The transverse FWD layout was taking over passenger cars by the 1980s. By then, the format’s advantages for passenger vehicles were hard to deny, particularly in compacts. A market that had grown in the US after the difficult 1970s, with most carmakers joining the segment. In February of 1981, R&T was ready to test some newcomers to the FWD compact world; the 1st. gen. Ford Escort and the 2nd gen. Mazda GLC. They would face two established players; the VW Rabbit and the Honda Accord.
The two veterans were favorites of R&T, with the Rabbit being considered a benchmark for the segment. As known, the Rabbit (i.e. Golf) appeared stateside in late 1974 and marked a major shift in VW’s history. From air-cooled rear-mounted RWD provider, to transverse FWD convert. Nicely received by pundits and buyers, the Rabbit had been a trendsetter (notwithstanding its early reliability issues). Meanwhile, when the Accord appeared in ’76 it also proved to be another FWD wonder in the US market. Well sorted and nicely appointed, it offered a nice counterpart to other compacts of the period.
But with both models entering their senior years (a new Accord was to debut in ’81, while the Rabbit MK1 would hang on stateside until ’85), the ’81 Escort and GLC had had enough time to present themselves as viable alternatives. They could even overcome expectations.
So, had they done their homework?
As usual, R&T’s comparison would assess performance numbers and subjective areas like roominess and styling. The cars in the comparison were 4-door models (except the Escort), mid-trim level, and closely matched in dimensions, with wheelbases all within 1.4 in. of each other. They all carried 4-cylinder SOHC engines that ranged from 1490cc on the GLC to 1751cc on the Accord, and all had independent suspensions at front and rear, rack and pinion steering, and the usual disc/drum brake combination. Last, the Accord and Mazda came with standard 5-speed gearboxes, while the Rabbit and Escort did with 4-speeds.
So, how did they all fare?
Ford Escort
Despite being an entirely new model the Escort earned the lowest scores and did poorly in performance and personal preferences. “A pity, because the car has some real virtues, among them roominess, quietness and comfort.” Ultimately, what the Escort lacked was refinement in key areas.
In the engine and gearbox departments, the Escort had a “relatively quiet performance and adequate power in the mid-rpm range, but below 3000 rpm there’s little pulling power, and above 4000 things get noisy and raspy with little payoff. The gearbox linkage is notchy and long-throwed to the point that it’s not one you enjoy.” Pedal location and height were other areas of critique.
In ride and handling the car’s power-steering had “too much boost and there’s a bounding motion of the front that contrasts sharply with the… rear suspension. Things get more than a little twitchy when the road is not straight and less than smooth.”
On the positive, the car had a competitive 25.0 mpg. Meanwhile, its interior was the roomiest and its seats comfortable. Fit and finish were considered decent, with some general complaints.
Placing: 4th overall.
Honda Accord
Despite its many years in the market, the Accord was an overachiever. The car earned great marks in just about all areas: “Refinement and delicacy typify the Accord.”
Praise was placed on the Accord’s engine, which was “smooth and responsive… free-revving up to around 5000 rpm and marred only by an occasional cold-start stumble.” The car’s gearbox and linkage were considered the best of the lot, with ratios well matched to the engine’s power curve.
Driving position, controls and instrumentation were the best of the group, with seats that provided excellent support. Furthermore, the car’s body and structure felt solid and provided a quiet ride.
In the handling department, the Accord “leaned somewhat toward the floaty end of the spectrum…” displaying more understeer than the GLC. Yet, “when pushed hard, the Accord displayed agility and very good balance…”
Some negative comments came in regard to the sedan’s packaging, with the rear seat area not being that spacious. There were also minor quibbles about the car’s styling, which was looking a bit dated by ’81 (as mentioned, a new Accord would soon debut).
Still, the car came as the best of the group in many areas. Finally, a recommendation: “If Detroit is interested in quality, this is the car they should study in evaluating their new designs.”
Placing: 2nd overall.
