Let’s face it, honesty is not necessarily the best policy in the car business (or any business, including Wall Street, politics, food processing, and…). GM proved that in the late twenties when they invented planned obsolescence and put the painfully honest Model T out of business. The art of (self) deception has played itself out colorfully over the decades, whether it was fins, horsepower, Broughams, SUVs, The Ultimate Driving Machine for the congested commute, or just endless easy credit. But there’s something about an economic crisis that jolts humans out of their addict’s stupor to reconsider what’s real and what’s not. It never lasts very long, but a few refreshingly honest cars have resulted, none more so than the 1978 Fairmont. Perhaps we should call it the Cold Turkeymobile.
Actually, we could call it so many things, and I struggled with a whole slew of headlines for this CC: The Car That Saved Ford; Ford Builds The Most Widely Adapted Platform Ever; The 1960 Falcon Reincarnated; The New Valiant; Ford Builds A Volvo 240; The Most European American Car Ever; The Most Significant Car Of The Seventies…I could probably keep going for a while. But in the end, the Fairmont’s remarkably blunt honesty is what strikes me most, especially when we consider the times when it appeared.
The mid-late seventies was when the deception game was being played with high stakes: I’ll see your Grand Heritage Elite Bill Blass Custom Mark XXX ReVile with my Classic Supreme Brougham Superb deSade. And Ford’s chips were pretty much all in. Even the semi-compact Granada was born trying to look like a Benz:
And it wasn’t just in terms of appearance and pretentious names either: let’s face it, Ford in the seventies was in a very serious slump, and it showed, even below the skin. It’s a crass generalization, but Ford quality, handling, engine driveability, and a few other aspects were, on average, the bottom of the Big Three barrel. Why?
Leadership, or the lack of it. A very young Henry Ford II did a superb job of turning around a sinking ship right after the war. And through the sixties, Ford managed to put up a hell of a fight with GM. But Hank was getting tired of it all, understandably. The burden was huge, and he had sacrificed his youth for the sake of the family business. And as is not uncommon, he wanted to find a bit of fun and distraction before it was too late. The car business requires constant attention, and Henry’s jet setting and ever younger women resulted in…ill-handling poorly built barges. Of course Henry had his lieutenants, (Lee Iacocca, mostly) but ultimately the fish stinks from the head. And Iacocca was the master of deception.
So how do we explain the Fairmont, which so eschewed everything that the rest of the Ford family of fine cars embraced? Economic crisis. The 1974-1974 energy crisis was the biggest jolt to America’s sense of confidence and optimism since the Depression. There had been other classic recessions, like the nasty one in 1958, but those were seen for what they were: a painful but brief adjustment of the domestic economic supply and demand machine.
But the Energy Crisis was caused by an externality: OPEC’s oil embargo. Now that was a recession of a different color indeed, and not the last. Suddenly the great Brougham Deception looked like it was built on a shaky foundation: endless cheap oil. Time to get real. And so Ford did, proving that they were perfectly capable of it, when the motivation was there.
The Fox platform that underpins the Fairmont can be called utterly pragmatic as well as genius. Unlike GM, Ford was not about to bet the Ford farm on FWD, yet. Let’s not forget that GM’s X-Body program (Citation CC here) was started about the same time as the Fox-Body, but GM’s ambitious effort to re-invent the American car was delayed by its variety of issues that were never properly licked anyway. Ford took the cheap and easy way out, and what a winning gamble that was.
They didn’t have to look very far for what they needed either: Ford of Europe was building perfectly capable RWD cars that handled, steered and braked as good or better than its competition. Ford had been down this road before too: the 1971 Pinto borrowed heavily from the Ford Cortina, except of course for its ridiculous cramped and bulgy body. Unlike GM’s perpetual hubris which convinced itself that it knew better than Opel how to build a small car (Vega), Ford was always more ready to look across the ocean.
