I came across this classic on Kijiji classifieds and it immediately caught my attention. The Fairmont and Zephyr are already extremely rare to come across these days and usually if you do come across one, it’s a Futura or Z7 coupe that is already restored, modified and carrying a hefty price tag. It is amazing how a car that was once so plentiful on the streets of North America has all but vanished, save for those few that have become Garage Queens.
I have always had a weakness for the Fairmont & Zephyr and I am certain this has more to do with the fact it was the very first type of car I looked at when it was time to buy my first car 20 years ago. I remember Dad and I taking a 1980 Zephyr wagon, burnt orange with wood grain accent, for a test drive. The Fairmont & Zephyr wagons are an attractive looking car in their own way (and really, so are the others in the line up) and even though it was equipped with the less-than-thrilling 3.3L six and column shift automatic, I thought it would be an ideal car and a great bargain.
Dad didn’t have too much of an opinion, he wouldn’t have cared too much, but my Mom certainly was not about to have that ‘relic’ hanging around the house and promptly shot down any notion of purchasing it, advising me that my first car would be ‘a few years old’ and ‘good on gas’… and ultimately that first car came in the form of a 1990 Chevrolet Sprint (yes, I hit both prerequisites).
This example apparently sports the 3.3L (200 CID) six and the base three-speed manual gearbox, something I have never actually seen in person before. The ’78 Fairmont brochure states that the three-speed manual comes with column shift, but there were obviously some exceptions.
I have acquired two of these original Fox body rides over the years. I had a ’79 Fairmont four door sedan in the same burnt orange with the rare venting rear sail panels for a few months followed by a decked out ’81 Z7 coupe with all the goodies and even a 302 swapped in for the original 255 V8. Unfortunately, the former was purchased more for parts than use (I was building a 1980 Mustang coupe at the time) and the latter was a ride that I loved but was completely impractical for my life at the time (ie: it needed too many repairs and too much fuel for a cash strapped youngster in the city). Ownership of both was brief, sadly.
Manual steering, manual brakes, dog dish hubcaps and what appears to be a very basic driver’s side mirror (perhaps the only side equipped with one). This is about as basic as it gets, though it’s interesting that this one carries the upgraded engine option over the base 2.3L four.
At the end of the day, it’s completely piqued my interest. This is a rare car, indeed. It deserves new life. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t tempted. We’ll see what sort of replies I get to my inquiry and then consider the logistics of a trip deep into the southern interior of BC. Unfortunately, it’s not just down the road!
Drop a 5.0/T5 from a Fox-stang into this and you’d have an epic sleeper.
A sleeper, yes, but not a fraction as unique or interesting as the original 3-speed/six combo.
Even the factory malaise 302 had pretty good poke in the Fairmont since it was so light. The C3 Bordeaux automatic, however, was a weak point since it was originally intended for the Pinto, so stick with the “stick.”
That C3 eventually evolved into the A4LD, then the 4R55E, then the 5R55E found behind every 4.0 V6 equipped Ranger/Explorer. Still not a particularly durable transmission even in 2010.
It’s funny, I noticed that ad few months ago it must have been re-posted. I think the price dropped too. I happen to live in the Southern Interior…although it’s still about 5 hrs away
The amazing thing about a Fairmont is that it is a 37 year old car and it is largely invisible in 2015. Any 37 year old car in 1978 would have had people drooling all over it. When they were new I thought they were the Wonder Bread of the automotive world. Now I realize how far ahead of their time they were.
A 1941 car in 1978 was way more visually different from other cars than a 37 year car would be today. The things that really dates it are the overall squareness, and the four door sedan bodystyle.
So, even as late as 1978, the standard tranny on a domestic sedan was a 3 speed manual. The ’78 Accord had a four speed (or maybe a five speed?) manual as standard.
When you look at cars from this era the only explanation is that the BIg Three had nothing but contempt for their customers.
The 2.3l 4cyl was the base engine and the base trans with it was the 4sp, so technically the 3sp was an “upgrade” since you had to pay extra for the 6cyl which down graded you to the 3sp. I’d say that combo was really really rare though because I saw lots of cars with the 6cyl but they had the AT behind it.
