Ultra rare mk 1 Escort at upcoming auction
Discussion
Urgghh, bloody kit cars 
Still a decent engine in it 
Aero, Absolutely agree, nothing like it echoing in the woods [ TR8 comes close ] always used to leave my window down :-)
Thinking about it, most engines sound fab in a Escort, must be excellent under bonnet acoustics.
Newusername, yes, i have been VERY lucky, i enjoy sharing the memories.
Still a decent engine in it Aero, Absolutely agree, nothing like it echoing in the woods [ TR8 comes close ] always used to leave my window down :-)
Thinking about it, most engines sound fab in a Escort, must be excellent under bonnet acoustics.
Newusername, yes, i have been VERY lucky, i enjoy sharing the memories.
AL5026 said:
Looks like the Escort failed to meet its reserve at auction today. It got up to £42k which was significantly lower than the estimate. Did seem like a odd auction to sell it in, all sorts of bric a brac (read as tat) and I think the only car in the entire auction.
Well, clearly they don't actually want to sell it then.If you did, you'd sell in the best place to sell it (which isn't at some country bric a brac sale) and clearly they are delusional on what its true value/sale price is, and its not 70k as I said in an earlier post.
Mid to high 40's was a realistic sale point, and the bids up to 42k suggest exactly that.
aeropilot said:
Lotus quality control meant they varied enormously, it was pot luck if you got a good one or a bad one, so anything from 100bhp to 115.
I must admit I was quite intrigued when people said the nearly 10 second time ( 9.9 ) to 60 was a typical time for a Twincam and the 8.7 was unusually fast in the Motor mag test so I dug out the old road tests I had Dan Williamson had used the Autocar test time for the 9.9 seconds in his book. Now although it needed 2 gearchanges to hit 60, so did the Mk1 Mexico with 86bhp and the 1300GT with just over 70.
According to those tests the Mexico managed the same time to 30 in very wet conditions as the Autocar test Twink did in the dry
Also the Autocar Twincam was only as quick to 30 as a 1300GT with 70bhp in the dry
Then you see that CAR tested a Twincam against a Viva GT. Their Twincam seemed about what you’d expect a 110/115 Bhp Escort to be like - 8.9 seconds to 60 and just under 30 to the ton
Times in that example for CAR seemed pretty similar to the MOTOR test car
I’d say the Autocar Twincam was properly out of sorts/down on power ( one of the 90-100bhp poorly assembled engines ) and the Motor and also CAR mag test cars were more representative of a Mk1 with around 110bhp/115bhp as aeropilot mentioned.
I guess it also illustrates that not all press are specially tuned etc
People saying the twin cam isn't very fast reminds me of the same comments about the E30 M3. In my experience, the lack of pace was usually down to the driver but also because they're more about handling prowess than straight line speed.
I'm guessing the real potential of the engine could also be accessed with some blueprinting as per the S14 too?
I know 4 pots aren't considered very Pistonheads in a lot of threads but personally I love a high revving twin cam four, which is why I dropped one in my 1602.
I'm guessing the real potential of the engine could also be accessed with some blueprinting as per the S14 too?
I know 4 pots aren't considered very Pistonheads in a lot of threads but personally I love a high revving twin cam four, which is why I dropped one in my 1602.
1602Mark said:
People saying the twin cam isn't very fast reminds me of the same comments about the E30 M3. In my experience, the lack of pace was usually down to the driver but also because they're more about handling prowess than straight line speed.
I'm guessing the real potential of the engine could also be accessed with some blueprinting as per the S14 too?
I know 4 pots aren't considered very Pistonheads in a lot of threads but personally I love a high revving twin cam four, which is why I dropped one in my 1602.
All true Mark - I’ve not owned a Twincam or RS1600 but reading the full Autocar test, their Twink test car was somewhat off colour compared to the other ones mags like CAR, Motor and Hot Car used and ran figures for.I'm guessing the real potential of the engine could also be accessed with some blueprinting as per the S14 too?
I know 4 pots aren't considered very Pistonheads in a lot of threads but personally I love a high revving twin cam four, which is why I dropped one in my 1602.
The Alfa GTV 2000 managed a sub 9 to 60 in most tests with 2 gearchanges and a worse power to weight ratio. No doubt the Lotus engine varied in quality but that particular example was as slow as a 1300GT off the mark.
s m said:
All true Mark - I’ve not owned a Twincam or RS1600 but reading the full Autocar test, their Twink test car was somewhat off colour compared to the other ones mags like CAR, Motor and Hot Car used and ran figures for.
The Alfa GTV 2000 managed a sub 9 to 60 in most tests with 2 gearchanges and a worse power to weight ratio. No doubt the Lotus engine varied in quality but that particular example was as slow as a 1300GT off the mark.