I’m not implying that the Fox was directly based on Ford’s European platforms (UK Granada above), but the basic front suspension architecture (struts, rack and pinion steering), size and overall architecture bear a decided similarity. Now we’re thinking semi-globally. Although frankly, the Granada looks even better. Well, that’s at least one area where Dearborn did tend to inject their own little brand of hubris…
The point is, Detroit had never built a car quite like the Fairmont: light but strong, conventional RWD for maximum engine/transmission flexibility, crisp steering, and utterly unpretentious. Amazing what a recession can do to clear the mind of distractions.
To go back to one of the alternate headlines, yes, the Fairmont can also be seen as a legitimate successor to the 1960 Falcon, which was also a remarkably clean and pragmatic car. And it came on the heels of the 1958 recession. And it was a huge success, until America’s car buyers drifted off…in more seductive directions.
Not the Maverick (above), I mean, but bigger and better things, like personal luxury coupes. Which meant that when Ford had no choice but to build a Falcon successor in 1970, its solution was to make the Maverick a cramped but ever-so-stylish new body on the tired old 1960 Falcon platform. It did the trick, for those that were so inclined, easily seduced or didn’t yet trust imports. Expedient, but hardly honest.
To appreciate the stark honesty of the Fairmont, one has to really get in, look around, and take it for a drive, because the outside just doesn’t take very long to absorb the full picture: boxy, with superb visibility. Or to borrow that other headline: very Volvo-esque indeed. Yes, that interior is as honest as it gets, for mid-seventies Detroit. This one is the lowest trim level, but still, that dash looks like it could have been borrowed form the English Granada, more or less.
And how about that driving experience? Well, my ever so thrifty father had a Mercury Zephyr version, with Ford’s long-lived Lima 2.3 OHC four and a four speed stick on the floor. That required bucket seats, which my father would never have thought to get otherwise. I drove it a few times on visits home, and it was so un-American that the House Committee on Un-American Activities should have had it on their black list.
There simply was nothing like it this side of a Volvo or…dare I mention more vaunted European brands? To drive a roomy American sedan with accurate and light manual steering, utterly devoid of the heavy-engine induced terminal understeer, a slick stick on the floor, decent brakes, and a willingness to be tossed about like a bowl of fresh baby greens. Don’t get me wrong: the basic car lacked the tire size and a a firmer suspension setting to make this a true sports sedan, not to mention some more beans from the 86 hp (go ahead and laugh) four.
But one didn’t dread taking it out for a brisk spin in the back roads, and it hung in there even when pushed to its modest limits, unlike the wallowing Fords of the time. A revelation indeed; Detroit could actually build that somehow seemed so utterly elusive for so long, at least since the Corvair. But that one never really caught on as a family sedan.
The Fairmont wagon takes the Volvo comparisons to even greater heights. I’m hard pressed to think of another wagon that comes as close. And so under-appreciated, at least in what its potential could have been if Ford had taken a more Volvo-like approach in cultivating the Fairmont.
No, that couldn’t have happened. Despite a huge first year smash sales success of 461k units, the Fairmont was soon overshadowed by the need to get away from stark honesty again. In 1981, the Granada became a tarted up Fairmont, and the seemingly endless variations on the theme of Fox began. Some of them were more appetizing than others, and thankfully they all sat on those athletic Fox legs, which were hard conceal, no matter what stand-up grille and bustle-back burden was placed on them.
Of course, the Mustang took the Fox’ athletic abilities in another direction, one that seemed to never end and amaze. Long legs, the Fox had.
Getting back to a few salient details of the Fairmont: probably not that many came equipped like my Dad’s; this one, caught at a retirement home, more likely has the old Falcon 200 CID (3.3 L) six which somehow was rated at 85 hp, one less than the 2.3 L four. And this from the company that so prided itself on its racing prowess. Ford somehow always managed to have the lowest hp/displacement ratings in the seventies.
A V8 was also available; the 302 (4.9 L) in 130-139 hp versions, and later the very forgettable 255 version with a remarkable 119 hp rating. Why bother, especially when it only burdened the front end more? The 86 hp four and the stick was the way to row oneself to the shore of modest pleasures. I almost forgot; the turbo version of the 2.3 four was available in 1979 and 1980 only, but that was the rather nasty blow-through-carburetor version that made a bad name for itself. And they were mighty rare in the Fairmont. Now the electronically-controlled EFI turbo from the 1983 T-Bird Turbo Coupe would have been a different story indeed.
