When I saw that the later model GT's came with Mazda twin cams, I thought: "OOOOOOOo." But blue ovals scare me, and I'm not sure what to think. I don't know anything about these 1.9's. What's it like to live with? Slow, miserable, death trap?
When I saw that the later model GT's came with Mazda twin cams, I thought: "OOOOOOOo." But blue ovals scare me, and I'm not sure what to think. I don't know anything about these 1.9's. What's it like to live with? Slow, miserable, death trap?
Yep. Crap motor in a crap chassis. Surprised the car survived past the 1st gen here.
Yet again, the Euro folks got the good ones (turbos) with better suspension and more hop up options, etc. we got one version of the turbo (1.6L a smaller version of the 1.9), but it was a POS.
There was a book available on tuning the CVH engine (the 1.9 is a CVH or canted-valve head engine, that is the engine family used in the 1st gens)
The 2nd gen of the Escort came with a slightly larger version of the 1.9 (2.0L) optionally that had a dual path intake system, but otherwise it was still not a very good motor compared to the BP. At least the chassis was better.
That said, for a beater endurance car, you certainly wouldn't get penalized and if you get the suspension stiff enough it should work well enough for Lemons :)
The FI 1.9 GT's were "okay", but the chassis was still a nightmare. Many, many better choices out there.
The suspension isn't that bad, you ease it over onto the bump stops and keep it there, be real smooth and not make any course changes in a corner. 
At first I thought you were talking about the actual mk1 Escort and thought "are you serious?"
Then I realized that you meant the first generation in America...
They can be fun, but parts aren't exactly common for them any more, hence my complete parts car in the yard. A few of them have run LeChump and done just fine. Not winners, but finishers. As someone hinted above, the CVH engines are well-regarded in England and that is where you'll find much of the information about tuning them, but honestly, the 90hp that my 1.6HO EXP produces is sufficient for a car with mildly modified suspension and not a lot of tire under it. The later 1.9HO is even better at ~115hp or so, a bigger contact patch and (IMO) a more aggressive look.
Mine has a set of cheapish dampers, front camber plates and a set of NOS Ford Motorsports springs that I found on eBay. It's a fun, efficient and capable backroads cruiser. It can eat up highway miles at 32+ MPG, too. It may see some autocross action this year depending on whether or not I decide to spend money on the Miata.
SOURCE: I've had four EXPs over the past 12 years.
A Zetec bolts to the transmission, but there are some other things to figure out but they are documented on the internet. Someone one here did it; can't remember who...
When something is called "not a very good motor compared to the BP" you know its a complete pile of E36 M3 that probably only runs on the 5th Tuesday of every month, doesnt make E36 M3 for power, and gets terrible gas mileage. Because as we know the mazda BP is pretty turdy, it vibrates like a motherberkeleyer doesnt make power very well unless you cram boost into it, ist very reliable when you cram boost into it, requires twice the cooling system of any honda engine, and doesnt get all that great of gas mileage either.
The second gen didnt get a 2.0. That was 3rd gen.
1st gens suck.
2nd gens are entirely decent in GT form with the BP, because it's a 2dr hatch 91-94 Protege LX.
3rd gens are same decent BG chassis, just with motors I don't know anything about.
Swank Force One wrote: The second gen didnt get a 2.0. That was 3rd gen. 1st gens suck. 2nd gens are entirely decent in GT form with the BP, because it's a 2dr hatch 91-94 Protege LX. 3rd gens are same decent BG chassis, just with motors I don't know anything about.
Yes, I guess I didn't make that clear in my post.
Those things sold like hotcakes back in the early to mid 80s when they came out, especially around here in A-plan land. For a while it seemed like every third car on the road was a first-gen Escort. Nowadays? I haven't seen one on the road in years and years.
Junk.
I learned to drive stick in an '87 4spd, my friend had it when we were teenagers. It would get you from point A to point B, as long as you weren't in any hurry. I have a lot of fond memories of the car, as I had a lot of fun in it. But as far as driving experience goes, it leaves a lot to desire.
My friends Escort met a very fitting fate. We were on our way home for Thanksgiving and two cars in front of us sideswiped each other on the highway then stopped right in the middle of the road. We couldn't stop and hit the back of one of them. Not 10 seconds after we got out of the car did we see a tractor trailer barreling over the crest of the hill. We ran for the grass median, and the truck jacknifed and hit the back of the Escort. Amazingly enough, even though it was twisted and mangled, it would still move under it's own power.
The GT with the BP engine was part of the second generation, I believe. 2nd gen was based on a Mazda platform.
My experience is with a '94 wagon and I don't mind it. Not too miserable by the standards of 1990s American economy cars. The worst part is the engine, which is the 1.9 cvh. Something like 88hp and way too noisy/harsh for how slow it goes. Durable though. It's run perfectly all winter despite consistent near-zero temperatures and heavy use.
Engine swap thoughts do run through my head occasionally.
Leafy wrote: When something is called "not a very good motor compared to the BP" you know its a complete pile of E36 M3 that probably only runs on the 5th Tuesday of every month, doesnt make E36 M3 for power, and gets terrible gas mileage. Because as we know the mazda BP is pretty turdy, it vibrates like a motherberkeleyer doesnt make power very well unless you cram boost into it, ist very reliable when you cram boost into it, requires twice the cooling system of any honda engine, and doesnt get all that great of gas mileage either.
