(first posted 9/15/2013) The original 1960 Corvair Monza coupe introduced and pioneered a European-inspired category to the US: the sporty compact coupe. The formula: a new roof line, maybe some other body changes like the Monza’s enlarged rear wheel openings, bucket seats and tasty interior trimmings, upgraded engine performance. Most of all, it had to have style, at least more than the donor sedan it sprang from, otherwise it defeated the whole purpose. The formula has been applied endlessly, to greater and lesser effect. But sometimes it’s just abused; probably never more horribly so than with Fords EXP and its stablemate, the Mercury LN7. They actually ended up looking much worse than their donor, the Escort. What a feat!
This particular 1985 EXP is a bit of a one-year wonder, as it sports the bubbleback borrowed from its Mercury LN7 stablemate, but still has the goofy original front end that was revised and smoothed-over in for 1986.
Here’s how it looked in its initial form. Whatever happened to the old technique of throwing a bunch of sandbags in cars being shot for PR photos. This poor little thing looks like its waiting for a flood. Bubble-back or not, this car is just plain ugly as sin. Where to begin? The front end isn’t worth wasting words on. Moving on. The real problem is the same issue that bedevils so many cars of this genre: too high of a cowl line. Obviously, Ford wasn’t going to spring for a whole new inner body structure, and the tendency for small FWD cars was already moving towards being taller rather than shorter, for packaging reasons.
Obviously, the one major exception to that was Honda, which made a trademark of low cowl lines that adapted themselves perfectly to its sporty coupe, the CRX. That little gem made life miserable for everyone else in this category, but none more so than the EXP.
Ford undoubtedly had good intentions for the EXP, trying to get away from the bloated excess of their notoriously overwrought and overweight 1970s cars. And the timing was spot on, with the EXP arriving just at the height of the early eighties “small is good” era. It was also a bit of a trailblazer, arriving two years ahead of the CRX. Ford wanted a small sporty car that could get by with only two seats for obviously childless households. And Ford had gone down that road once before, with the original 1955-1957 Thunderbird.
From wiki: “Comparing the EXP to the original Thunderbird, Ford Division General Manager Louis E. Latalf said: “We’re introducing another two-seater with the same flair, but the EXP will be a very affordable, very fuel efficient car matched to the lifestyles of the eighties.” Anyone who would be willing to compare the EXP to the low and stylish T-Bird was obviously deranged or a career salesperson. And given that the T-Bird quickly morphed into a four seater, it’s all the more odd. But then the EXP just was odd.
Even though it was of course based on the world car Escort, which was very successful in Europe, there was no suggestion of the Europeans showing the slightest interest in the EXP. It would have bombed equally from its ugliness and the lack of a back seat; the whole European coupe concept based on a sedan inevitably left a back seat, at least of some sort. And it had to look more stylish than its donor.
Two seaters need to either be genuinely sporty (CRX), or at least look that way (Fiero). The EXP was neither. In fact, it was less sporty than its Escort donor, due to gaining 200 lbs in the transformation. And that’s without a rear seat. How did they manage that? All that rear glass?
Given the asthmatic little 70hp 1.6 CVH four that powered the initial version, it was anything but zippy. An 80hp version was soon thrown at the problem without solving it. Eventually, an EXP Turbo Coupe, emulating its big brother, came along in 1984, with 120 hp. Good luck finding one of those now!
We’re going to plumb the depths of the early Escort’s dynamic qualities when it appears here before long. But let’s just say that it was not sporty. Later versions started to get there, but what was sold here in 1981-1984 had little similarity to what the Europeans were getting. It’s as if they forgot to install the shocks or something critical like that. And the 1.6 CVH was a whiny little brat, endlessly complaining about its lot in life. Almost a perfect polar opposite to a Honda engine of the times. A turbo 1.6 was briefly available, but didn’t find any traction in the market.
It’s fair to say that the EXP’s pathetic sales performance was as much because of its questionable styling and packaging, as well as the blistering competition from Japan. Who would possibly have wanted to spend the extra bucks for an EXP when a Civic hatchback did it all so much better, and hadn’t been beaten with the proverbial ugly stick?
I don’t find this car ugly at all,underpowered? yes, cool yes, would i like to have one….absolutely!!!
The original Corvairs had all the ‘styling’ of a cereal bowl. The ‘economy car look’ as idealized by Ramblers… as they were economy cars competing with VW Beetles…
Yeah, the original Escorts and their descendants weren’t ugly and their 70 net HP looked better than the 57 netHP of my MG Midget… but they did have ‘ugly’ engineering… the front wheels were held on by the suspension leaf springs… like early Minis… and since leaf springs have often broken on me, that’s a non starter to lose a front wheel while driving… also, the timing belt drove the water pump… the early water pumps seized at about 25K miles snapping the timing belt… which meant the cam stopped spinning… while the crankshaft spun a few more times… in an early ‘crash’ interference engine… causing rather severe/expensive labor intensive engine damage… in an ‘economy’ car?
