End of Production
In the early 1990s, Ford chose to develop a new platform for the aforementioned Contour rather than redesign the Tempo in the mid 1990s to meet new safety standards (dual airbags, etc.). While highly innovative in its early years, and even though it was a strong seller for nearly its entire lifetime, by the early 1990s the Tempo and the Topaz were seen as an aging platform.The lack of an overdrive automatic was a sore spot when compared to newer designs having 4-speeds. It was also to be the last year for the 2.3 L HSC engine, which was built by Ford specifically for the Tempo (its replacement was the 2.0 L Zetec engine). Also, it was to be the last year for the 3-speed automatic version of this transaxle (it was slightly redesigned, given overdrive, and was used on the Ford Escort/Mercury Tracer/Mazda 323/Kia Sephia). With all of these factors, Ford pulled the stopped production of the Tempo in March 1994 when the last one rolled off the assembly line. It was succeeded by the Contour, a derivative of the European Ford Mondeo. It came with a jump in price: the most expensive 1994 Tempo (a loaded LX sedan with a V6) was about US$12,900 ($16,500 in 2005 dollars), while a base model 1995 Contour (GL with four-cylinder engine and manual transmission) was $13,990.
The new-for-1995 Ford Windstar was then built at the Ontario plant that formerly built the Tempo, while Kansas City turned over to Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique production (shared with a plant in Hermosillo, Mexico). Currently, the Ford Escape, Escape Hybrid, Ford Maverick, Lobo/F-150 and Mazda Tribute are built in Kansas City Assembly, with the Ford Edge and Ford Flex currently being built at the Ontario plant.
The last Ford Tempo rolled off the assembly line on May 20, 1994.
Today, the Ford Fusion occupies the same market niche that the Tempo once did.
Read more about this topic: Ford Tempo
Famous quotes containing the word production:
“An art whose limits depend on a moving image, mass audience, and industrial production is bound to differ from an art whose limits depend on language, a limited audience, and individual creation. In short, the filmed novel, in spite of certain resemblances, will inevitably become a different artistic entity from the novel on which it is based.”
—George Bluestone, U.S. educator, critic. “The Limits of the Novel and the Limits of the Film,” Novels Into Film, Johns Hopkins Press (1957)