Mazda GLC
R&T was quite impressed with Mazda’s new ’81 GLC, with the car doing a great job all around. “Two often contradictory characteristics –practical roominess and all-around driving fun– sum up the GLC’s strong points.” The car’s main shortcoming was a lack of quietness and a somewhat less refined nature. Weaknesses that were not considered serious and could be almost forgiven once the car’s low entry cost was considered.
In general, R&T felt the GLC’s drivetrain could use some refinement. The car’s powerplant was responsive but sounded strained as revs increased above 4500 rpm, and while increased power was available in that range it didn’t feel as free-revving as the Rabbit’s or Accord’s. Meanwhile, while its gearbox shared some design elements with the Escort, the “GLC’s encourages use a great deal more.”
Under driving, the GLC was “nimble and could be tossed around quite delightfully,” providing ride and handling that was good and entertaining. However, interior noise was noticeable and tire noise intrusive.
Against the competitors, the GLC’s interior felt fairly plain, though instruments and ergonomics were nicely placed. Finally, the car’s practical hatchback body and clean exterior styling earned good scorings.
Placing: 1st overall.
Volkswagen Rabbit
With the Rabbit being a favorite with enthusiast publications, the aging design still faired quite well in testing. Not that it was the same car that had arrived stateside back in ’74, since the ’81 Rabbit was US-assembled and had been updated to suit American tastes.
Indeed, it was a Westmoreland Rabbit, with trim and suspension updates á la Oldsmobile. That aside, the car’s strong suit was its engine and air conditioning. Also, the Rabbit was the only car with fuel injection, a setup that gave the “engine a responsiveness and driveability that are positively exemplary.” And despite its age, the Rabbit was the quickest of the group.
Testers felt handling had suffered in the Rabbit’s American conversion, gaining more understeer and roll. The steering was also only “so-so,” and was “heavy and slow compared to that of the top-rated GLC.” Yet, the Rabbit was considered the most benign handler of the four.
Regarding fit and finish, the Rabbit’s quality wasn’t on par with the Accord, but close to the GLC. Seats were also found to be lacking in grip and support.
Understandably, after years in the market, the Rabbit was no longer the segment’s benchmark. Competitors had caught up with its space-efficient body and the FWD format had become standard. Yet, despite placing third overall, one can sense reviewers still had much love for the model.
Placing: 3rd overall.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1981 Mazda GLC/323 Truly The Greatest Little Car Of Its Time?
Curbside Classic: 1976 Honda Accord – Modern Architecture
Curbside Classic: 1975 VW Golf Mk1/Rabbit – The Most Influential Modern Global Car
Curbside Classic: 1981 Ford Escort – You Never Get A Second Chance To Make A Good Impression
With the 2.2 litre engine, the Plymouth Horizon and Dodge Omni still represented the best domestic subcompact value. Offering the best combination of performance, comfort, and handling. Including, being compared to the soon to arrive Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac J2000. Which like the Escort, were underpowered, upon their release.
I suspect the 2.2 liter L-bodies were excluded from the test because they were not the sort of cars that Road & Track celebrated, and they would have been hard to dismiss off hand when everyone could see that they were almost a couple seconds quicker to 60 mph without a fuel economy penalty while being bigger and more comfortable than their competition. The Accord was much better built, but also much more expensive. The Rabbit returned a couple more miles per gallon, but it was also more cramped and expensive. The GLC still probably would have come out on top, but the Omni and Horizon offered more room and performance for about the same money.
All of these cars feature in my high school memories, as close friends drove them. It is funny to think how old a four-year-old car used to be, since we’re just emerging from a period when most cars had 15-year life expectancies.
My recollection is that Escorts and Lynxes generally looked better from the outside than they drove as they squeaked, sputtered and steamed down the road. Pennsylvania Rabbits had water leaks to go with their blown heater cores, making every ride something to be endured. Accords were annoyingly competent, since I was still stinging from many bad Honda two-wheeled adventures. Mazda GLCs were very good for around 150,000 miles, at which point the transmission might blow up and spit deadly chunks of metal into the ground before your mechanic tells you that they could have come through the firewall and fragged you. Or your friend might take his Mazda to the wrong mechanic who ‘does some preventative maintenance’ that causes it to barely run and then need a new engine, also around 150,000 miles.