Ford probably felt they needed to keep the 6cyl 3sp combo available since that had been very common. So they want those people who were trading in their Maverick or Falcon and wanted something familiar. A lot of people also didn’t want that extra gear. I remember when my step mother said that she didn’t know why my dad bought the Pinto with a 4sp instead of a 3sp since it was just that much more “work” shifting an extra time. By this time they also knew the inline 6’s days were numbered, so tooling up for a new trans for it didn’t make a lot of sense.
Point taken, but it was never intended to be ordered. It was always there to enable advertising a low base price. Problem is, a lot of hicks ordered them anyway. The absolute final 3-on-the-tree cars were the ’79 Nova X-body and it’s BOP cohorts. pickups went a little longer, Fords up to ’82 ㅐ개 내.
Other sources say the 3OTT was available on F-Series pickups and E-Series vans through 1986, and Chevy and Dodge pickups and vans through1987.
Also, bias-ply tires still standard in 1978 ?!?
The base Fairmont was so sparse – look at those body-color painted door tops, the spindly steering wheel, and the seats had pretty much no stitching in them. Even the mid-grade upgraded interior was still quite plain
Despite being marketed quite differently, I have to imagine these were frequently crossed-shopped with the also-new-for-’78 Chevy Malibu, which was really a very similar car in many ways save for the absense of a 4-cylinder engine option. I think I would have chosen the Ford if I had to choose between those two. If the sail panel vents weren’t enough, the also-optional front vent windows and roll-down rear windows (which the Malibu infamously lacked) added fresh-air options. When equipped with the most deluxe of the three available interior treatments, the Fairmont was more plush than the Malibu IMO. I think Fairmonts tended to have better build quality. And may have been less expensive.
Fairmont wasn’t really aimed at small imports.
And look at all the manual trans Accords that are not for sale anymore, so who has “contempt” these days?
The Asians are “giving people what they want”, and led to their success.
I don’t know about the 2016 models, but Honda does/did still offer the Accord with a manual transmission in 2015. The “catch” was that it was not available at any dealer (had to be special ordered), and the 1 or 2 trim levels where it was offered only gave you 1 color “choice”. I know this because I considered buying a lightly loaded Accord and the (now) “base” LX is/was available with the 4 cylinder and a manual transmission….but the only color was black. There is/was an Accord model called Sport (to compete with the Camry SE?), that I believe also had/has the manual transmission available. A Civic with the manual is nearly as hard to come by, as is the Fit.
BTW, the cheapest model HR-V has a manual transmission as standard equipment.
HR-V manual is 2wd only and I expect 2wd HR-Vs to be rare, not least because they don’t offer much for their $3000 premium over a comparably equipped Fit except the ability to say you drive a “crossover” instead of a “hatchback”.
Good point, but for many buyers that AWD feature isn’t a big deal. But having a crossover instead of a “plain old hatchback” is worth a few bucks. How else to explain folks buying the BMW X1, X3, X5 when a similar AWD 3 or 5 series wagon is available?
I strongly suspect that the 3-speed column mentioned in the ’78 brochure was an early print, and was cancelled before production. The ’79 brochure makes no mention of it.
I don’t even think that weird 80s split-shell column was ever designed to accommodate it,
anyway.
Yeah that column was not set up for a manual trans shifter. Maybe they were planning on using the old Maverick column?
Did the 4-cyl/4-speed combo “expected” to become available in the wagons later in the year ever make it to production?
It’s listed as the standard powertrain across the board in ’79 and ’80.
My brother’s god-father had a Mercury Zephyr Wagon with the 4-cylinder, 4-speed combo. They called it the tin can and didn’t appreciate it, but looking back it was kind of awesome and I’d love to find one!
I guess these cars are where Ford AU got the idea to put a Cortina 2L four into their falcon it never got past the prototype stage because as an economy measure it worked in reverse the four banger Pinto engine used more fuel than the six.
I wonder if this car’s window sticker would have showed the cost of the 3.3 engine option, then as well a credit for the then mandatory delete option down to the 3sp manual. Since the floor manual shifter was optional on most 70s compacts, this might also have appeared. One can see with this car how complicated adding a 2.3 4 engine was. Remember the Vega where they made Opel do a 3sp just for the Vega because a standard 4sp just looked too generous to them. I love the elaborate order forms, they sometimes lacked common sense, but there was logic.