I thought it got reasonable mileage in non-Miata cars?
I agree the BP is not an excellent motor (especially compared with most Hondas), but its better than many other 4 cyl engines it competes with. I'd hate to hear your thoughts on the LLO.
turboswede wrote: CVH or canted-valve head engine
CVH stands for Compound Valve angle Hemispherical combustion chamber.
We broke 30mpg pretty regularly on the highway with the Escort when we were driving it. High of 34mpg hoofing it through Route 80 in PA.
ProDarwin wrote:Leafy wrote: When something is called "not a very good motor compared to the BP" you know its a complete pile of E36 M3 that probably only runs on the 5th Tuesday of every month, doesnt make E36 M3 for power, and gets terrible gas mileage. Because as we know the mazda BP is pretty turdy, it vibrates like a motherberkeleyer doesnt make power very well unless you cram boost into it, ist very reliable when you cram boost into it, requires twice the cooling system of any honda engine, and doesnt get all that great of gas mileage either.I thought it got reasonable mileage in non-Miata cars? I agree the BP is not an *excellent* motor (especially compared with most Hondas), but its better than many other 4 cyl engines it competes with. I'd hate to hear your thoughts on the LLO.
At least the LLO is light and gets good gas mileage.
This all around sounds like something I don't want.
I've never seen mine get under 30mpg. Pushes 40 on the highway if I don't drive faster than 70.
ProDarwin wrote:Leafy wrote: When something is called "not a very good motor compared to the BP" you know its a complete pile of E36 M3 that probably only runs on the 5th Tuesday of every month, doesnt make E36 M3 for power, and gets terrible gas mileage. Because as we know the mazda BP is pretty turdy, it vibrates like a motherberkeleyer doesnt make power very well unless you cram boost into it, ist very reliable when you cram boost into it, requires twice the cooling system of any honda engine, and doesnt get all that great of gas mileage either.I thought it got reasonable mileage in non-Miata cars? I agree the BP is not an *excellent* motor (especially compared with most Hondas), but its better than many other 4 cyl engines it competes with. I'd hate to hear your thoughts on the LLO.
The BP motor was pretty much state of the art when it came out in the late 80s.
Speaking as someone who had to try to make them run when they were new:
Compared to its contemporaries, its worse than a Kcar, and not much better than a Citation.
Leafy wrote:ProDarwin wrote:At least the LLO is light and gets good gas mileage.Leafy wrote: When something is called "not a very good motor compared to the BP" you know its a complete pile of E36 M3 that probably only runs on the 5th Tuesday of every month, doesnt make E36 M3 for power, and gets terrible gas mileage. Because as we know the mazda BP is pretty turdy, it vibrates like a motherberkeleyer doesnt make power very well unless you cram boost into it, ist very reliable when you cram boost into it, requires twice the cooling system of any honda engine, and doesnt get all that great of gas mileage either.I thought it got reasonable mileage in non-Miata cars? I agree the BP is not an *excellent* motor (especially compared with most Hondas), but its better than many other 4 cyl engines it competes with. I'd hate to hear your thoughts on the LLO.
True, it is lighter. Put the LL0 in a Miata and I bet the mileage sucks also... inefficient trans/rear-end and high drag coefficient.
Leafy wrote: When something is called "not a very good motor compared to the BP" you know its a complete pile of E36 M3 that probably only runs on the 5th Tuesday of every month, doesnt make E36 M3 for power, and gets terrible gas mileage. Because as we know the mazda BP is pretty turdy, it vibrates like a motherberkeleyer doesnt make power very well unless you cram boost into it, ist very reliable when you cram boost into it, requires twice the cooling system of any honda engine, and doesnt get all that great of gas mileage either.
Was this sarcasm? My 34+ MPG 225k mile Protege begs to differ, as does my 29MPG 170k mile Miata.
I've honestly not been stranded by a BP-powered anything because of an engine problem in the 100k+ miles that I've put on them. I realize these are simply individual anecdotes, but I know I'm not alone in this experience.
... and regarding all of the first-gen hate, I'd invite you to take mine out for a flog session if you were closer.
They were cheap when they were new and the neglected or poorly built ones have long since been scrapped. They rusted like hell and popped head gaskets. The ones that are still around aren't the pieces of E36 M3 that gave many the bad impressions of them.
Powar wrote:Leafy wrote: When something is called "not a very good motor compared to the BP" you know its a complete pile of E36 M3 that probably only runs on the 5th Tuesday of every month, doesnt make E36 M3 for power, and gets terrible gas mileage. Because as we know the mazda BP is pretty turdy, it vibrates like a motherberkeleyer doesnt make power very well unless you cram boost into it, ist very reliable when you cram boost into it, requires twice the cooling system of any honda engine, and doesnt get all that great of gas mileage either.Was this sarcasm? My 34+ MPG 225k mile Protege begs to differ, as does my 29MPG 170k mile Miata. I've honestly not been stranded by a BP-powered anything because of an engine problem in the 100k+ miles that I've put on them. I realize these are simply individual anecdotes, but I know I'm not alone in this experience.
I didnt say terrible gas mileage, just not all that great, the majority of miata's are in the mid 20s. I also didnt say they were unreliable in stockish form, they always start and run that way. But start making power and all of a sudden parts are falling off, fasteners are breaking, you need a nuke plant's cooling tower to keep em cool, etc. In other words, its not a honda.
You'll need to log in to post.
