FEOA Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Can any one help me with the amount of Escorts made in the US and Mexico during the 2nd gen? If possible can you also help me out with the break down on model numbers or simply tell me where I can get this information? Any help would be sweet thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
Way more LX's than GT's. that's for sure. lol.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
they made bajillions of these cars. I doubt anyone will ever have official numbers. They are just now compiling data for 80's mustangs, which has a larger more hardcore audience than escorts do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
This is what autozone shows when selecting the escort for engine options, not sure where they get there figures from..

1991
1.8L FI (found in 16% of 1991 Ford Escort)
1.9L MFI SOHC HO (found in 84% of 1991 Ford Escort)

1992
1.8L FI (found in 12% of 1992 Ford Escort)
1.9L MFI SOHC HO (found in 88% of 1992 Ford Escort)

1993
1.8L FI (found in 5% of 1993 Ford Escort)
1.9L MFI SOHC (found in 95% of 1993 Ford Escort)

1994
1.8L EFI DOHC (found in 3% of 1994 Ford Escort)
1.9L EFI SOHC (found in 97% of 1994 Ford Escort)

1995
1.8L EFI DOHC (found in 2% of 1995 Ford Escort)
1.9L MFI SOHC (found in 98% of 1995 Ford Escort)

1996
1.8L EFI DOHC (found in 1% of 1996 Ford Escort)
1.9L MFI SOHC (found in 99% of 1996 Ford Escort)
 

·
My old archenemy, RAKES!
Joined
·
6,144 Posts
Wow, I had no idea the GT declined so far in proportional sales over the model run (if those numbers can be trusted). Maybe that's why whenever I see a GT around (not often around these parts), it's usually an early one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
I'm in the 1% for 96GT's. :)
Years ago there were some people that wouldn't believe my car was in fact a 96.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
Cymmantix said:
Wow, I had no idea the GT declined so far in proportional sales over the model run (if those numbers can be trusted). Maybe that's why whenever I see a GT around (not often around these parts), it's usually an early one.
Yeah, I very very rarely see a GT without the three piece rear spoiler (91-92) which seems to be the most common. But I am kinda curious where they get there numbers from, maybe from their own research on what people select when they ask "what car do you have?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,318 Posts
Cymmantix said:
Wow, I had no idea the GT declined so far in proportional sales over the model run (if those numbers can be trusted). Maybe that's why whenever I see a GT around (not often around these parts), it's usually an early one.
Actually the decline is very believeable, and my guess is that the GT's decline might be due to the LX Sport model which wasn't available in the earlier years models. It's essentially a GT with the 1.9L engine for the most part. I test drove both the GT and LX Sport couldn't tell the difference, so I bought the LX Sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
zzyzzx said:
Cymmantix said:
Wow, I had no idea the GT declined so far in proportional sales over the model run (if those numbers can be trusted). Maybe that's why whenever I see a GT around (not often around these parts), it's usually an early one.
Actually the decline is very believeable, and my guess is that the GT's decline might be due to the LX Sport model which wasn't available in the earlier years models. It's essentially a GT with the 1.9L engine for the most part. I test drove both the GT and LX Sport couldn't tell the difference, so I bought the LX Sport.
What.....? Surely you can't be serious?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
Onegimp said:
zzyzzx said:
Cymmantix said:
Wow, I had no idea the GT declined so far in proportional sales over the model run (if those numbers can be trusted). Maybe that's why whenever I see a GT around (not often around these parts), it's usually an early one.
Actually the decline is very believeable, and my guess is that the GT's decline might be due to the LX Sport model which wasn't available in the earlier years models. It's essentially a GT with the 1.9L engine for the most part. I test drove both the GT and LX Sport couldn't tell the difference, so I bought the LX Sport.
What.....? Surely you can't be serious?
I was actually wondering the same thing. I can definitely notice a difference between my GT and my old LX's and I haven't driven an LX since early '07.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
the LX sports have the 1.8 no? I got a transmission out of a 94 escort LX-E which was the sport LX, it had a 1.8 just like the escort GT's but it's a 4 door sedan. that is just as fast as the EGT 1.8 but I love the EGT better way better, unless you have a small family then the LX-E would be nice with 4 doors and a trunk.... it's a trade off, but I'm a single guy so the 2 door works for me!

as far as the difference between the LX 1.9 and the GT 1.8, NO comparison, the 1.8 will kick any 1.9 unless it's turbo or had a TON of work done to it. I drove my 1.9 escort 60 miles, and I'd been driving it for 2 years before that and then I got my EGT, wrecked, sensors were shot on it *oxy etc* and it still had TONS more power than the built 1.9 I got (port/polish etc) yeah I can walk all over most 1.9's unless they are turboed or like I said REALLY built.

just my .02 cents guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
The LX sport just had the spoiler, tach, rear drum brakes, and 14" 7-spoke wheels with the 1.9L CVH. The LX-E was just a four door GT, with the disc brakes, but I think it may have had the 14" 7-spoke wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
oh ok well then LX sports aren't as fast as GT's that's for dang sure.