Fairmonts were everywhere in the late 70s/early 80s.
My family owned 2 (not at the same time). I’ve never seen a 6-cyl, 3-speed manual. They were offered only in 1978, and I presumed they were column shift, like base Novas, Mavericks, Aspens, etc, of the period. Maybe not–this is the first picture I’ve seen of a manual 6-cyl Fairmont.
During it’s 1978 debut, the Fairmont/Zephyr came with the 2.3 Pinto/4-speed manual standard. Optional was the 200 I6 with a 3-spd (rare), or auto. and a 302 V8 with an auto.
1979 brought two big changes: both the 200-6 and 302-V8 came with a 4-speed (actually 3-speed + overdrive) manual floor shift, though I’m sure 99% were sold with automatic. The V8 could do a 1/4 mile in under 17 sec–very good for that era!
In 1980, the 302 was dropped in favor of a rather anemic 255-V8 for an extra “EPA” mpg, and available only with automatic.
In sort of a CC effect, a white 2-door Fairmont or Zephyr passed me going the other way on my way to work yesterday morning. It was definitely a driver, but not rusted out. Rare to see in the summer, much less in November.
Of course yesterday I also passed a deuce coupe hot rod with no fenders on my way to work. In the rain. I’ve seen this one up close at cat shows before and it’s really nice, so I was surprised to see it on the road now. Definitely an unusual day for car spotting.
I think as late as 1990 Honda only gave you a driver’s side mirror. I had a 1989 Civic sedan (DX) and that car only had 1 outside mirror.
In the late 80s, the Navy base I lived near was downsizing and in conjunction with that the Recreation Department was auctioning A LOT of “spare” equipment. 1 item on the block was an 80 Fairmont wagon with what I believed to be a super-rare 4 cylinder/4 speed powertrain. At more than 10 years old, that wagon had 77,000 miles on it. I bid $300….and lost to a bidder who got it for $400.
My parents had a nearly loaded 79 V8 Zephyr. For that time period, a great car to drive but not without faults. Interior assembly quality would be a persistent problem with “Fox-bodied” cars. The upholstery stained easily and near permanently, the carpeting was marginally too small, and the ashtrays fell apart before the 1st payment was mailed.
BTW, this paint job/color looks near new/fairly recent.
Yes, the passenger-side mirror was a dealer option which I declined on my ’88 Accord DX. Aside from being cheap (frugal), I don’t like getting Charley Horses from them in the garage.
I thought all Fairmont outside mirrors were faired into the door, not like the example above.
Re the paint, I agree as Fairmont exterior finish was pretty threadbare; anyone wanting posh would need the Granada.
Base Fairmonts did not have the “aero” mirror.
The came with the Exterior Accent Group ($) or Exterior Decor Group ($$), for driver only, or both. Not sure it it was a stand alone option.
Saw quite a few of these base cars, with dog-dish hub caps in NY in late 70s/early 80s. But most had the aero mirror and full wheel covers.
Thanks; I guess I never saw or remembered those.
105.5″ wheelbase on a car a FOOT longer than my
Kia Optima?? My wheelbase is 107.5″! Guess it
was harder for mfgs to make the wheelbase longer
on RWD cars. Something I suspected for decades
as a car buff.
And the overhangs got even larger when they tooled up the Fox-body Granada and LTD.
The 8th-gen Civic’s wheelbase is about an inch longer, with very little overhang. Little wonder it has decent backseat legroom.
By the glad to see Curbside Classics is back
online again! Thanks to all who got under the
hood to get it running. ?
I was under the impression that the 4 cylinder Fairmont was also available with the 4 speed manual overdrive as opposed to the 4 speed direct drive. My uncle bought a 78 Futura Coupe new and I rode in it a few times….The transmission seemed to be a wide ratio and 4th felt like an overdrive….I remember him saying that the car got high twenties to near 30 mpg on highway trips.
We had a 4-cyl, 4-spd, which I inherited. I saw one wagon so equipped, and at least 1-2 other like that, so this combo was rare. Most cars were 4 or 6-cyl with a column shift auto.
