2002 Ford Escort ZX2 - Image is Everything

 

Back around Christmastime 1999, albeit briefly, I considered buying a used 1998 Ford Escort ZX2 like this low-mileage 2002 that found me on Marketplace recently. For sale roughly 90 minutes east of The Triple Wide, it's got under 65,000 miles on it and an asking price of $3,400.

Faced with a sizeable commute back on traffic-clogged Long Island, I thought it would be the perfect fuel-efficient appliance to get me to and from the office, with a little under-the-radar fun while I was at it too.

With a notchy yet smooth-shifting 5-speed stick and a compliant clutch, it was easy to wring the most out of its 130-horsepower, DOHC, 16-valve, 2.0-liter engine. Handling was surprisingly good, too; these cars don't look anything like what they're capable of. This car has an automatic. 

Which is another reason I liked it: a sleeper of sorts, a car for an angel-faced altar boy like me who you'd want to keep the communion wine hidden from.

Ford first brought the Escort to the U.S. market for 1981, billing it as a sort of “world car” derived from the European "Erika" program and it quickly became a major player in Ford's small-car lineup; Mercury's version was called the Lynx. Replacing the Pinto at Ford and Bobcat at Mercury, the Escort quickly became one of the best-selling nameplates in the United States. In fact, the Escort was America's best-selling passenger car in 1982 and again in 1987 and 1988.

Our 2002 ZX2 here is part of the third and final generation of the North American Escort, which debuted for 1997. The ZX2 arrived for the 1998 model year. Taking a page or ten from the Taurus and Mercury Sable design playbook at the time, the ZX2 was the first Escort-based four-seat coupe; earlier Escort-based two-door coupes had included the two-seat EXP/Escort EXP. The ZX2 effectively replaced the Escort GT and occupied the sporty compact-coupe space left by the Ford Probe.

Sharing only its sideview mirrors and door handles with its four-door sedan stablemate, the ZX2 got special sport-suspension tuning and Ford's European-derived “Zetec” 2.0-liter, 16-valve DOHC inline-four, producing 130 horsepower.

Incidentally, the ZX2 name is commonly explained as “Z” for the Zetec engine, “X” for Generation X, and “2” for the two-door body. That's the generally accepted explanation, although Ford's own contemporary advertising played much more loosely with the name, famously saying it “means fun times two.”

Alright, so, back to why I passed on that ZX2.

Again, it was late in 1999 and the lease on my 1997 Chevrolet Monte Carlo was up. Fixing to get off the leasing merry-go-round, and while the buyout or balloon payment on the Monte was amenable—most times it's not—that number was higher than what the ZX2 was going for.

The ZX2 was a year newer, had less mileage on it, would be better on gas and was more fun to drive, too. So, why'd I pass on it?

Well, two reasons. First, to this day I've never been able to get my arms around its styling. Not being a fan of Ford's “jellybean” idiom at the time, I liked it even less on smaller canvases, despite the cars themselves being excellent drivers.

And also, because...he says, looking down to avoid eye contact, being a young and inexperienced manager at the time, I was concerned about what my staff would think of me and how well I was doing in my position if I drove an inexpensive economy car.

Image, as they say—or as the old Andre Agassi commercial for Canon's EOS Rebel camera said—is everything. As shallow as it may sound, there is a shred of truth to that sentiment when you're a manager.

If the boss, or whomever is in charge, is driving some cheapie car, what does that say about the operation everyone is working for? I'm not saying leadership has to drive a $150,000 BMW, but if they're driving something that does not sync with their perceived socio-economic zeitgeist, something's amiss.

Thus, I passed on the little ZX2 and bought out the lease on my Monte Carlo.

Safe to say I've grown a little wiser in my thirty-years as a manager. I'm not concerned what my staff thinks of me based on what I drive; have you seen what I drive currently? As a manager, it's most important to set the pace for your staff, be fair and be the hardest and smartest worker on your team; challenge your team to keep up with you. 

I still think it's somewhat important that a manager or leader drive something that's at least somewhat aspirational. Slippery slope, though. You drive something too aspirational and you could breed resentment.  

Ford phased out the Escort name after the 2002 model year, although the ZX2 continued as a standalone Ford model for 2003 before disappearing without a direct replacement. The 2003 ZX2 received a minor facelift and remained powered by the 130-horsepower 2.0-liter Zetec four.

