Delete a Message
Thank you so much for providing one of the worst images of the Tempo you could find. The Tempo is ugly by todays standards, but back in 1984, it was the future. It was a clean, popular change from the ugly boxes of the 1970's. No car I can think of sold 500,000+ units in its first year. 
Everything about it was new, innovative and was put on nearly all cars after it. For example, the bumpers. Ugly, no? In 1985 cars had to have bumpers strong enough to cause no damage to the vehicle in collisions 2MPH or under. Ford went over board, they made a bumper strong enough to withstand impacts of up to 5MPH. Later, 5MPH collision proof bumpers would become required. In 1985 Tempo came with standard driver and passenger front airbags. A first in the industry in America. All edges were refined and smoothed, its windshield was laid down at a steeper angle and the rear window was set at 60%. Even its doors! They were modeled after aircraft doors in that they cut slightly into the roof. This greatly improved aerodynamics, appearance and durability. They would later be adapted to all Ford's. The trunk and rear quarter of the car were raised making the air flow more smoothly off the car. Door handles and side mirrors were made as smooth as possible. As for power and engines, they even put modern cars to shame! Tempo offered from 1984 to 1986 a 2.0L Diesel made by Mazda. It was good for over 40MPG, which is just as good as the most fuel efficient car of today. And this was in 1984! Ford developed four transmissions (a three speed automatic, a four speed manual and two five speed manuals) just for Tempo. Three separate suspension systems as well for the average Tempo's (L, GL, Sport), a performance-oriented suspension set up for the GLS and GLX and a more comfortable "Touring" suspension for the LX. Two Tempo-specific engines as well, both 2.3L I4's. The HSO (the higher output of the two) was later revised as a 2.5L and put in the 1986 to 1991 Ford Taurus. Ford's monumentally successful and well-made 3.0L Vulcan V6 from the Taurus and Sable was also put in Tempo and Topaz (later it saw service in; Ranger, B-Series, Probe and Aerostar). 100HP was a lot for a compact in 1987, Honda's heavier Accord only had 76HP from a four cylinder at most. Ford spent over five years developing, testing and designing Tempo. Five years of trying to get it to be as aerodynamic as possible. The result? A coefficient drag of just .36. Insane for its time. Ford made yearly improvements in aerodynamics, most noticeable was in 1986 when it became legal for aerodynamically styled headlights to be used, Ford revised Tempo right away. You are all comparing Tempo by todays standards, which is very unfair. For its time, you could look at Tempo as the Toyota Prius or GM Volt. Tempo led up to the 1986 Taurus, and if anyone here can honestly say the Taurus was a "bad car" they really should do some research on them. For its time, Tempo was much more successful, popular and innovative then Focus is for today, for Falcon was for the 1960's and any other compact. If you have done as much research as I have you'd have a lot more respect for Tempo. I'm not saying you all have to like it or like its looks, but if you are going to talk about it, you should at least know what you're talking about and show it the respect it deserves. Saying its a crappy, ugly, boxy car is a very ignorant statement. Because you are only judging it my the most base standards.
Everything about it was new, innovative and was put on nearly all cars after it. For example, the bumpers. Ugly, no? In 1985 cars had to have bumpers strong enough to cause no damage to the vehicle in collisions 2MPH or under. Ford went over board, they made a bumper strong enough to withstand impacts of up to 5MPH. Later, 5MPH collision proof bumpers would become required. In 1985 Tempo came with standard driver and passenger front airbags. A first in the industry in America. All edges were refined and smoothed, its windshield was laid down at a steeper angle and the rear window was set at 60%. Even its doors! They were modeled after aircraft doors in that they cut slightly into the roof. This greatly improved aerodynamics, appearance and durability. They would later be adapted to all Ford's. The trunk and rear quarter of the car were raised making the air flow more smoothly off the car. Door handles and side mirrors were made as smooth as possible. As for power and engines, they even put modern cars to shame! Tempo offered from 1984 to 1986 a 2.0L Diesel made by Mazda. It was good for over 40MPG, which is just as good as the most fuel efficient car of today. And this was in 1984! Ford developed four transmissions (a three speed automatic, a four speed manual and two five speed manuals) just for Tempo. Three separate suspension systems as well for the average Tempo's (L, GL, Sport), a performance-oriented suspension set up for the GLS and GLX and a more comfortable "Touring" suspension for the LX. Two Tempo-specific engines as well, both 2.3L I4's. The HSO (the higher output of the two) was later revised as a 2.5L and put in the 1986 to 1991 Ford Taurus. Ford's monumentally successful and well-made 3.0L Vulcan V6 from the Taurus and Sable was also put in Tempo and Topaz (later it saw service in; Ranger, B-Series, Probe and Aerostar). 100HP was a lot for a compact in 1987, Honda's heavier Accord only had 76HP from a four cylinder at most. Ford spent over five years developing, testing and designing Tempo. Five years of trying to get it to be as aerodynamic as possible. The result? A coefficient drag of just .36. Insane for its time. Ford made yearly improvements in aerodynamics, most noticeable was in 1986 when it became legal for aerodynamically styled headlights to be used, Ford revised Tempo right away. You are all comparing Tempo by todays standards, which is very unfair. For its time, you could look at Tempo as the Toyota Prius or GM Volt. Tempo led up to the 1986 Taurus, and if anyone here can honestly say the Taurus was a "bad car" they really should do some research on them. For its time, Tempo was much more successful, popular and innovative then Focus is for today, for Falcon was for the 1960's and any other compact. If you have done as much research as I have you'd have a lot more respect for Tempo. I'm not saying you all have to like it or like its looks, but if you are going to talk about it, you should at least know what you're talking about and show it the respect it deserves. Saying its a crappy, ugly, boxy car is a very ignorant statement. Because you are only judging it my the most base standards.