The 4-cyl was not an overdrive unit. Fourth was direct. But it was a wide ratio box..I think 3.98, 2.16, 1.41, 1.00:1 ?
However, the gap between 1st and 2nd was a little larger (not huge) than ideal. The car lugged under 13-14 mph, lugged badly under 10 mph, yet you had to wind it a bit in 1st to hit 15 mph. By 20 mph, the engine sounded coarse (in 1st).
Car didn’t have a tachometer, but I estimate over 4,000 rpm, the engine pulled but sounded rough, whereas it sounded smooth between “lug” and say 3-3500 rpm.
First was a hair tall, and you had to slip the clutch a little, That, and my learing to drive a stick might explain why our car needed a clutch replacement at 39k miles (but when I sold it at 80k, it seemed fine).
Fourth was a little tall. I’ve read 4th was about 24 mph per 1000 rpm, so the car did 2500 rpm at 60. I could shift to 4th at 35, but the car was much happier going into 4th at 40-45 (which is what I usually did).
Considering you had 2.3 liters pushing a fairly big car (frontal area) compared to a Pinto, and only 88 hp at 4800 rpm and 118 lb ft at ? (28? 3000 rpm?), 5 gears would have helped a lot. The extra cog would narrow the gaps between 1st and 4th (now 5th). The could leave 4th (now 5th) where it was, slighly lower 1st, lower 2nd (to make 2nd more useful on slow turns and make the 1-2 shift cleaner, less rpm drop), and space 3rd and 4th better.
The six was actually slower. It had only 85 hp at something like 3600 rpm. It did have more low-end torque.
After I moved out, my mom got a used 81 6-cyl auto. It was slow, the 6-cyl wasn’t especially smooth, and it was a lot thirstier than my 4-cyl 4-speed.
I drove these cars making deliveries in the Northern Virginia suburbs, but never drove a 4 cylinder. These cars were awful. They were very uncomfortable and slow.
The ad shows two different speedometers. The second one appears to be a high level Fairmont with column shift and woodgrain instrument bezel. It shows 35240 km. Maybe that picture is from the white car. Could be that car is also up for sale.
The “poverty spec” cars had that black/grey striped instrument panel trim, and yes the higher spec cars had wood grain.
I’ve never understood why sellers include the “wrong” pictures when they post online. For this Fairmont I would include a picture of the trunk and engine compartments and not 2 shots of 2 different speedometers…even if I was trying to sell both as a “package deal”.
In my experience, these cars were NOT rusters, EXCEPT at the leading edge of the hood and bottom edge of the trunk lid. Though my father’s Zephyr had a badly rusted through area in the front passenger’s footwell.
Interesting car to be sure .
I’ve never seen a manual tranny Fairmont .
Loads of i6 equipped ones went out the door when new , they were O.K. cars , roomy , very poor build quality but good for fleets and folks with zero cash .
I hope someone buys this pair (advert says take one or both) and assembles one solid poverty special runner out of them…
-Nate
The Fox platform Mustang that debuted in 1979 had a 4 speed manual with the 2.3 liter 4 cylinder….probably the same powertrain as available in the Fairmont….A year or two later, a 5 speed overdrive became available on the 4 cylinder Mustang
If the 3.3/3spd combo was previously available in, say, the Maverick, it makes sense that they’d continue it in the Fairmont (at least initially), since the architecture was already in place for the 2.3/4spd.
It’s interesting that no one has made mention of the infamous stalk-mounted horn that was so hated back then.
The horn came out in my hand one day!
I just pushed it back in, and made a note of it. With a lil extra care, it never fell out again.
I had a ’79 Futrura in Midnight Blue Metallic with the 200 straight 6 back in the day… Bought it new…. I distinctly recall the salesperson walking out to the car with me as I was about to drive away for the first time, specifically to show me how to operate the horn. I remember thinking, ‘OK, THAT’s weird’, but you got used to it. If memory serves, the ’83 T-Bird I traded that car in on had the horn on the stalk as well, but I may be recalling that incorrectly.
Oh, and yes, although these cars were attractive (at least I thought so), this car was painfully slow. Mine was also a 3 speed automatic. It was my impression that the only ‘stick shift’ Fairmont was the “Euro-Sport Package” that eliminated any ‘broughamification’ what-so-ever, and only came with a 4-cyl. I wasn’t a fan of that look, personally.
