Top Gear--RWD Rides?

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
K

Kevin Lang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
3,717
Reaction score
0
Location
Pasadena, MD
I saw a marathon of the American Top Gear, and it was decently entertaining. In one episode, the premise was to find 3 vehicles for 2000 dollars or less which were "economical replacements for a truck".



One guy got an 1970s Ford sedan (not fuel efficient by far) because it was rugged and powerful.

One guy got a 1991 BMW sedan because it was German and it could drift (because that's what the average joe uses his truck for)

The last guy got a Mazda Miata convertable, arguing that it could haul the most with the top down & got the best MPG by far.



While all 3 choices were idiotic IMO, they all had one thing in common: RWD.



Which made me think that any real truck replacement really needs to have RWD. I was thinking a station wagon would make an economical truck replacement, but are there any RWD station wagons anymore? Skimming craigslist I discovered a whole ton of "8 passenger" Ford/Mercury wagons, but they're all FWD. Can a FWD 1990s Ford wagon even haul 8 people and get out of its own way, or without having so much weight on the back that all it can do is burn out?



200 * 8 = 1600 lbs which is a pretty fair amount of weight, that's more than the ST's bed is rated for, so I wonder. The 1997 Grand Caravan and the 1992 Ford Taurus wagon were pretty anemic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skimming craigslist I discovered a whole ton of "8 passenger" Ford/Mercury wagons, but they're all FWD.
Click to expand...



What 8 passenger station wagon was FWD. You talking about a Taurus?





Tom
 
I don't think a Taurus station wagon would qualify as "8 passenger", unless they're very tiny people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I finally saw the beginning of the episode. At the very beginning they say that their ride has to be a 2 door car, and supposedly "more efficient" than a modern pickup. That 1970s Ford coupe (I called it a sedan by mistake) has to be less efficient than any modern F-150 :banghead:



The Taurus has 8 seatbelts, so I can see how they claim 8 people, but I agree. We used to have a 1992 Ford Taurus wagon in the family, and it indeed had 8 seatbelts. Though thinking back, that thing couldn't get out of its own way with 4-5 people in it.



I remember the old Taurus Wagon being an anemic car, but I hear good-ish things about the Escort Wagon from the same era. Is there truth to that? The Escort was a fun car and reasonably sporty car for a FWD as I recall.
 
I have onwed 6 Escorts.



1989 GT (Traded in for the 1992)

1992 GT (Rust belt, then I gave it away to a guy in Kentucky for parts.

1991 Mercury Tracer

1991 GT (I got wrecked. Paid next to nothing. Gave parts away to people that needed them)

1996 GT (tree landed on it)

1991 GT (Person in Kentucky got another for free and to repay my kindness, gave it to me.)



They were great cars! Sad day when production ended.





Tom
 
Thanks, I didn't remember from the ep, and I didn't want to rewatch. I've gotten addicted to the show, I've seen every episode as far as I know :grin:



On a different note, does the escort wagon really have decent power? They're all over craigslist here (well they were) and I could stand to have one, but I'm concerned about a low-power FWD car not being able to deal with weight over the rear axle. Then again, there are a ton of 6 cylinder mustangs to be had, and those things are RWD and get in the high 20s for highway MPG so I'm stiil undecided on a potential beater. RWD fun or FWD convenience?
 
I thought the 1.9L engine was pretty weak. I was used to driving the 127 HP DOHC models, so the 88 HP SOHC engine was slow.



It did get great mileage. I would get over 35 MPG on the highway with my Mercury Tracer Automatic 1.9L SOHC engine.





Tom
 
I think that's a big part of my problem--I look at these incredibly low HP ratings and I compare them to the ~200 HP of the vehicles I've driven the most, and I don't think that the low-HP engines can cut it. I realize that these cars are lighter than the ones that rock the ~200 hp engines, and can thus perform well enough, but I'm concerned that piling people in will overwhelm the wimpy looking engines.



I did a fair amount of driving with a '98 ZX2 (automatic trans, unfortunately) and it was surprisingly fun to drive, especially when it came time to hit the gas station. Though that fun quickly went away when 4 people climbed into the car. Just adding 3 more people to the car took me from beating civics on the road to praying that I'd make it up the next hill.
 
I did a fair amount of driving with a '98 ZX2 (automatic trans, unfortunately) and it was surprisingly fun to drive, especially when it came time to hit the gas station.
Click to expand...



Imagine a 1998 ZX2 5 speed with a 75 HP shot of laughing gas. That was a riot. Whopped an early 90's Corvette. Loved the look on his face. He got spanked by a little Ford.



I already have an Escort. Had one since 1991 when I got my first one.



Great cars that are SUPER reliable.





Tom
 
i agree the escort was a very good vehicle.



but this has me :bwahaha:

"Imagine a 1998 ZX2 5 speed with a 75 HP shot of laughing gas. That was a riot. Whopped an early 90's Corvette. Loved the look on his face. He got spanked by a little Ford."



 
early 90's vettes were considered fast in the years they were produced. 300 hp(vary) and great handling can compete.



compared to today i would hope all owners realize performance is average for a sports car.



well the impessive thing is that your well overdue 13 second escort is faster :haveabeer:
 
13 seconds from a small sporty car seems so slow; don't we have NA ST's on here that run it around 18s?
Click to expand...



13 seconds is pretty quick. 18 seconds is VERY slow. 12 seconds is very fast. 11 seconds is brutal. 10 seconds is brutaly insane. 9 seconds in unimaginable. 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, etc. is simply wild.





Tom
 

Latest posts

Top