Although the Fairmont’s day in the honest glare of sunshine was rather brief, its greatest claim to fame is that it bailed out Ford. In 1979, Ford had a very near brush with bankruptcy, and the Fox body sedans allowed it struggle through the second energy crisis/recession of 1981 just long enough for it to be replaced by the Taurus, another brilliant Ford forged in the depths of crisis. It seems that’s what it usually takes, for Ford as well as the rest of us.
Thanks for an interesting second look at what I may have dismissed as a ‘granny-mobile’, not that long ago.
I’m curious – how did these wee beasties hold up? Did their ‘honesty’ extend to build quality, durability etc. ?
And why, why did engine designers fail so miserably to eke out anything resembling decent power – even out of v8 engines? That’s not just malaise, that’s out and out emasculation!
As far as I know, they held up fine enough. My father had his Zephyr for over ten years, until he bought a Taurus. They were very simple cars, and the engines and transmissions were tried and proven, unlike GM’s Citation and other X-Bodies. I’m not aware of any specific weakness, except the usual rats nest of vacuum lines that would eventually leak. Maybe someone else has more experience.
Everyone struggled during this time with power; the only way to meet the rapidly changing emission laws was with very crude measures, like retarding ignition advance. Detroit was too cheap to use fuel injection yet.
My mom has a 1979 Fairmont that she has used as her daily driver for at least five years and the owner before her used it as his daily driver as well. Its slow and boring with the straight six and auto trans, but it gets the job done day in, day out. I think the only repair my parents have had to do in the time they owned it is replace the timing chain and my dad was able to do this by himself.
Nice CC! Perfectly put too. It was just an honest car, no promises. Very much like the first gen Taurus and a welcome break from the baroque bricks before it.
I’m a huge fan of the Fox cars. I had a 79 Mustang Notchback with a 2.8 V6/auto I wish I never sold. It was well balanced and the 2.8 had adequate power if not just enough for what the car was.
Holy cow! Whoda thunk it? That car is exactly like the one my father-in-law bought from Hertz! Same colors, same year. Had to get the tranny replaced later, though, but overall it was a decent car. He bought it in late 1978, so it was a year old, I think. The rental companies only kept their cars for a year or 25,000 miles or so, it seemed. That’s a pretty nice find. The body damage on the clue really threw me off. The coolest feature on his car was the in the winter, you got instant heat from the A/C, so either it acted as a heat pump, or it was messed-up. Whatever, during the winter of 1978-79, instant heat was good.
An old fella at church has a Zephyr in a light burnt orange sort of color, solid cloth bench seat, auto column shifter, interior almost the same color as the exterior. I’ve always wondered if it was a 4cyl or a 6cyl. One of those cars I would jump on in a heartbeat if it was suddenly “for sale.”
Although my heart beats strongest for the ULTRA RARE 1980-1982 Ford Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar (coupe) that was based off of this platform, likely the tinyest car to ever wear the Thunderbrid name. The shared Mustang components make me dream of a swapping in a fire breathing 302 V8 and firming up the suspension to Mustang GT (or at least LX) levels.
If you popped the hood on one of those you could see the ground between the motor and the wheel wells.
I have a lot of experience with Fox body cars, but I will limit my comments to the Zephyrs (we owned Mercurys dammit!) I had direct experience with. I mostly had Mustangs or Capris. My brother bought one of the new 1978 Zephyr ESS models, this one had the blacked out grille and other body trim along with blackwall tires. Very European for the times. It came with 2.3L Lima OHC motor, and the 4 speed manny tranny. The major thing I remember about the car is that it was almost as roomy as my parent’s Mercury Montego, but it was a fair amount shorter. I also remember how big we thought the trunk was, but that was only because it was so wide. It wasn’t until I had seen lots of FWD cars with their (generally) deeper trunks did I realize the trunk was rather shallow. The car had absolutely excellent outward visibility, especially compared to the tanks we pilot today. This car was signifcant to me because I learned to drive on it. The Lima motor had no power and no torque, so there was little chance of the car getting away from you, but damned little fun, too. The car suffered from constant issues with the carburetor and emissions equipment, it backfired, had no power, bogged, and got lousy gas mileage. It was taken back to the dealer about 700 times (kidding, it was 698), and they were never able to replicate the issues… I should have seen this as an omen, as my 1981 Mercury Capri Turbo had similar (but worse) issues, and amazingly the dealer was never able to replicate the issues. Thus started my disillusionment with Ford Motor Company. My experiences with a 1990 Topaz put me off of Fords for a long time, maybe permanently. My brother kept the car until he got his 1986 Eagle Wagon, the car managed to survive eight years with him.