The Fairmont didn’t strike me as very Baroque, even in Ghia form, as the materials & trim were not as upmarket as the Granada et al. And thankfully, no Opera Windows, either. Not until the Fox Granada replaced it did it enter the Brougham Zone.
My Futura had the “Exterior Accent Group” or whatever they called it, and there was some chrome (or pseudo-chrome) to be enjoyed. After my first car, a ’73 LTD, I was still looking for some style like that, and the Futura was the most dressed up of the Fairmonts. Funny though, in a weight saving effort, the bumpers (and I kept them REALLY shiny) were not chrome plated steel like the LTD’s, but highly polished aluminum… so even with this slight amount of “Broughaminess”, the handwriting was on the wall for such a look… by the time I traded it in on my ’83 T-Bird, chrome was becoming a thing of the past.
If this wasn’t in Canada…
My grandparents bought a new ’81 Zephyr wagon, I-6 with automatic and AC. It was rather bare bones otherwise but was a very reliable car that got pretty decent mileage. Driving it, it seemed pretty light…especially once we put P195R75R14 tires on it (one size larger). These cars were very popular at the time and they had a bit of a hard time trying to find a suitable one.
My grandmother was driving it and was broadsided by someone who ran a stop sign @ 30 MPH — she walked away, though the car was totaled. It was replaced with a Fox-bodied ’86 Marquis V-6 wagon that was another workhorse. As a product, it was substantially upgraded over the Zephyr, even taking into account the higher level of optional equipment.
If I needed another wagon, I’d buy one of these in an instant.
Did these have the crossflow alloy head that the AU 200 cube motor came with or the wheezy old banger from the dark ages?
In a case of NIH (not invented here), Ford U.S. never, ever, even considered using the crossflow design on the 200 OHV engine….much less the turbo.
Of course, it would have also required a lot of re-thinking, re-tooling, and re-training to incorporate the crossflow. They didn’t even incorporate the crossflow when they “upsized” the 2 liter engine to the 2.3 base Fairmonts and late model Pintos used.
The German sourced Pinto 2.0 was always a cross-flow design and so was the Lima 2.3 as used in so many Fords for so many years.
I think by the time that the guys down under had the cross flow Falcon 6 Ford had pretty much decided that the inline 6’s days were numbered in US cars. Meanwhile down under that was the motivation for their “full size” cars and were a significant portion of sales. So instead they spent the US 6cyl money on V6 engines due to them being easier to package in smaller cars.
Still I too think it would be cool to drop one of the later model AU versions of the Falcon 6 into a sleeper Falcon or Farimont.
Years ago I ran across a guy on the local Craigslist that had a project for sale that was doing the AU head swap. I think it was destined for an early Mustang.
One could really make a case for the Falcon 6 being updated in lieu of the 3.8l ESSEX. The V6 configuration is most naturally suited for transverse layouts, and in the 80s the 3.8 only made it into RWD Fox chassis cars, with the lone exception of the 88 Continental. The Taurus got it in the second gen update(and dropped it for the third), as well as the Windstar of course, but that’s pretty much it. Fox/SN95, MN12, and F150s(in 4.2 form) were all RWD and could have taken(or at least be configured for) the longer I6. Not to mention just how troublesome the 3.8 was
The Taurus got the 3.8 in 88 too, still in the first gen.
Ford did experiment with inline engines, or “T” engines of more than 4cyl in FWD applications, specifically building an 8cyl Tempo. It was completely unrelated to the HSC 2.3 which of course was related to the Falcon “6” architecture. Interestingly they didn’t do a cross-flow with the 2.3 either since it was a clean sheet in the head design.
http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/FMC-engines/t-drive/default.htm
So far as I can tell, Ford made absolutely no effort over the years to improve any of their domestic automotive I-6s, other than for emissions compliance. Ironclad rule of US car-buying back then: If you wanted a better engine, you upgraded to a V-8. Only exceptions I’m aware of were Chrysler’s Hyperpak /6 & the Pontiac OHC, both of which were discontinued.
The Buick 231 would’ve been a much better midrange option; indeed Ford’s later Essex did just this starting with the Fox Granada.
