… make an offer!
I had a '91 hatchback. It was awesome. Great on gas. Easy to work on. Readily available and inexpensive parts. But it rarely needed any work.
The only trick with those was the Ford SPI valve seat insert problem, though that didn’t get mine. I never got the full story, but my niece ended up with it and the manual trans locked up or something like that. It eventually did go to scrap. It had something like 250K on it.
No airbags, no structure, no ABS, no power, No Thanks!
3 Likes
1 Like
But, it doesn’t have power windows, A/C, or key fobs, all of which are the bane of mankind… according to some people. Aren’t those omissions a huge advantage?
1 Like
No power windows? Again, no thanks! 
3 Likes
I always thought just being an Escort was enough of a bane! But what do I know?
3 Likes
The GT hatchback version that year was pretty good, DOHC/16 valve, lots of Mazda influence.
For its time, yes, but if you check the EPA’s rating for that car’s fuel economy, it includes the following verbiage: You SPEND $1,000 more in fuel costs over 5 years compared to the average new vehicle.
And, it should go without saying that the modern cars that easily beat it in fuel economy would also leave the Escort in the dust if they decided to do a drag race.
Fuel cost is $200 more per year compared to the average new vehicle.
The average new vehicle in 2024 costs $48,000.
People take pity on me because I drive old economy cars, what they don’t know…
But there are some really nice new vehicles for a lot less than that .
It was a 5 speed and I got upper thirties to 40 out of it. Leaving aside hybrids, that compares favorably with today’s ICEs. (And it DID have A/C, though I never spent any time trying to figure it’s effect on MPGs).
And I paid about $10K for it as a demo with about 10K on the clock. I did fine even by today’s standards.
Edit that: I remembered it as a “$10K” car - but that was new off the floor. I think I got it for like $6.5-7K. IDK. It was over 30 years ago. I was on my way to grad school and needed a cheap econobox. It served it’s purpose well.
I think Ford’s adverts from the early 90’s went something like : Ford’s new technology means their cars will accommodate the driver. Ford believes the driver shouldn’t have to make accommodations for the car.
No structure? What are you referring to?
Cars from the 90s don’t have much structural rigidity. Like an aluminim beer can compared to a steel soup can.
I’d rather drive a 2020 Corolla than that 90s Escort. I’d survive an accident in far better shape.
The structure makes it ride better, too.
2 Likes
We looked at these when they first came out but ended up with a 90 Mazda Protoge which shares the same platform. Could have had the same engine as the 91+ Escort GT but could only swiing the base SE trim with a 1.8 Sohc. Had about double the power of our previous Diesel Rabbit but could still get up to 40mpg on long freeway trips. That car was a lot of fun to drive even on 13in wheels and only brakes and robo belts for safety features. Back when you had to pay extra for a radio or go dealer installed on compact cars.
Well, you’ve given me something to drool over. Unfortunately, this is more of a museum piece than a vehicle for transportation, and it’s priced accordingly. For at least $12k, plus Bring a Trailer’s commission, plus the cost to actually ship this thing home, plus the cost of new tires, etc, we’re talking almost $20k. As much as I’d like a classic Ford Escort, especially one that’s in excellent condition, this is just too far out of my wallet’s range.
Not only that, but once you start using this for its intended purpose, it rapidly depreciates to under $3k. Therefore, a well-used, but still-running example of this car, which could be had for $3k or less is by far the better value. It would come with serviceable tires, the belts and hoses would have presumably been changed, and it won’t depreciate like a rock when you drive it.
Even if the well-used one ends up needing expensive repairs, such as a costly transmission rebuild, you’re still way ahead to fix it, rather than buy this museum piece.
2 Likes
Jalopnik, compared to Curbside Classic, etc, seems geared toward readers want to “flip through the pictures”.
It’s laden down with pop-op ads, some embedded videos, and the “search” function yields irrelevant results.
Basically, an automotive website for the m’asses…
Yes, Jalopnik has a woefully inadequate coverage of tire pressure issues. Even so, I check it daily, good site for automotive news. No worse ‘yield’ of worthwhile info than most sites.
2 Likes
You beat me to it!
2 Likes