I never cared for the first version of the EXP, but I’ve always liked the facelifted and improved 1985 1/2-88 version. Not a perfect car, but one I wouldn’t have minded owning. This was the EXP that Ford should have introduced in the first place.
At least they didn’t put retractable headlights (that never would of worked properly of course) on it. I think I drove one of these at a dealership but really wanted an Exscort GT. I ended up in a used VW Scirocco and was never sad about that car decision.
Me too…in 1981 I bought a ’78 Scirocco which is still my favorite of the cars I’ve owned.
Actually, these came out after I had bought the Scirocco, but I remember being at a Mercury dealership with my new brother-in-law and sister (who bought a Capri, but I looked at the Lynx. The Scirocco was small but this was too small for my only car (2 seater) so I’m sure I didn’t miss anything. My friend at the time traded his ’74 Audi Fox for a new Ford Escort stripper, so I got to ride in this platform. I later lent him my Scirocco for 2 months while I was away at “summer” graduate school (a special program the company I worked with had) since I didn’t need a car (they flew us to the school and we had use of school van on weekends).
I had a 1985 Exp. I liked it for what it was; a fun little version of the Escort. No it wasn’t fast but neither were many desirable cars like an MG or miata. Mine started out black then I had it painted silver with blue pinstripe. Had a 5 speed and your usual Escort engine. It wasn’t fast but handled better than an Escort since it was lighter and more aerodynamic. In the end, one dark night on the way home from a bar, my friend puked on the inside of the windshield and dash and chunks must remain in the defrost vents still. You didn’t notice the smell all the time. I sold it and didn’t say anything about that. Yeah I know but now that’s the dirty little untold secret of a used car that probably has been recycled into a Chinese skyscraper by now.
Going from a candy apple red 1976 VW Rabbit to the 1985 EXP (silver) at the age of 18 in 1990 was amazing. It looked cool to me, and with only 2 seats, I didn’t have to drive around a carload of people all the time. No, it was not a great car, but it was great on gas, could haul a lot and sure rode well. It could barely go up hills on much of any incline, yet when it was on a nice flat stretch, if flew.
That car served its purpose well for me at the time, and when it just wouldn’t go reliably enough anymore, it was offered up for a trade in ‘95. I’m sure they scrapped it, but I loved that car and the memories that came with it.
It was replaced by a ‘93 Jeep Wrangler that was terrible on gas, rode hard and couldn’t haul much of anything.
I rented one of the first ones.
Dog slow.
Sounded cool.
Cruising at 75 some lads in a Camaro kept getting a better look.
They didn’t know it was maxxed out
It did ride smooth like a little Buick.
I did like it
If you squint really hard the EXP almost, sort-of, looks like a Mustang, but a real Mustang was within range of anyone who could afford an EXP, and it had a back seat. The EXP was the worst of several low-priced sedan-based coupes of its era, cars that tried to look sporty but kept too much sheetmetal and understructure from the 2-door sedan to pull off the look, with the squinty windows and high cowl being the most obvious giveaway. Other examples were the first Pulsar NX (based on the Pulsar hatchback) and the Toyota Paseo (based on the Tercel 2-door) – both with a similar chopped look as the EXP. It’s worth noting the Fox-body Mustang shares its cowl height and design with the taller Fairmont, but that was baked into the Fox platform from the start, with the designers being sure the cowl height and dashboard would work for both cars. Unlike the EXP, Pulsar NX, or Paseo, the Mustang’s beltline drops a few inches from the cowl compared to the Fairmont.
I recall the EXP was available with a back seat in some regions; even the US models will accept a back seat and seatbelts from a donor Escort.
At least Chevrolet didn’t claim the Chevette Scooter had the “same flair” as the Corvette… see, only two seats, just like the original!
Paul do all of your contributions have to contain the word “sin” in the title? lol
Given that I’ve contributed 7,167 posts and 31 of them had the word “sin” in the title, I think the answer is rather self-evident. If that’s not self-evident enough, that comes to 0.4% of my posts with the word “sin” in them.
BTW, this post was written in 2013. I’ve not used the word “sin” in a title since 2021.
Any other questions? lol.
Of all the posts you’ve contributed, most of the ones that pop up in my CC e-mails contain sin in the title.
First impressions, I guess!
Actually the sin articles are some of the most interesting reads. I love other opinions as to what caused a company/model to fail.
In terms of styling, it had virtually nothing in common with other Ford products, at the time. A genuine automotive misfit. The three-door Escort looked obviously more European, and more sporty IMO. Besides, being more practical. And it had zero in common with the aero Fords. I thought the frog–eye headlight treatment looked bad, the moment i saw it.