What a curious stripper spec. In the ’90s I once drove the ’78 Malibu that belonged to a family friend, given to her by her grandmother. No options other than an AM/FM radio and maybe cloth seats, so it had a V6, 3-speed manual and unassisted brakes. Very odd to drive, as the brake pedal required lots of effort but the typical GM power steering only took a couple of fingers. Pretty crappy, but memorable. Died when it slipped out of park and rolled out of our driveway into the brick mailbox across the street.
thats the car i was looking for and could not find at the ford dealer on lake st in mpls in 1978—–they sold me this stripper granada for about the same price—but would not take my audi fox with a broken trans as a trade in–
mike matern:
I just can’t stomach something that hideous underpinning
that generation of Mustang/Capri! lol Plus, didn’t the Fox
have to be made narrower for the pony cars?
A ’78 Zephyr lives here in my town – I see it several times a week. Identical colour! I’ve posted it previously, but here’s a pic I took of it a year or two ago (there are more pics of it on the CC Cohort):
Theres a rusting yellow Fairmont in Napier not a great neighbourhood to take pics in though red/black territory.
Sure looks sharp indeed and looks as good as this Fairmont which showed up in North Portland, OR recently. I would consider buying it if the price was right.
Holy smokes you actually found an 81 with the 255 V8. I have looked at thousands of these over the years and have still yet to find any factory 1980-82 every equipped with this ultra rare engine option.
My ’81 Z7 was originally equipped with the 255 as the engine option, but by the time I bought it in 2002, it had long been swapped for a similar year 302 2 bbl.
The green Zephyr I posted the pic of above is registered here in New Zealand as a 4.1L, which is roughly 255ci, so presumably was a 255 from factory. Currently has a 302 I think.
Fairmont was the recall king before the X bodies came out.
Dad looked at one with the 4cyl 4 speed. The Ford dealer wasn’t much interested in his business, nor was Chevrolet when he inquired about the Chevette. That’s how he wound up in a new Subaru DL.
The Big Three’s attitude toward the small car and it’s buyer was contempt. This demographic was considered out of the norm and not reflective of their brands. They were just weirdos who didn’t know what they wanted.
Sort of like what GM thought when it designed the ION.
Don’t know who’d want such a basic car, not me. BIL had an ’81 Fairmont in early 90’s. It had the 200 six, 3-spd auto, power brakes and steering, not much else. Crap brown with brown vinyl interior. Was ok, pretty roomy but the seats were set low. He totaled it crossing a lane blind, hit broadside by a ’78 Eldorado, only minor injuries so I guess the car was well built for crash safety. He replaced that car with an ’81 Mercury Cougar 4-dr with the 255 V8. Cushy interior, much nicer than the Fairmont but the eight was gutless.
I’ve always liked these cars for some unknown reason. My parents had a 1984 mid size LTD station wagon, which is basically the same car, just warmed over. I’d consider one as well, if I found one available.
I bought a used 1982 Fairmont – it was a champaigne metallic with red interior – it was a really nice car until I found out it had been wrecked and the gas tank would fill with water. It was an automatic (argh) and had a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder – not a bad performer considering the era and got really good gas mileage. This thing was so roomy. Being the cheap person I am, had the Fairmont not been wrecked or had problems, I would have likely kept it – it looked brand new inside and out and its gremlins didn’t start to show until it really rained and our mechanic had to drop the tank and redo all of the fuel filler area to get it to stay dry (non water). By this model year, Ford had changed the trunk area and it was much deeper than the early Fairmonts. I’d like to say it also was a Futura even though it did not have the odd window treatment that we have known Futuras to have.
I also had a friend whose dad bought a strippo Zephyr four door and it had a manual transmission. Thought it odd that a four door would have front buckets seats and a manual tranny at the time.
I have bought both fairmonts there be quite a bit of rust I’m probably going to half to cut up another car to patch it up the one I’ll be sticking in a 351w with a 4spd not shure if I’ll keep the origonal front clip or stick a mustang one on lol I have 3 kids and love mustangs so this car was a no brainer for me to pick up great seeing other car enthusiasts that like these cars as well.
I would love to own this one. I would just fix it’s mechanics if needed, and leave everything else authenthic. Too bad here in Europe we never had these cool cars.