As for my family’s Horizon? My mother still remembers it fondly. It was driven by her, then me, then my sister, before being sold needing a water pump and serious brake work. It had the VW-Audi engine, so it needed a quart of oil at almost every fuel stop from new. It could cover ground on twisting country roads at speeds few cars of the day could match, including cars sold by Chrysler to law enforcement. It also rattled more than any other car we ever owned. When we sold it for $575 to a neighbor’s kid, it was eight years old and had about 70,000 miles. It was also worn out past the point that anyone who had options would have wanted to keep driving it, although the paint aged well.
George L. Johnson of Fort Wayne: “I want my magazine back”.
His son says, “It’s okay, Dad.”
I was a junior in college when this article was written, and I was a huge VW fan. 4 months later I purchased a brand new 1980 Scirocco and the dichotomy between the US produced Rabbit and the German Scirocco could not have been starker. My 1980 had the smaller 1588 fuel injected engine with the 4 speed but its 4th gear was not an overdrive like the tested Rabbit. The interiors of the American Rabbit were horrible. The Scirocco interior had been around since 1975 yet it looked so much better with better materials and design. Moving to the exterior, the superfluous chrome, tacky wheel covers and over all details were far worse than the original Rabbit. It was sad to have seen VW to have fallen so far
My 1977 Scirocco was wonderful to drive, but I’m not sure the materials were so great. Many interior plastic parts would break if you just looked at them wrong. Three years old when I bought it, and the most troublesome car I’ve owned in almost 50 years.
Me too….I bought a used ’78 Scirocco in 1981. My Dad had a ’59 Beetle and drove early 50’s ones while stationed in the Army in Germany, but I’d had no aircooled car myself, but I was sold on the watercooled which I’ve continued to this day (having owned no other car than VW since 1981). I won’t claim they’ve been trouble free, but to me they’re worth the bother, once you get them fixed they seem to be pretty durable (going on 24 years with my current Golf)
Still would like to have the selection from 1981 today, as I may trade my Golf just to get automatic which is more practical since others can also drive my car on occaision. I’ve no experience with the other cars except for the Escort, my sister had one many years ago. But Accord went sedan 35 years ago, the only remaining choice seems to be the Mazda 3 (they still sell the GTi, but I’ve owned one of those too but am now a bit old for that choice now….no longer looking for great handling at expense of ride, and don’t want huge diameter wheels. But I’m glad that at least in the past I had that choice.
Quite a fair and interesting test. Never drove a GLC but I did get a chance with the others, the Rabbit and Honda were nice drivers and the Escort was miserable.
Honda won the test, but here in the salt belt they exploded with rust and were extinct in 10 years, much more likely to see a Rabbit or Escort by that point.
When the US market Ford Escort came out I was very excited. At the time I was driving a Mk1 Ford Fiesta and the Escort seemed to have it all: European heritage (and a name that was legendary due to the rally and racing success of the RWD Escorts), slightly bigger and roomier than the Fiesta, and OHC engine, and American-made. I test drove one, and boy was I disappointed. Of these cars, I’ve never driven a GLC though a much newer (maybe 2014?) Mazda 3 rental was amazingly nice. Automatic and all.
I & my friends were not wealthy in these years, being we were young & yet to find solid footing & in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. One of us bought a used Escort equipped like this one. It was the best car any of us owned & became the conveyance of choice on a trip to the Colorado Rockies from the Midwest. All that seemed to be needed was to scrape the “Mary Kay” sticker out of the rear window. Thankfully, it was a masculine blue color & not pink.