I had the Lotus twin cam in an Elan. Very little performance below 3k and didn’t start to sing till 4K, probably due to the relatively big carbs. The 1300GT, with its small Weber twin choke would pull much better at low rpm. Doesn’t alter the facts of Lotus variable build quality. The Alfa GTV 2000 managed a sub 9 to 60 in most tests with 2 gearchanges and a worse power to weight ratio. No doubt the Lotus engine varied in quality but that particular example was as slow as a 1300GT off the mark.
I also went to see about buying an MG Midget fitted with a Lotus twin cam, in about 1985. My dad talked me out of buying, should have ignored him....
40 odd grand for the TC seems about right in todays climate. 70k was dreaming.
I wouldn't pay an extra for a one owner car. Half the appeal of something like this is tracing the history of the 12 owners who had it new, bought it used, rallied it, kicked the s
t out of it on a special stage, put it through a hedge, then a half arsed rebuild and finally a proper one. Such was the life of these cars. They're not a Triumph Herald.
"Has it been reshelled?"
"Who gives a toss?"
I wouldn't pay an extra for a one owner car. Half the appeal of something like this is tracing the history of the 12 owners who had it new, bought it used, rallied it, kicked the s
t out of it on a special stage, put it through a hedge, then a half arsed rebuild and finally a proper one. Such was the life of these cars. They're not a Triumph Herald. "Has it been reshelled?"
"Who gives a toss?"
Touring442 said:
40 odd grand for the TC seems about right in todays climate. 70k was dreaming.
I wouldn't pay an extra for a one owner car. Half the appeal of something like this is tracing the history of the 12 owners who had it new, bought it used, rallied it, kicked the st out of it on a special stage, put it through a hedge, then a half arsed rebuild and finally a proper one. Such was the life of these cars. They're not a Triumph Herald.
"Has it been reshelled?"
"Who gives a toss?"
Interesting to see the Pinto engined Mk1 RS went for £10k more than the TwinkI wouldn't pay an extra for a one owner car. Half the appeal of something like this is tracing the history of the 12 owners who had it new, bought it used, rallied it, kicked the s
t out of it on a special stage, put it through a hedge, then a half arsed rebuild and finally a proper one. Such was the life of these cars. They're not a Triumph Herald. "Has it been reshelled?"
"Who gives a toss?"
That was generally the advice In the mags at the time for standard road cars anyway - ignore the Twincams/BDAs as the Xflows/Pintos were cheaper to buy and run
Edited by s m on Monday 3rd August 22:06
AL5026 said:
Nice car, not overly restored, and showing a bit of patina. If you wanted to be super critical, there's a couple of items not correct, but that would be really super anal critical.Is it over priced.......maybe a tad, but not by much for what it is. I'd give it garage space, even if it is one of my least favourite colours
s m said:
Mark A S said:
18k for an engine rebuild,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,nice car though.
Proper job though with a new block and head Only issue I'd take with the advert is the 'believed to be original' vinyl interior, which I would say isn't original, but a retrim, given it's got Custom Pack contour seats in vinyl trim, and they were cloth covered originally. I believe that vinyl pattern seen in this car is the one that has been reproduced.
s m said:
I must admit I was quite intrigued when people said the nearly 10 second time ( 9.9 ) to 60 was a typical time for a Twincam and the 8.7 was unusually fast in the Motor mag test so I dug out the old road tests I had
Dan Williamson had used the Autocar test time for the 9.9 seconds in his book. Now although it needed 2 gearchanges to hit 60, so did the Mk1 Mexico with 86bhp and the 1300GT with just over 70.
According to those tests the Mexico managed the same time to 30 in very wet conditions as the Autocar test Twink did in the dry
Also the Autocar Twincam was only as quick to 30 as a 1300GT with 70bhp in the dry
Then you see that CAR tested a Twincam against a Viva GT. Their Twincam seemed about what you’d expect a 110/115 Bhp Escort to be like - 8.9 seconds to 60 and just under 30 to the ton
Times in that example for CAR seemed pretty similar to the MOTOR test car
I’d say the Autocar Twincam was properly out of sorts/down on power ( one of the 90-100bhp poorly assembled engines ) and the Motor and also CAR mag test cars were more representative of a Mk1 with around 110bhp/115bhp as aeropilot mentioned.
I guess it also illustrates that not all press are specially tuned etc
I had a 1968 G plate 1300GT in the mid eighties and it was appallingly rotten then. :-) I bought it for £70 for bits for one I was building but I used it for 2 weeks until the MOT expired.Dan Williamson had used the Autocar test time for the 9.9 seconds in his book. Now although it needed 2 gearchanges to hit 60, so did the Mk1 Mexico with 86bhp and the 1300GT with just over 70.
According to those tests the Mexico managed the same time to 30 in very wet conditions as the Autocar test Twink did in the dry
Also the Autocar Twincam was only as quick to 30 as a 1300GT with 70bhp in the dry
Then you see that CAR tested a Twincam against a Viva GT. Their Twincam seemed about what you’d expect a 110/115 Bhp Escort to be like - 8.9 seconds to 60 and just under 30 to the ton
Times in that example for CAR seemed pretty similar to the MOTOR test car
I’d say the Autocar Twincam was properly out of sorts/down on power ( one of the 90-100bhp poorly assembled engines ) and the Motor and also CAR mag test cars were more representative of a Mk1 with around 110bhp/115bhp as aeropilot mentioned.
