Jack Telnack was a talented designer, penning such hits as the ’79 Mustang and ’86 Taurus, but this was not one of his finer efforts. Looking rather like an angry reptile, the 1982 Ford EXP had a bizarrely shaped exterior cloaking an interior seemingly stuck in the mid ’70s. The ’82 Cavelier and Omnirizon had more convincing buckets than those, and one can see shades of Granada in the dashboard. Of course, this is a very easy car to pick on but suffice it to say, the slogan, “Brand-new two-seat, movin’ to the upbeat,” was suitably corny.
“You’ll know the time.”
Because no one ever wears a watch.
You’re knocking it for having a clock as standard equipment? 😛
I think it’s funny how much verbiage was wasted touting the standard AM radio.
To me it sounds like they were running out of things to say to fill that ad.
“Comes with four tires – and they’re round!”
“You’ll know the sports scores on AM…”
Even in 1981, an AM radio was low tech. The young adults the car was aimed at were desired FM and tape decks. AM was for Farm Reports.
Terrible ad copy: “an open road… you get it in a Ford EXP.” The interior must be larger than it appears.
I recall the hate being dumped on this car not long ago here on CC. I like the EXP, and feel that looks-wise it was a near miss, not a horrible misstep. The main styling flaw was that the hood and cowl sat too high, probably as a result of sharing some of the Escort’s hard points. I’m not sure the CC site will permit me to upload this GIF, in which I dropped the hood/cowl and raked the body slightly. It looks a bit like a mini T-bird of the same era.
Hey, it works! On my computer, at least. Moving to the upbeat…
I know I’ll be the minority here, but I always liked this car on paper. I know nothing about the ownership experience.
The front struck me as a little odd at the time, but it was fairly common theme then. The Omnirizon coupes had a similar vibe to their fronts.
The rest of the car strikes me as a clean mini-me Mustang – the true successor to the Mustang II’s econo car roots. The year this came out was when Ford began dropping V-8s in Mustangs again, so this gave small / sporty / economy minded Ford buyers something to consider. At least this wasn’t the rather awful Probe that I never liked.
My guess is that Ford hoped for a reincarnation of the Mustang II’s initial popularity. I don’t know the figures, but I don’t believe they got their wish.
Was this a two seater only? That also doomed it to quite an extent.
I be your wingman. I like (and continue to like) the EXP. The seats are dropins from the escort of the same vintage. Ride wasn’t as good as the Mustang. But it wasn’t bad for the time. Don’t know the name of the company. But, someone did a convertible conversion of these that was rather tasteful. Indeed, I saw one in Houston and stalked it so that I could get a closer look. THAT’s something Ford should have considered.
In 1986, Ford restyled the front to feature flush-mounted headlights, and gave the EXP the drivetrain improvements bestowed on the Escorts. The Mercury LN7 had been discontinued, so the EXP was given that car’s “bubble” hatch. It wasn’t a bad-looking car by that point.
I also liked them, but I’ve never even sat in one.
I did, however, own an ’89 Probe GT. I loved almost everything about that car.
I suspect it being a two-seater was a last minute decision; Monogram released a 1/32 model kit of a 2+2 EXP (back seat looks identical to an Escort’s but would’ve had substantially less headroom).
Even so, that would have likely sold a lot better.
Oddly enough, my then 25 year old kid brother wanted a Mustang GT so badly, but insurance was crazy stupid (he earned it). So he got the ‘88.5 EXP. Major piece of shit. For less money he could have gotten the CRX; for more the Accord SEi.
He still hasn’t heard the end of it.
Insurance may have still been high on the Hondas, since they got stolen often.
The Eighties called – they want their cars back.
About that front end – I remember reading an article that initially the EXP was going to have hidden headlights – but it was deemed too expensive by Ford.
I was thinking that pop-up headlights would have helped.
When I saw the 46/29 mpg ratings, I assumed this was a Canadian ad. But according to Wikipedia, Car and Driver actually got 44 mpg on the highway in a March 1981 review with the basic 70 hp (!) motor.
The car had a curb weight of just a hair over 2000 lbs, which makes it about 250 lbs. lighter than a 2014 Fiat 500.
Plus EPA has recalibrated the fuel economy calculations since then, and in those days even C/D test drivers probably didn’t cruise at 70 mph on the freeway as so many of us do now. If your nerves can take it, try setting your cruise control at 55 mph for a long trip one time. You’ll be surprised how much your gas mileage improves.
The EPA test has undergone two downward adjustments since ’82. This would be rated somewhere in the low 30s highway on the 2008 revision. You’re right that one could probably get close to the original rated mpg at a steady 55 mph on level roads. My own car is rated at 27 highway on the new test and back when regular was flirting with $5 a gallon I was able to set the cruise at 55 and squeak out 36 mpg from a tank (calculated at fill-up, not using a trip computer). Speed up to 70 mph and that figure drops to 30-32. Do 80, and it’s actually pretty close to the rated 27 mpg.
Some one liked the 928’s wheels enough to make a copy….
Telephone dial for the digitally challenged.
“Actual highway mileage will be lower.”
No ‘may be’ or ‘might’ or ‘could’ in this ad – it WILL be lower
LN7 looked better
As James Brown might have put it; I don’t see this car moving on the one. Unh.
I once read where the names came from; EXP and LN7.
Anyone remenber?
The basic idea isn’t terrible — another company made a little sports car out of their economy car, and it became the Honda CRX, a great car by most estimations. But this one didn’t quite work. The styling is basically a smaller version of the Fox Mustang –again, not terrible, although the headlights make it appear froglike. But the underlying ingredients didn’t really have what it took to “move to the upbeat”.
On the other hand, compared to the recent-at-the-time Mustang II, Pinto Cruising Wagon etc., this was a big step ahead!
