Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the escort is kept up i would have no problem driving it. But then I’m 64 years old and was around when the escort was made. I’ll drive any vehicle if it in good mechanical condition I’m not concerned at all.
I saw an early 80s Escort in the morning rush hour. Traffic was moving around 70-80mph average. He was in the fast lane when he passed me, so he had to be going at least 80 I'm guessing. Anyways, I kept as much distance as I thought the car might give in at that speed and fall apart lose control right on the highway.
I wouldn't want to be behind the wheel at that speed under those conditions.
A well maintained 1982 Escort is perfectly capable of dealing with busy freeway traffic. It was a crappy car (my wife had a new 1987 Escort GT) and was a stark reminder of how far behind domestics at the time were relative to imports. My 1987 Civic was a vastly superior car - controls worked smoothly, intuitive ergonomics,etc. By contrast, the Escort was a hot mess. The second gen (introduced in 1990, IIRC) Escort was basically a re-badged Mazda - and every bit as good or better than a Civic.
Regarding safety - yes, passive safety is not up to modern standards. Since active safety is far more important and 90% driver, I don't see an 1982 Escort with a good driver, being particular hazardous. I'm more worried (and you should be too) about the 1 year old Expedition with a distracted parent at the wheel.
That's all interesting stuff, but I don't buy a car based on it's "crashworthiness". My criteria is a car that has the braking and cornering ability that allow me to avoid the crash in the first place....
This.
People love to talk about safety, but our obsession with poor handling trucks and SUVs speaks louder than words. Also, every time there's a thread on this forum about tires, people act like longevity is the benchmark by which tires should be measured. I cringe when people talk about "50,000 mile" tires. I've been known to remove these rim protectors from a brand new car and replace them with high performance tires. Likewise, "all season" just means "good at nothing". Quality summer performance tires when its warm, dedicated winter tires when its cold. Anything else is a significant safety issue that just about everyone ignores.
I answered no because I don’t know the condition. If in good condition then go for it. By good condition I’m talking about the condition of the engine, transmission, suspension, brakes, tires, and is the frame rusting out. When new they were perfectly capable highway cars at a good fuel economy (for the time). There were some higher power/torque engines available in the GT making it more capable of passing acceleration. Even if you saw a vehicle known to be slow even when new it’s possible the vehicle could have had an engine and transmission upgrade for modern performance.
I would actually feel safer in that car, than in a bloated modern digital land-yacht. A '32 Ford would be even better, than an '82.
Neither the '82 or '32 is safer than a current car. The '32 had no safety systems at all, and provided no protection to the occupants. The '82 had some occupant protection features, but nothing on the order of current vehicles
Quote:
Originally Posted by WouldLoveTo
Seriously? There was better steel in American cars in the 80s than now.
I drove a mid-80s one daily up until a couple of years ago, so yes. I kept it at 70 though, gas mileage dropped a lot at higher speeds. (I have a couple of slightly newer cars now, and still keep them at 70)
That's just wrong. Steel is steel. 80's cars used more steel than current cars, which use different alloys to reduce weight, and to provide additional crash protection. Using more steel results in a car that has less damage, but is more likely to kill the occupants. That's why race cars disintegrate in crashes, they learned that it's far better for the occupant if the car dissipates all of the energy by shedding parts than if the energy is transferred to the occupant
That's just wrong. Steel is steel. 80's cars used more steel than current cars, which use different alloys to reduce weight, and to provide additional crash protection. Using more steel results in a car that has less damage, but is more likely to kill the occupants. That's why race cars disintegrate in crashes, they learned that it's far better for the occupant if the car dissipates all of the energy by shedding parts than if the energy is transferred to the occupant
100% agreed on dissipating energy, but are you sure steel gauge in body panels hasn't changed as the years have gone on?
I saw an early 80s Escort in the morning rush hour. Traffic was moving around 70-80mph average. He was in the fast lane when he passed me, so he had to be going at least 80 I'm guessing. Anyways, I kept as much distance as I thought the car might give in at that speed and fall apart lose control right on the highway.
I wouldn't want to be behind the wheel at that speed under those conditions.
So, let me ask you, what makes you think this particular car is not road worthy ? There are a lot more crappy cars on the highway than this particular one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
