These cars are starting to see a real surge in popularity today as 30-something people start to re-visit their youth, and in the case of the mk3 thanks in part to its featuring in "life on mars".

These cars were reknowned in their day as a reliable everyday family car, but in the interim years any that have survived this long may well have been through a period as a cheap banger-for many years they were worth practically nothing as newer more aeodynamic machines took their place. so careful inspection of any prospective purchase is a must. Do not believe everything the seller tells you. Over the years I have owned one of every UK model variant and have experienced most of the common faults and problems with these cars.

Firstly, a brief potted history of what was available. The mk3 was a totally new model in 1970, and used at first the 1300 and 1600 OHV "kent" crossflow engines in lower spec models- Base, L and XL models.  Top of the range GT and GXL models used the earliest versions of the long running OHC "Pinto" engine in 1600 or 2000 form.  Up until 1973 the cortina featured a totally '70s sloping dashboard with its characteristic sunken dials. It is these models -especially the GT and GXL models-which are starting to fetch a lot of money these days thanks to the retro appeal and the better looking quad-headlamp front end.

The GXL was phased out in 1973 in favour of a new top of the range model, the 2000E. at the same time the older style interior was replaced by a newer more conventional type of dashboard which was carried though to the MK5. the whole range was slightly facelifted with different lights and front grilles, and all 1600 engines were now the ohc pinto.

The mk4 of 1976 was basically a re-skinned mk3, with the same basic platform and running gear plus the option of a 2.3 V6 engine. the mk5 of late '79 was more of the same with different bumpers, lights and seats.

The same basic problem areas are common to mk3,4 and 5 cars- mainly concerning rust. these cars typify the era of "built in obsolecance" with little effective rust proofing. floorpans, sills, boot floors, wheelarches, wings, doors, bonnets,lower A posts, boot lids, inner wings, chassis rails along the whole length of the car are all well known problem areas. yes, these cars will rot EVERYWHERE given a chance. A car that has lasted this long with no evidence of welding anywhere is a very rare vehicle.

mechanical problems were not much of a problem until recently, but as the pinto engine has now been out of production for close on 15 years decent replacements are starting to become slightly harder to find. The kent ohv engine in particular is very hard to find in 1600 form now.

Engine maladies are more likely to be due to wear and high mileage, such as oil burning (blue smoke) and camshaft clatter. The pinto engine when first introduced was known to destroy its camshaft very quickly due to inadequate lubrication, but any remaining should have been sorted by now. smoke on start up which then clears is more likely to be valve stem oil seals which is not too much of a problem. the pinto engine used a timing belt, which needs replacing every 36000 miles.

A kent ohv engine on its last legs will be fuming from the oil filler cap and they have also been known to crack their cam followers, characterised by a rythmic tapping from the top end. advanced wear in a cologne V6 will also be shown by a noisy top end. the four cylinder models all used a conventional points and condenser ignition system which is pretty trouble free.

with a mk5 1600, you should be weary of which carburettor it has. when new they were supplied with ford's own "VV" carb, which is pretty dire- it was described at the time as "the carb that made mr weber rich" as starting, idling and fuel consumption problems caused by malfunctioning VVs caused many people to simply throw it away and fit a weber instead. This is still true today, if its not running properly its probably the carb. 2 litres had weber twin chokes as standard, whilst the cologne came with a solex/pierburg item- this isnt very good either, if its running ok leave it alone. otherwise a weber will do the trick here as well.

gearboxes, wether manual or automatic are pretty much bulletproof and will last for truly interstellar mileages as long as they are kept topped up with oil. The same is true of rear axles. indeed, the manual boxes were regarded in their time as the best in the business, with a wonderful positive rifle-bolt gearchange action. the only real problem is that occasionally the threads at the base of the gearstick that hold it into the gearbox can strip, allowing the gearstick to fall out, but a new stick will cure this.

The main cause of MOT failure will be the rear suspension "void" bushes, these are what hold the rear axle in place and in a regularly used car can require replacement every year. worn bushes will allow the axle the move around, leading to interesting handling!

wear in the front wishbone bushes has also been known, if everything is ok the car should feel positive with accurate steering. brakes are the industry standard disc front, drum rear and pose no problems apart from the automatic handbrake adjuster seizing up sometimes.

You should ensure any prospective purchase has a good interior, replacements for anything are getting very hard to find, in particular early mk3 trim with the sought after highback "tombstone" seats.

which version is best is purely a personal opinion. I found the 1300 to be underpowered, and it revs too hard at motorway speeds-it had lower gearing to enable it to actually get moving in the first place- with no real fuel economy benefit.

1600s were the most common, they are ok- no road burners but offer a good performance/economy compromise.

2000 versions were the performance option of their day, capable of 100 mph and for its time, good accelleration. fuel economy is not a high point however, rarely achieving more than 25 mpg.

The 2.3 V6 was never a particularly common car, It offers a wonderfully smooth engine and sounds good, but in reality is a dissapointment with performance little better than the 2.0, but with far worse fuel consumption.on the plus side, a 2.8 granada V6 can be fitted in as a straight swap which does offer better performance.

Personally I think it wouldnt pay to be too set on a particular variant unless you really must have a GXL- condition is everything, and if you are dead set on aquiring for example a mk4 2.0/2.3S you will have to search very hard.

These are very easy cars to own and have very basic mechanicals, with very little beyond the scope of the average diy mechanic. I would still have one today if fuel economy wasnt such an issue, my 1982 Mk5 1.6 L was the most reliable car I ever owned. good hunting!