thanks for clearing that up for me now I know and won't sound like a dummy ha ha. yeah LX-E's also had the rear discs and all that fancy stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
Escort92Man said:
the LX sports have the 1.8 no? I got a transmission out of a 94 escort LX-E which was the sport LX, it had a 1.8 just like the escort GT's but it's a 4 door sedan. that is just as fast as the EGT 1.8 but I love the EGT better way better, unless you have a small family then the LX-E would be nice with 4 doors and a trunk.... it's a trade off, but I'm a single guy so the 2 door works for me!
Yes the LX-E was a 4 door gt basically. They LX sport was still a 1.9L CHV engine. Ford slapped some 14inch alloy rims, a spoiler and a tach and called it sport so the LX guys would feel better about buying the low base car instead of the GT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
right, make it flashy with some of the parts of the GT and call it a "sport" sounds like a regular escort to me ha ha. I tried and tried to find them 14 inch alloy's at my local PAP, I found a set when I got my EGT with the 15 inch fan blades already on it, GO FIGURE, so I gave up the 14's and now I have 2 sets of the EGT fan blade rims, one silver set on my car now, and a set of green cayamens I'ma clean them up, repaint them, and switch rubbers over and make those my "flash" rims and the other ones for snow tires ;) pics will follow the rim transformation!

You know I'd like to have a LX-E now and get rid of my LX escort ha ha, I'd like to see my mom drive an LX-E ha ha, *SCUURP* woops this has a little more power than the other one he he.

I must say after owning both and I've said many times before, GT 1.8 BP05 FTW! THE ONLY thing I do not like about the GT's is the weak transmission, but it's liveable with synchromesh ;)
 

·
My old archenemy, RAKES!
Joined
·
6,144 Posts
I'm going to guess that the problem with the proportional LX to GT (even less so with the LX-E and further less for the Mercury Tracer LTS) ratio comes down to price. Unless you're an enthusiast, the basic average Joe probably didn't want to pay the price difference to step up to the BP powered cars (even taking into account the performance increase), being in the market for an economy car. Of course this is a community of enthusiasts, so it seems like an easy decision right now.

For my part, I had no idea about any differences between models when I got my Tracer. I was just looking for something good on gas, with a decent level of equipment. The Trio fit great at the time even though it had the CVH. Later on I learned about the LTS and of course, would have wanted that had I known about it. I can't complain about my Trio though - it served me very well during the time I had it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,318 Posts
Escort92Man said:
oh ok well then LX sports aren't as fast as GT's that's for dang sure.
I drove both new, with automatic transmission and could not notice any difference in speed or handling. I had other people in the car who also could not notice any difference. Had I known that the 1.9L engines dropped valve seats like crazy, I probably would have gotten the GT, but other than that I can't think of any reason why anyone who test drive both would have gotten the GT. It's my understanding that with a manual transmission there might have been more of a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
Cymmantix said:
I'm going to guess that the problem with the proportional LX to GT (even less so with the LX-E and further less for the Mercury Tracer LTS) ratio comes down to price.
Thats a load of BS. I got my GT brand new with only 8miles on it for $11,000 before trade in. What did I trade in? An escort LX. I do not miss that car.

zzyzzx said:
Escort92Man said:
oh ok well then LX sports aren't as fast as GT's that's for dang sure.
I drove both new, with automatic transmission and could not notice any difference in speed or handling.
There must be some thing wrong with you. I've drove both in autos and there is a big difference. I mean crap, you are lucky the LX even moves if you turn the A/C on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
yeah the GT auto's were more sluggish than the 5 speeds, course the only good escort is a 5 speed escort in my opinion :) I keep this lady's 93 escort 1.9 auto running and I test drove it after fixing it the other day and man.... talk about gutless compared to the 5 speed, course auto is TOTALLY different than manual, autos eat more HP, manual is direct from clutch to gear to diff no slipping involved after the clutch grabs etc.

but I'll bet the GT auto is way faster in the 1/4 than the 1.9 auto. it has to be it's got what.... 40 more HP.

if you didn't step in the throttle good then yeah you won't notice the difference in power I could see that, but open em up and you'll see :wink:
 

·
My old archenemy, RAKES!
Joined
·
6,144 Posts
Onegimp said:
Cymmantix said:
I'm going to guess that the problem with the proportional LX to GT (even less so with the LX-E and further less for the Mercury Tracer LTS) ratio comes down to price.
Thats a load of BS. I got my GT brand new with only 8miles on it for $11,000 before trade in. What did I trade in? An escort LX. I do not miss that car.
Ok buddy. We get that you hate LX's. But you're not going to change my opinion that Joe Schmo that knows nothing about cars would pick the cheaper option when in the market for an economy car. So your GT was cheaper than a comparable LX?
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top