Another horrible bean-counter abomination from Ford of that era. They were so obsessed with doing it cheapo that they ended up with a nasty, low-appeal, unsuccessful product. An earlier echo of what they did with the mediocre Capri convertible later in the decade.
The Mopar Omni 024 was at least good looking. The CRX got the concept right.
I owned one, a 1982 in the same colors as the ad above. It wasn’t fast as it shared the mechanical bits with the Escort but it was fun to drive. I would definitely own another one 🙂
This is one of the cars that when I first saw it, I thought “Hmmm, a little different, but I think I like it.” Most of the time you get used to them but this one was always a little off. I liked it from some angles but not from others. I do know that I never test drove one when I was a single guy in the car market back then.
What I like about this car is the weird factor. Can you imagine Ford coming out with a 2-seat economy car today? Nobody pulls that kind of stuff anymore.
The Pontiac Fiero came out about the same time as Ford’s EXP (Deadly Sin CC here). Like EXP they took about five years to get the Fiero right and then killed it.
Both were conceived as two-seater “commuter cars” in response to gas prices. “Sporty” but not sports cars. This idea of an economical commuter car floated around Detroit for decades, finally EXP and Fiero made it real, and they both failed. It’s one of those things that seems like a good idea at first, until you think about it. The entire category (of two) is a Deadly Sin.
In fact the FWD sport coupes of the Eighties, Celica, Prelude, Integra, Probe, Eclipse, etc. were reasonably successful commuter cars. A small back seat for the kids that folded down for hatchback cargo made them far more useful in the real world, and I don’t think they paid much of any penalty in mileage. My ’87 Celica GT (like in the picture but better paint) was a fine commuter car for eleven years.
GM and Ford went for the two-seater commuter car, did Chrysler ever fall for it? I can’t think of an American-built MoPar example. One Deadly Sin that Chrysler failed to commit?
No Mopar gave us much better turbo toys back in the day. My favorite was the Shadow ES Turbo. 2 doors, hatchback, four seats, lotsa power from the turbo’d Trenton 2.2, 5 speed trans, big fat Goodyear Eagles. Good handlers and plenty entertaining for a commuter car…
Along the same lines as the Celica/Probe/etc., was the Daytona and all of it’s variants. With the Shelby versions capable of taking on much higher priced machinery, the lesser versions were nice commuters.
My personal favorite and the car I owned for 11 years and 160K+ miles, was the Lancer ES Turbo. 4 doors, hatchback, small mid sized car, with plenty of room for the car seats we used back in the 80’s-90’s, when my kids were infants. The car seats we have now could work in the Space Shuttle cockpit! No wonder why you need to have a Suburban to haul around 2 kids!
Im right there with ya, man. The ’84-’86 Daytona and Laser take the prize, styling wise. The original look of those cars really nailed it, even if the best performance came later on with the IROC R/T. The Shadow really had the perfect entry level car formula nailed down: 2 and 4 door bodystyles both with the ‘hidden hatch’ look. Lower end models for daily grinder duties but when blessed with the turbo treatment…WATCH OUT. Back in the day Mustang and Camaro/Firechicken fans absolutely HATED turbo Mopars! I was friends with a few 5.0 fanboys and saw the carnage firsthand.
Instead of a 2-seat commuter “car”, Chrysler turned one of their FWD cars into a small pickup truck, the Dodge Rampage.
Nice point. Much more useful, still small and efficient for the daily grind. 21/29 mpg EPA at the time. Handsome too. (CC Outtake here)
Too bad it didn’t sell any more than EXP or Fiero, but it makes more sense. Score a nice clean single for Mopar where Ford and GM struck out.
yet another oddball that I really, REALLY like. As it was sold, it was a very different product from the standard minitrucks of the era. Too bad it got outshined by the Subaru Brat’s 4wd. What I see in the Rampage and Scamp is what they CAN be. These are known to be the recipient of turbo 2.2 power. Supposedly, there were tentative plans to basically do with these what was already being done with the Shelby Chargers. That’s a total ‘I wish they woulda’.
I wanted to love these cars when they came out. Not really ecstatic about the looks, but frankly they didn’t look any worse than the contemporary L-body 024’s and TC3’s of the times.
I looked at one of these briefly (actually the Mercury LN7 version) before I bought my 1980 Mercury Capri RS Turbo; but the Capri won out. It could actually get out of it’s own way, while the LN7 was painfully slow. I’d often thought that Ford could have at least offered a version with some sort of forced induction, but it never materialized, at least not before they euthanized the Mercury version. It would have been a good selling point for the LN7.
Conceptually, there was a lot to like about these cars, but the execution let it down. I liked the hatch back room, the cozy feel of the cockpit, even the somewhat squirrel-ly handling. But no power. The one I drove detonated excessively while going up even mild hills.The interior was early 80’s Ford cheap, there was no sport seat option and the back seat was an expensive option. Not that I would have bought it.
The change was happening, I slowly was losing my interest in Fords.
This was another one of those Ford cars with the malproportioned rear quarter windows. Did this keep happening because the designers did not know what they were doing or was it intentional? The Fox Mustang Fastback had it and so did the Mark VI 2-door.
What an awful little car and it sure is ugly.
I never understood the point of this car. They basically just made a two-seater out of an Escort. If it were, at least, rear-drive and had better performance (more than the later available turbo) I could somewhat see it making do with only two seats. Couldn’t Ford have tried to make a 2+2?
I want to like this car a lot more. The bodystyle isn’t bad at all…sporty and it LOOKS quick and fun…it just doesn’t deliver where it counts. The front clip reminds me of the Shelby Chargers, with the square frogeyes. A turbo would’ve made for a fun little rocket…