The roominess was greatly appreciated for the three of us with our three sets of camping gear. The engine & transmission & handling, not so much. We learned to gather speed on the downhill portions in the rolling hills of Kansas, so we could make it on the uphills without downshifting the 4 speed. When we hit the real upgrades, the inability of the engine & gears to reasonably handle it was quite a downer. Absolutely no-can-do in 4th, and a horrible racket for any reasonable velocity in 3rd. Handling wasn’t a lot worse than the broken-down crapboxes we were used to, but it sure wasn’t better.
Even though it was only just over one year old, the parking brake got stuck on & we had to unstick it & refrain from using it. Otherwise, it completed the multi-thousand mile trip without problem.
I’ve driven all four and I think it is crazy that they included the Accord, and not the Civic which was more in line with the other cars. Of course it turned out to be the better car, it is more car for more money. That was nuts.
The Rabbit did well considering how old the design was. Too bad on reliability, because they were very good cars otherwise.
The GLC should have come out on top. Of the four cars I had driven, it represented the best value of the four. It was handsome, roomy, quick and very affordable.
The Escort showed up and that’s not bad considering that it was a first for Ford USA. My experiences with the 1982 I drove was that it repeatedly exceeded expectations on every level. It was a better car that at first sight.
A better comparison would have been the Civic, Rabbit, Escort, Omnirizon, and GLC.
So overall, I think the article is weak. Interesting and fun to read, but not a good comparison.
I rented an ’81 Escort for a week in the Rockies, and the combination of of the huge gaps in the transmission ratios (essentially 3 gears plus OD) and the poor handling took all the fun out of driving it. A very poor first showing, although it did of course get better as time went on.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1981-1990-ford-escort-you-never-get-a-second-chance-to-make-a-good-first-impression/
The Accord was so in-demand in 1980 I had to buy mine at a dealer 80 miles away from Minneapolis. No discounting, either. I think I paid $5200 at the time. I was immediately struck be the “jewel like” quality. The car never disappointed, even chaining up and driving in heavy snow through the Sierra Nevada. (If the Donners only had an Accord…) I drove that car across the country four times. With the 5 speed it was a pleasure. You could pay twice as much for a BMW 320i at the time…but why?
I just noticed the ad copy for the Escort’s engine, “You get high mileage combined with power for freeway cruising”. Is it just me or is that pretty misleading? You don’t really need that much power to maintain a cruise at speed. I’d be convinced if it read “….for freeway passing”.
Ford wasn’t really into refinement when it came to their initial offerings of small compact cars whether Pinto or Escort. Personally I don’t think they cared, and the powers that be, simply said come up with something to sell to those penny pinchers.
The presence of the Accord surprises me as the Civic is the correct match for the GLC. Now I drove an 80 Civic wagon 5 speed for five years but not a GLC back then. They couldn’t put the Accord up against the 626 since the 626 was still RWD till 1983.
Remember this ‘mag”! Do not remember the “Escort SS” in that time frame. Late “80’s” I recall a ‘sported up” version.
Supposedly, the SS designation didn’t go over well with Chevrolet causing Ford to rename the sporty Escort the GT after its first year. 1981 was also the only year the SS/GT trim was available on the wagon; subsequently it was only available on the 2-door hatchback. Note that that the only four-door Escort in 1981 was the wagon; the four-door hatchback arrived the next year. R&T tested a 2-door Escort for this comparison. I recall the GLC 4-door hatch also disappeared after its first year in 1981, replaced with a 4 door sedan in the US (Canadians could continue to choose a GLC 4-door hatch, and then a 323 4-door hatch that was never sold stateside).
The 1981 Rabbit Westmoreland was a big improvement over the ’79/’80 versions, they were not comparable at all in quality to the German built versions. One only had to compare the ’79 gas version (first year US) to the still German ’79 Diesel version to see the vast difference in quality and especially interior materials and fit and finish, right down to paint and body assembly fit and finish, it was not a pretty picture.
’81/’84 were much better, but still were not up to the quality of the German built convertible or Jetta, especially in interior materials. And the softer suspension tuning did the handling no favors.
The fact that the Accord was placed top position even in the last year of its production run proves, how advanced this car really was when it was launched half a decade before.
Too bad that they were so evil rusters.