1992 Ford Escort XR3I 130PSI 1.8 16v

Summary:

Reliving my youth

Faults:

I bought this car on a a whim; saw it advertised on Autotrader at 2pm, travelled 120 miles, and 2 hours later I paid a deposit and drove her away a week later.

Noticed a few scabs on the paint work and minor scratches.

Car boot carpet missing.

Radio to be decoded.

General clean and tidying required.

Rust on the rear arch.

The previous owner had a dog, so the interior needed a good soak. Fortunately no rips.

General Comments:

The main reason for the purchase was to convert it to an Escort Cossie, as this was the correct year for an authentic replica.

Now I'm glad I didn't butcher this classic XR3i with tacky spoilers and wings.

The car body itself is something to shout about!! It's solid through out, although underneath it's showing little rust. I think a full respray will bring it back to her former glory.

The engine is sweet as a nut; DOHC, running smooth without hesitation.

I was very impressed with the power/economy on the motorway.

This is probably due to the lack of creature comforts and soundproofing, which weigh the car down.

These cars are becoming rare. I'm keeping her and hope to see the value appreciate as the mk 3 and mk 4.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 25th December, 2007

1992 Ford Escort LX 1.4

Summary:

Decent old motor, but stay away from the 1.4

Faults:

Blew a wheel cylinder whilst on the Mot ramp.

Heater control cable comes off in the foot well.

Driver's seat backrest quite flimsy and coming apart.

Rear chassis rails and floor pan had to be welded.

Top of fuel tank almost rusted through.

Automatic choke occasionally floods engine and has to manually held open by removing air filter.

Driver's electric window gets stuck near the top when being raised - has to be pushed away from seal.

Once randomly had no acceleration for ten minutes.

General Comments:

The interior is quite well thought out and comfy for such a cheap car. There is a fair bit of road noise, but the engine and transmission are quiet from the inside and it is surprisingly good for long motorway trips.

The engine itself is a nightmare; whilst it never completely breaks down it has a constant cycle of oil leaks, the tappets rattle, it runs lean high rpm and the acceleration is pathetic - it lost at the lights to a Peugeot 106 1.0 with four gears. The vacuum-operated power valve on the carb never actually kicks in properly so hills are a third-gear job; second if particularly steep. The gear ratios seem to be meant for a car with twice the power and the shift action is vague and saggy.

The rear wiper is temperamental and doesn't always work.

The handling is reasonable at most; decent front suspension is spoilt by a saggy gas-damped beam-axle at the back, which could really do with an anti-roll bar.

The manual steering is slow and gives no feedback, unlike the superior manual steering on the mk2 Golf I just bought, or indeed my old Riley Elf, which handled better on its rubber cones and actually has better torque from its forty year-old 1-litre engine!

The Escort has proven itself to be a car that always gets me where I'm going, as long as I'm in no rush and don't mind various small things going wrong.

Overall these cars are quite decent as long as they are undersealed before they rot, but do NOT go for the 1.4 engine as it is a horrible design.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 24th February, 2007

1992 Ford Escort freedom 1.4

Summary:

Driving timebomb

Faults:

Exhaust back box fell off 2 days after I bought the car.

86000 miles car started to loose power and stall needed replacement carburettor.

87712 miles fuse box began to smoulder when headlamps were on.

General Comments:

Never thought id find one in so good condition bodywork was immaculate.

Handled like a dream and was very good driving round town.

Didn't like the interior though looked cheap and tacky.

Scrapped the car when fusebox caught fire.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 19th November, 2004