After I got married, my mother in laws mother (grandma in law?) had a Fairmont Futura, with the 3.3 (200 ci) six and the automatic, what a huge difference in the character of the car. It had all of the things I liked about the car, but with torque and acceleration. When she passed in the early 1990′s I should have bought the car from my in-laws, but I let it go. It would have been a good car, although at the time I had two babies (in car seats) and a coupe would have been a bear to install car seats into.
My grandfather owned a ’79 Fairmont. It was bright red and one hell of a nice car. He babied it and it sat in my grandmother’s garage long after he passed. I remember going for rides to pick apples with them.
The car is still on the road. I miss it though and the next time I see a Fairmont for sale, I might consider it. That’s the nostalgic part.
Paul, I believe it was you that once wrote that as you age your cars are getting cheaper. I find myself feeling the same. I loathe car payments, and wish to trade and pay cash. I am currently beginning a car search for a daily driver that will probably take 6 months to a year, and if this Fairmont or something similar were available today it would be near the top of my list. I appreciate the no nonsense design and utility…I once wrote here about my experience with an early ’70′s slant six Valiant and was impressed with its simplicity and undeniable competence…that is what I am looking for today. Unfortunately, Camry’s and the like don’t do it for me the way these simple rwd platforms did.
“An honest car” is an accurate description of these cars! I wish that Ford had developed the Fox sedans throughout the 1980s, but at that time, a front-wheel-drive layout was thought to be the wave of the future. I have the 1979 brochure for the Fairmount, and on the front cover is the tagline, “The most successful new car ever introduced.”
As for Ford’s status in the 1970s – I remember Chrysler quality and reliability as being pretty bad, too. Both Ford and Chrysler were behind GM (except for the Vega) during this decade. It depended on which model you choose as to which company – Ford or Chrysler – was better. The Lincolns were definitely wallowing barges, but they were pretty robust.
GM put a lot of misery into the marketplace as well back then.
It’s a hard call, which of the two win the loser’s prize. Kind of depends on which qualities one gives more or less weight to. The reason I give Ford the nod is because they had more potential; more resources, including global ones, to draw on and do a better job. Chrysler was mostly just plugging leaks in the ship, but I give them some credit for their scrappiness. That was not a quality one found at Ford then.
Once again Paul, you have perfectly summed up a vehicle. Ford sold a ton of these Fox sedans and then actually managed to replace the line with the also Euro-inspired Taurus before they became completely out classed. Ford’s greatest weakness throughout the 70s and 80s is that they invested so little in engine and transmission development. Today, Ford is finally demonstrating real seriousness about power-train development, but back then the instinct to focus on the sizzle was still an issue. But, at least Ford didn’t release innovative but incompletely developed disasters like the Vega engine, Cadillac V8-6-4 and death by V-8 diesel monstrosities GM foisted off on unsuspecting customers.
I had a 1980 Fairmont 2 door sedan, 4 cylinder, 4 speed stick similar to Paul’s father. (This took the place of an ordered but never received 1980 Chevy Citation 2 door because GM couldn’t fulfill the demand for 4 cylinder models). I agree this was a fine, simple, good handling car. My college friends often kidded me about the the square, non-sporty body style. However these same friends frequently expressed genuine surprise at how well this car raced up and down the hilly streets of Ithaca. A good car.