1973 Mazda RX-2 - Poor Old Mike

Along with anything by Toyota or Honda, Mazdas were on a short list of vehicles I believed worthy of our test-drive time when my wife and I were shopping to replace her 2004 Mitsubishi Eclipse GTS Spyder recently. Notably, their CX-3, CX-30 and CX-5 crossovers and, car lover that I am, the Mazda3. While we ultimately ended up with a lovely 2021 Lexus NX300, I was impressed with the Mazdas. Their build quality seemed extraordinary, and they seemed downright luxurious, which was remarkable given their price points. Through each of our Mazda test drives, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little Mazda RX-2 coupe the family that shared our last name and lived across the street from us had in the late 1970s.

If you're not familiar with the RX-2, you're not alone. Mazda only sold the sub-compact car in the United States in two- and four-door versions from 1971 through 1974. This RX-2 I used for illustrative purpose is a 1972.

Contemporary road tests of the RX-2 were glowing. Testers admired its space-efficient, ergonomically well-designed interior as well as its more-than-competent road manners. In a day and age when Ford was selling Pintos and Chevrolet was pushing out Vegas, the RX-2 was a watershed. Where they dinged the RX-2 was on its fuel economy, but did that really matter when gas was 25- to 30-cents a gallon? 

I thought it odd at the time that they replaced their tank-like 1952 Pontiac Chieftain with the lilliputian RX-2. What's more, their RX-2 it was yellow, making it look even smaller, whereas their big old Pontiac was an austere black, just like this one. Mike and Sally were considerably older than my fossilized parents, and I thought the Chieftain fit them perfectly. Those two sweet natured oldsters looked totally out of place in something not only so small, but so contemporary. 

However, back then, with the wounds of the 1973–74 OPEC oil embargo still fresh, plenty of people were swapping their big, heavy gas guzzlers for something more economical. Many found themselves in well-built, supposedly gas-sipping Japanese cars, just as Mike and Sally did.

While certainly better on gas than their Pontiac Chieftain's straight-eight likely managed, the RX-2's rotary—or "Wankel"—engine was compact, lightweight and turbine-smooth, but also surprisingly thirsty. The U.S.-market RX-2 used Mazda's 1.2-liter, two-rotor 12A engine, its prodigious performance coming with a fuel-economy penalty that became increasingly difficult to ignore as gasoline prices rose.

Although Mazda entered into a technical cooperation agreement with NSU/Wankel in 1961, it didn't actually begin selling a rotary-powered production car until 1967, when the Cosmo Sport (above) was introduced. 

The company subsequently brought the rotary-powered R100 to the United States in 1970, followed by the RX-2 in 1971.

When I was a kid, Wankels were all the rage and seemed destined to replace conventional piston engines. They were compact and lightweight and, because of the way rotary-engine displacement is measured, offered impressive power for their nominal displacement. My older brother, who wasn't a car guy but knew I was, gave me one of these Wankel rotary engines model kits for Christmas in what had to be 1973 or 1974. 

General Motors was so enamored of the concept that it planned to use its own Wankel in several small cars, initially targeting the Chevrolet Vega and later the new-for-1975 Chevrolet Monza. American Motors, in fact, designed its Pacer around the compact dimensions of a rotary engine and initially intended to source the engine from GM.

Everything was fine at GM—until it wasn't. Engineers struggled to make the Wankel meet increasingly stringent U.S. emissions requirements while also delivering acceptable fuel economy and durability. By 1974, GM had canceled its rotary program. That left AMC, which had gone a long way down the development pipeline with the Pacer, in a bit of a pickle. AMC ultimately had to redesign the Pacer's drivetrain and engine compartment to accommodate its conventional straight-six engines.

In addition to emissions and fuel-economy challenges, Wankel engines became notorious for problems involving their apex seals—the seals at the tips of the rotors that help maintain compression against the inside surface of the rotor housing. Wear or damage to those seals could result in loss of compression, reduced performance and difficult starting.

Back to my old stomping grounds and Mike and Sally and their funky-sounding, Wankel-powered RX-2: they didn't keep it long. While they bought their Chieftain new in 1952 and had it for more than a quarter-century, they only had the RX-2 for a year or so. Mike loved its handling and, in his words, its "snazzy" interior, but was wholly unimpressed with its fuel economy. Bad fuel economy was the Wankel's dirty little secret, as it were.

Seeking fuel-economy nirvana, poor old Mike replaced the RX-2 with a two-door 1979 Oldsmobile Cutlass powered by a diesel engine.