurate.

[F250]

See #66

 

Edited January 25, 2015 by F250

[F250]

 

Ford isn't in the business of designing cars with an eye on their auction values 40+ years into the future.

 

The Mustang II was--despite the imperfect execution--the right decision at the time. Ford sold over a million of them in a four year period and reinforced the Mustang as the more mainstream pony car. GM, on the other hand, got to boast about better performance during a time period when 'high performance' meant 0-60 times that could be measured with a sundial.

By your logic the new GT would not exist because Ford can't sell 500,000 copys at 40%gross, Ford Motor Company is unique because they build vehicles for the masses at a price point for a profit...BUT since 1932 when the first flathead V8 hit the showroom in the worst of the Great Depression they also occasionally built performance cars of legend. How much business sense did it make to loose money on cars like the Boss 429, the 427 Cobra the Torino Talladega . hell the original GT40! Where would Ford be without these legends in their history? Trust me Richard Ford builds and sells enough F-Series, Fusions etc and yes back in 1971 Galaxies and Mavericks to let the Boss 351 exist.

[RichardJensen]

This is what I said: "Ford isn't in the business of designing cars with an eye on their auction values 40+ years into the future."

 

This is what you said: "By your logic the new GT would not exist because Ford can't sell 500,000 copys at 40%gross"

 

Your statement makes no sense.

[F250]

This is what I said: "Ford isn't in the business of designing cars with an eye on their auction values 40+ years into the future."

 

This is what you said: "By your logic the new GT would not exist because Ford can't sell 500,000 copys at 40%gross"

 

Your statement makes no sense.

Let me see if I can simplify. Ford is not Toyota. Thank God.

[sullynd]

Look at the thread title...

The title is like nails on a chalkboard, but that is much more worser.

[RichardJensen]

Let me see if I can simplify. Ford is not Toyota. Thank God.

 

That still has nothing to do with Ford ignoring future auction values when making product decisions.

[F250]

 

That still has nothing to do with Ford ignoring future auction values when making product decisions.

You clipped one sentence from my post and apparently missed the point I was trying to make.

The title of this topic is "Worst Ford's in HISTORY." And someone posted they thought the 1971-73 Mustangs were the worst in the model's history even the Mustang II was better (they said). I disagreed having owned a couple of them personally. In order to prove my point I posted the Barrett-Jackson auction results. This I thought was a good indicator of the popularity of a historic Ford today and they were not "the worst Mustangs." Of course all of this is subjective personal opinion. It seems by your comment that you think the true measure of a good historic Mustang is how many were sold and how much profit was made on each car. By the numbers the then 4 year old 1974 Pinto sold over 544,000 units beating the new Mustang II so some would argue "it was the right car for the time" and one of the best Fords of the era.

[atomcat68]

Going back to the Fairmont... That was a really great car at the time. Remember that car was also the 80-82 Granada built at the same time as the Fairmont and as the 82-86 LTD. I was surprised at the time they let the name Fairmont die when it was replaced by the Tempo (Because the LTD became the Fairmont and Granada.) I think if Mullaly were around at the time, the LTD would have still been called Fairmont and the Taurus would have kept the Fairmont name when it came out.

 

When Ford was looking at a name for Fusion and was considering Futura, I was disappointed they didn't try Fairmont for that one as well.

[RaZor]

You clipped one sentence from my post and apparently missed the point I was trying to make.

The title of this topic is "Worst Ford's in HISTORY." And someone posted they thought the 1971-73 Mustangs were the worst in the model's history even the Mustang II was better (they said). I disagreed having owned a couple of them personally. In order to prove my point I posted the Barrett-Jackson auction results. This I thought was a good indicator of the popularity of a historic Ford today and they were not "the worst Mustangs." Of course all of this is subjective personal opinion. It seems by your comment that you think the true measure of a good historic Mustang is how many were sold and how much profit was made on each car. By the numbers the then 4 year old 1974 Pinto sold over 544,000 units beating the new Mustang II so some would argue "it was the right car for the time" and one of the best Fords of the era.

I agree. I bought a '71 Mach I (bright blue metallic w/silver Mach I striping) new, in '71, and it was a wonderful car.

(very much like this - http://classiccars.com/listings/view/621040/1971-ford-mustang-mach-1-for-sale-in-kissimmee-florida-34744 )

 

Problem was that I put on close 150k miles on it in around 3 years and it had a 351. I don't recall replacing a single part on it - just a lot of oil changes. . . and when the H.Kissinger oil embargo came about, then I had to trade it in for a '74 Capri 2800 (another great car) - 'cos I couldn't wait in line for an hour - for $10 worth of gas (which didn't get me very far).

 

Great car, but if there ever was a car that needed a rear view camera - it was it.

Edited January 26, 2015 by RaZor

[LincolnV]

Going back to the Fairmont... That was a really great car at the time. Remember that car was also the 80-82 Granada built at the same time as the Fairmont and as the 82-86 LTD. I was surprised at the time they let the name Fairmont die when it was replaced by the Tempo (Because the LTD became the Fairmont and Granada.) I think if Mullaly were around at the time, the LTD would have still been called Fairmont and the Taurus would have kept the Fairmont name when it came out.

 

When Ford was looking at a name for Fusion and was considering Futura, I was disappointed they didn't try Fairmont for that one as well.

 

We had a '78 and '80 Zephyr wagon. The '78 had the 302 and the '80 the inline six. I always thought they were really good cars. They had an incredible amount of room at the time.

 

The whole LTD name thing was a bit weird but the same situation existed on the Mercury side as well.

 

Remember when the Flex was the Fairlane concept? I was surprised it suddenly became the Flex. I liked the idea of Ford bringing back Fairlane as a name.

Edited January 26, 2015 by LincolnV

[F250]

You don't think Farrah Fawcett's Cobra II from Charlie's Angels would bring some money on the auction block?

 

I never said the '71-'73 Mustangs weren't desirable or good cars, just that I think they're ugly.

 

Of course Farrah didn't buy or own a Mustang II the one she drove on the show was a Ford product placement car like the other Fords. But you could be right if any Mustang II could bring some money it would be this one.