I guess it also illustrates that not all press are specially tuned etc
But it was a cracking car. It had the early full fat 1300GT motor
that had the GT cam and iirc wasn't the bowl in piston type. It really went well and they were known to be much better than the 1970 onwards version. Plus the first 12-18 months of GT production had the TC rear axle locating radium arms. The 96 mph top speed sounds about right. 
Touring442 said:
s m said:
I must admit I was quite intrigued when people said the nearly 10 second time ( 9.9 ) to 60 was a typical time for a Twincam and the 8.7 was unusually fast in the Motor mag test so I dug out the old road tests I had
Dan Williamson had used the Autocar test time for the 9.9 seconds in his book. Now although it needed 2 gearchanges to hit 60, so did the Mk1 Mexico with 86bhp and the 1300GT with just over 70.
According to those tests the Mexico managed the same time to 30 in very wet conditions as the Autocar test Twink did in the dry
Also the Autocar Twincam was only as quick to 30 as a 1300GT with 70bhp in the dry
Then you see that CAR tested a Twincam against a Viva GT. Their Twincam seemed about what you’d expect a 110/115 Bhp Escort to be like - 8.9 seconds to 60 and just under 30 to the ton
Times in that example for CAR seemed pretty similar to the MOTOR test car
I’d say the Autocar Twincam was properly out of sorts/down on power ( one of the 90-100bhp poorly assembled engines ) and the Motor and also CAR mag test cars were more representative of a Mk1 with around 110bhp/115bhp as aeropilot mentioned.
I guess it also illustrates that not all press are specially tuned etc
I had a 1968 G plate 1300GT in the mid eighties and it was appallingly rotten then. :-) I bought it for £70 for bits for one I was building but I used it for 2 weeks until the MOT expired.Dan Williamson had used the Autocar test time for the 9.9 seconds in his book. Now although it needed 2 gearchanges to hit 60, so did the Mk1 Mexico with 86bhp and the 1300GT with just over 70.
According to those tests the Mexico managed the same time to 30 in very wet conditions as the Autocar test Twink did in the dry
Also the Autocar Twincam was only as quick to 30 as a 1300GT with 70bhp in the dry
Then you see that CAR tested a Twincam against a Viva GT. Their Twincam seemed about what you’d expect a 110/115 Bhp Escort to be like - 8.9 seconds to 60 and just under 30 to the ton
Times in that example for CAR seemed pretty similar to the MOTOR test car
I’d say the Autocar Twincam was properly out of sorts/down on power ( one of the 90-100bhp poorly assembled engines ) and the Motor and also CAR mag test cars were more representative of a Mk1 with around 110bhp/115bhp as aeropilot mentioned.
I guess it also illustrates that not all press are specially tuned etc
But it was a cracking car. It had the early full fat 1300GT motor
that had the GT cam and iirc wasn't the bowl in piston type. It really went well and they were known to be much better than the 1970 onwards version. Plus the first 12-18 months of GT production had the TC rear axle locating radium arms. The 96 mph top speed sounds about right. an healthy GT spec in either displacement was a good little engine 
Touring442 said:
I had a 1968 G plate 1300GT in the mid eighties and it was appallingly rotten then. :-) I bought it for £70 for bits for one I was building but I used it for 2 weeks until the MOT expired.
But it was a cracking car. It had the early full fat 1300GT motor that had the GT cam and iirc wasn't the bowl in piston type. It really went well and they were known to be much better than the 1970 onwards version. Plus the first 12-18 months of GT production had the TC rear axle locating radium arms. The 96 mph top speed sounds about right.
Yes, one of my favourite Mk1s, the 1300GT.But it was a cracking car. It had the early full fat 1300GT motor
that had the GT cam and iirc wasn't the bowl in piston type. It really went well and they were known to be much better than the 1970 onwards version. Plus the first 12-18 months of GT production had the TC rear axle locating radium arms. The 96 mph top speed sounds about right. We were all quite surprised by it in the early/mid 80s -seemed surprisingly quick for what it was when most of us had 1600/2 litre Escorts.
How quick we only realised when one of us bought an Alfa 1300GT Junior, 5-speed box ( a novelty for us back then! ), twincam, twin Weber’s. We were all expecting the Alfa to show the Escort GT a clean pair of heels.....of course, that didn’t happen
Was a rorty little engine the 1300GT
I would expect an Alfa 1300 Junior to see off an Escort on a twisty road. I think that the 1300 Junior may be the best balanced car that I have ever driven. In the early 70s, assuming similar levels of driver ability in the contending cars, you'd need a Lotus to keep up with the Alfa through a series of fast bends.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff