|
Has anyone noticed in the last Escort model (the Mk6 1995-2000 or 2002 for van models) that there are 2 different styles of the front grille? What I mean is, on certain models it looks like this: s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/models/FORD_Escort...g where the numberplate is positioned at the bottom below the grille. And then there's those where the numberplate is in the middle and the grille instead at the bottom, like this one encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS3...Y.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what determines which design style is used. From my research so far it seems everything is so conflicted. Here are some examples:
Most saloons seem to have the numberplate at bottom style, but even then here I've found a picture of one with the other design instead: www.flickr.com/photos/77492252@N05/28612004190/. Same with the van model - almost all are numberplate at bottom but I found this one i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NzY4WDEwMjQ=/z/zb8AAOSwT9hcYXB7...G with grille at bottom instead. Even for cabrio I've found this anomaly live.staticflickr.com/3849/14535552692_2e95bf572e_...g when literally 99% of other cabrio pictures show it with numberplate in the middle.
Seems even trim levels are conflicting. Here's an N reg Ghia (i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDUwWDgwMA==/z/xj4AAOSwkgRdUy1Q...G) with the former design and here a P reg Ghia (live.staticflickr.com/8572/16567265618_537df6f6dd_...g) with the latter design instead. And, here's an N reg Encore images.pistonheads.com/nimg/35858/Escort_encore_00...g with the former design, and a P reg Encore with the latter upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/1996_F...g.
Years don't really tell us anything either. Here are N reg examples of both different styles: www.flickr.com/photos/151981482@N04/46681839165/ and www.flickr.com/photos/46637666@N07/11590403653/.
Seems that from T reg onwards to X though, all hatchback models have the design with the numberplate in the middle and grille at bottom. And also all the RS2000 models. That's about the only thing I can confirm from my research.
Can anyone enlighten me here? What exactly determines the front style of the Mk6 Escort?
|
|
Unusual request , something I don’t suppose anyone has ever been bothered about . I think it’s down to what style of front bumper is fitted , and whether it has front fog lamps fitted .
|
|
Usually went with engine and trim level-strictly speaking Mk.6 was 1995.5-2000.2002 for vans and Brazil production.
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm - I'm almost certain that after all your research you aready know more about late 1990s Ford Escorts than anyone else on here, so I doubt if we'll be able to help.
Do tell us why you ned to know more. Is it a particular part that you're trying to source?
|
|
The only reason is pretty much curiosity. I've always wanted to pinpoint what the system was without success. I hope one day someone here who knows it can answer, but yes like the other person said it's an unusual request especially as I haven't found any similar questions/answers online.
|
|
|
|
No idea regards the bumpers, probably a minor cosmetic change or possibly a money saving idea but it did get me thinking about what car is the most improved over it’s original incarnation. Could it be the final Ford Escort from 1995.
The Escort Mk V in 1990 was a b***** awful thing, way way off the pace. From the ancient wheezy CVH motors and antique diesels to the cheap interior and mushy seats and soggy handling, there really was only one positive and that was its inoffensive styling, the estate was in particular a handsome thing but that was it. I’ve never known a car to receive such a panning from the press and it was genuinely deserved.
I was amazed at how bad these things were. Still managed to flog em mind but why anyone bought them instead of a Rover R8, Vauxhall Astra, Pug 309/306, Fiat Tipo or Renault 19 I’ll never know. Didn’t really go wrong often I suppose but they did get pretty tired by 60-70k where an Astra Mk III was just getting into its stride.
The post 95 Escort was by comparison a revelation, it was finally the car it should’ve been in the beginning. A far better built, much nicer driving and better looking little family car that sold on merit rather than price or brand loyalty.
|
|
Don't remind of those Escorts, thousands of the things on rental fleets, lots with the wheezy lean burn 1.4 engine (the previous manual choked 1.3 had more torque), dickens of a job to get them on the transporter, a case of getting a run up the only way without setting fire to the clutch, they share that method of being the only way to get them on with 3 cylinder Corsa and 1.2 Fiat 500 (especially the automated thingy), the Fiat couldn't manage the length of the top deck even with a run up, awful things, how did they get past testing?
When the last Escort version came out those 1.4s were replaced by the 1.8 engine, a completely different car, as was the 2 litre R8 Rover, proper engines make a car.
Edited by gordonbennet on 27/01/2020 at 22:10
|
The 16v Zetec motors were a vast improvement on the old CVH units but still weren’t as refined as the equivalent Jap design, Ford did the right thing by getting Yamaha to design its replacement and in using (Ford owned) Mazda for the larger 4cyl models.
First shot I had of a Mk V Escort was an early H plate 1.4 LX that had been bought at auction. I couldn’t believe how bad it was, even compared to the older model which was lighter, faster, more nimble and in general a much more pleasant thing to drive. How Ford engineers managed to produce this thing when they surely compared it to the 1989 Rover R8, Fiat Tipo and Renault 19 is beyond me. The later post 95 1.6 and 1.8 16 valve cars were so different it was as if it were a totally new car underneath.
They did carry on with the old 1.4 CVH but it became increasingly unpopular and rare, usually only in poverty spec. It just wasn’t up to the job nor was the normally aspirated diesel which was dangerously slow and not particularly great on fuel. The turbo diesel was much quicker but had the narrowest power-band I’ve ever encountered plus it smoked like a 60 a day man.
Ford learned well from all this though with the Mondeo being a wonderful thing to drive from day one. The first one I had the pleasure of an early 93-K 1.8 GLX was to me at the time all the car anyone could ever need. It went well, it did 35mpg, it had great (electric) seats, heated front screen, plenty of room and it could out handle many a so-called hot hatch on the twists yet it wasn’t hard riding either. I just couldn’t criticise it at all, I even liked the slightly bland but safe styling and blue collar image.
The Fiesta Mk IV in 96 was a huge step up too. First one I drove I couldn’t believe was a 1.2, I had to pop the bonnet to check when I came back. It was lovely and handled like a go kart but wasn’t rock hard on the bum. A joy to drive.
Edited by SLO76 on 28/01/2020 at 09:42
|
|
I think the first CVH engines were 1.3 and 1.6. I hired a few Escorts when I lived in London without a car in the early 80's and a mate of mine had a company Escort which he thrashed like crazy. The pits had to be a 1.1 OHV model but to be fair it was very economical. Carrying 4 people up to N Wales with climbing kit was not the most rapid experience. They never gave any trouble but the poverty spec 1.3 was pretty noisy.
|
I think the first CVH engines were 1.3 and 1.6. I hired a few Escorts when I lived in London without a car in the early 80's and a mate of mine had a company Escort which he thrashed like crazy. The pits had to be a 1.1 OHV model but to be fair it was very economical. Carrying 4 people up to N Wales with climbing kit was not the most rapid experience. They never gave any trouble but the poverty spec 1.3 was pretty noisy.
Early Mk III’s used a 1.3 CVH but changed to the older OHV in later cars, I think from 86. The 1.4 and 1.6 were the CVH motors from then and they went well enough in the lightweight MKIII and Orion. The basic looking post facelift 1.6L with 90bhp could really surprise the hot hatch brigade with a 0-60 time of just under 10 secs, it was barely slower than the XR3i.
|
I think the first CVH engines were 1.3 and 1.6. I hired a few Escorts when I lived in London without a car in the early 80's and a mate of mine had a company Escort which he thrashed like crazy. The pits had to be a 1.1 OHV model but to be fair it was very economical. Carrying 4 people up to N Wales with climbing kit was not the most rapid experience. They never gave any trouble but the poverty spec 1.3 was pretty noisy.
Early Mk III’s used a 1.3 CVH but changed to the older OHV in later cars, I think from 86. The 1.4 and 1.6 were the CVH motors from then and they went well enough in the lightweight MKIII and Orion. The basic looking post facelift 1.6L with 90bhp could really surprise the hot hatch brigade with a 0-60 time of just under 10 secs, it was barely slower than the XR3i.
|
I think the first CVH engines were 1.3 and 1.6. I hired a few Escorts when I lived in London without a car in the early 80's and a mate of mine had a company Escort which he thrashed like crazy. The pits had to be a 1.1 OHV model but to be fair it was very economical. Carrying 4 people up to N Wales with climbing kit was not the most rapid experience. They never gave any trouble but the poverty spec 1.3 was pretty noisy.
Early Mk III’s used a 1.3 CVH but changed to the older OHV in later cars, I think from 86. The 1.4 and 1.6 were the CVH motors from then and they went well enough in the lightweight MKIII and Orion. The basic looking post facelift 1.6L with 90bhp could really surprise the hot hatch brigade with a 0-60 time of just under 10 secs, it was barely slower than the XR3i.
It was the 1.1 CVH that was replaced by the OHV-the 1.3 CVH continued.
|
|
I don't think the 1.1 CVH was ever available in the UK, always the pushrod version from the Fiesta.
|
|
|
|
|
What's also interesting is that those Mk5 Escorts have completely dwindled in numbers, both on the road and in storage, compared to Mk6 and even Mk4 and Mk3. If you look on listings online you'll notice that it's very rare to come across a Mk5 Escort for sale (especially the original 1990 one) whereas there are much more older Mk4 models around. According to How Many Left there are even less numbers of 1991-1994 Escorts around compared to those from the 70s, which I'd think is a very unusual feat, as normally the older a car the less there's left, especially here with a 10-20 year gap.
Edited by Malcolm T on 29/01/2020 at 23:10
|
|
All of the escorts were not electro-galvanised e.g. why they were rusting around the jack points at around 4 years of age. The production line was never reconfigured for the coat to be applied unlike the Mondeo of the early generation. Handling improved towards the end but they were always a rust prone poorly built Ford corner cutting output. Although the cabriolet releases were wax injected as Ford were scared that the integrity could be weakened by corrosion and were not willing to risk potential lawsuits of weakened vehicle structures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on your images, it seems as though number plate location is related to whether the car has front fog lights or not. Seems a lot of effort to redesign the bumper to facilitate this!
|
|
|