I always applaud when automakers take risks, with unique designs. But this one appeared destined to fail. Especially as its performance, was so underwhelming. The Charger 2.2 may have appeared dated, but performance-wise, it shamed this Ford.
Our first new car was an 86 4 cylinder Mustang with an automatic. But, next to the rows of Mustangs were maybe a dozen of these. That salesman was trying so hard to sway us off the Mustang and into an EXP.
The first issue was that several were manual transmission types and Cindy couldn’t drive a stick.
Secondly, the few automatics they offered were stripped down versions. The Mustang however was loaded. Ford needed to sell small engined cars to meet CAFE goals and the Mustangs including air, power windows and locks, and a host of other nice things.
I’m glad I never owned an EXP
I prefer the earlier, dual rectangular version to the later flush headlight one. To me, the latter lost its unique appearance and it was just another small car.
Further, I’d definitely go for an LN7 or the 1985 EXP with the one-year-only rear bubble glass hatch. It really improves the overall appearance.
And I thought I was the only one who thought it looked like it had been beaten with an ugly stick. It was kind of goofy looking, like, what??? I didn’t even realize they were as slow as they were.
The era was not a good one for domestic cars in the US, I’m sure they had their pressures, but I wonder if a little investment in such things as FI instead of carbs and miles of vacuum lines might not have paid dividends in performance, reliability and sales. Of course now it’s even worse, but forethought such as that might have impacted a couple of quarterly earnings statements, even if reaping benefits longer term.
Of interesting note with these was that media preview drives of the EXP/LN7 twins in early ‘81 show and make mention of an optional rear ‘utility’ seat, some making specific note that it was useless for anyone over five foot. Something along the way interfered, however, as the introductory brochures don’t list the feature being available whatsoever:
At a guess, someone belatedly realized it would be a pain to make the utility seat compliant with federal seat belt standards, which apply to any designated seating position. The Honda CRX offered a similar “1-mile” auxiliary seat in Japan, but I don’t think it showed up in any of the official exports.
I recall some first-gen Mazda RX-7s offered a similar utility seat in some markets. The US got it in the second generation.
I also recall reading the EXP in some markets had a small rear seat. A standard Escort rear seat and seat belts bolt right into the EXP which has the same floorpan, but there won’t be adequate headroom even for most kids.
Ugly, no, not at all. It has hints of the Mustang/Capri of the era, particularly with the bubble back hatch glass in the Mercury version. The biggest problem was the lack of power, followed by the poor suspension tuning, both of which were fixed to varying degrees before the model run ended. It would have looked better, though, with hideaway headlights, instead of those odd triangular cutouts where the headlight buckets met the front fenders, and any sporting pretensions were largely erased by the FWD architecture. If Ford had seen fit to turn the engine cradle around and put the engine behind the seats, with either a targa roof or a droptop, we would have had an American X1/9, with more room and more power for a relatively low cost! Whee!
I didn’t know interior trimmings could be “tasty”. I thought that term was reserved for food, but I digress. For a website which I thought was meant to showcase older vehicles, even while admitting shortcomings of those vehicles, there are a large number of articles that are nothing than harsh critiques. Maybe I misunderstand the point of this site.
It would be really interesting to truly understand why Ford brought the EXP/LN7 to market. I was a little kinder when I wrote about the EXP back in 2020:
https://eightiescars.com/2020/10/20/1982-ford-exp-hatchback-coupe/
In ’88 my brother was ready for his first new car and we both salivated over Mustang GTs. Alas, young men in their 20s with spotty driving records don’t get reasonable insurance quotes, so instead of a beloved Mustang he settled for the facelifted GT version of the EXP. It was ok for what it was and lasted him 6-7 years. But it was no Mustang.
It just needs pop up headlights and a bit less overhang, for me it’s not too far off. Push the front wheels forward a few inches and lower the suspension, but avoid the two tone white and black combination with the XR3 style wheels they make it look somewhere between worse and comical.
Aaron, I recall reading about the plans for a jump seat. But when the car launched with no seat, just the towel bar at the front of the cargo floor I asked a Ford engineer neighbor what happened.
He said the idea of the rear seat was cancelled when a tall guy who got in the back seat of a prototype with an open hatch was injured when somebody inadvertently slammed the hatch and “brained” him.
Ps Even though I thought the headlamp doors looked like the 1950’s, I always liked these cars for what they were. (But I wouldn’t have traded my 1990 Fiesta for one because the fiesta was quicker, faster, and had better driving dynamics. (Btw Fiestas were used as mules for the US Escort development program. Also, there were only about a dozen common parts between the US and Eu Escorts.)