Interesting article we didnt get these as Ford Australia just used the English Granada body on its tried and true Falcon floorpan. They also imported Cortinas as a 4cyl option . I read a cortina engine was trialed in an Aussie Falcon body but was tooo gutless and the idea was dropped. Ford can build unitary cars that can take an absolute thrashing on bad dirt roads just not in the US. The first model Falcon as pictured fell to pieces in Aussie in town not the bush they were rubbish, once the suspension had been sorted and the shell toughened up they turned into a good car, wonder why they arent reintroduced sounds like the cars US buyers want.
The sedans were certainly plain Jane, but the “basket handle” coupes were pretty stylish:
http://www.server7.com/images/cars/fairmont/008.jpg
And while the ’83 T-Bird is the one everybody remembers for ushering in Ford’s “aero” design, the midsize LTD was rather sleek in its own way. Better yet, bolt an LTD front clip on your Futura! http://www.mustangandfords.com/featuredvehicles/ford_powered/73718_ford_fairmont_futura_fastback/photo_01.html
You’re right, and I recently found a lovely and pristine Futura coupe. It will get its own CC: The Dishonest Fairmont!
I had no idea Ford ever offered a turbo 4 in the Fairmont until I read this article.
If the Fairmont or the (small) LTD had ever offered the Thunderbird/SVO Mustang’s turbo 4 with a 5-speed manual gearbox (or even an overdrive automatic) that really would have been close to an American Volvo 240/740.
Paul – I’m starting from the bottom of the new CCs (woo!) and right before I read this, I thought, “now that google books is around, and this is a dedicated site, it’d be cool to have advertisements and contemporary commentary on the cars…” … And there’s an ad shot! Heh.
I noticed that the ford/merc comparison shots carefully avoided showing any of the IP… And what was up with the wheel photo, with the big-*ss Merc emblem? It’d be pretty tough to get that one wrong, even in a time of import illiteracy (after all, the comparison wouldn’t do much good if people knew nothing about Mercedes…)
What a great little car. My soft spot for these came later in life. As these aged, it became apparent that this was one of the most durable cars of its generation. Ford’s lack of innovation in running gear was a good thing here, as the little 200 cid 6 and the 3 speed auto was a great pairing.
I owned an 86 Marquis station wagon – the very end of the line, and the most luxurious fox wagon ever. The drivetrain was a 3.8 V6 tied to a C5 3 speed auto, and it was a delight to drive. Much more pleasant than the 85 Crown Vic that followed it (5.0 and AOD). I had only two gripes with the car: First, Ford engineers evidently couldn’t figure out a way to get a gas tank of over 11 gallons in the wagon. My car’s range was about 225 miles on its best day, and usually required a fillup at about 175 miles.
Second, the seat structure was not very strong. Mine was a high mileage car, and the seat back developed a twist that made the driver’s chest face the radio in the center instead of the wheel. I think this was due to the recline mechanism latching only on the outboard sides. About every other week I had to get in the back seat and do a forward shove of the inboard side of the seat backs with my feet. But I don’t think this issue was unique to Ford in that era.
A final thought – the fox-body wagon was, IMHO, one of the best looking cars made in the 70s or 80s, in s clean and elegant sort of way.
a 1980 Fairmont was my first car, it was a hand-me-down from my parents, they bought it brand new in late 79… it was the inline 6 with a 3-spd auto, 2-door, blue on blue, 1-speaker radio. So basic, yet so solid and reliable, i learned car handling dynamics, the RWD was so fun and easy to learn car control in the winter. We finally sold it in 1995, still running well. I will always have fond memories of that car!
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one to appreciate the purity of the design of the Fairmont. There was a small contingent who liked the euro design which, unfortunately was short-lived, soon to be replaced by Granadas and Eletes. Some of the design elements (e.g., the outside mirrors) were briliant for the time. I believe that a decient (notice I didn’t say “good”) v6 could have extended it’s life as when I was looking for something similar in ’81, I wound up with a Buick Skylark Sport Sedan, v6 4-speed. The design was similar but probably not as “pure” as the Fairmont. That little 2.8L v6 was far better than the Fairmont’s 2.3L 4cyl which was the only engine available with the manual trans at the time I believe. Of course a manual trans in a Buick was something the local dealership hadn’t seen about 15 years but that’s a whole another story.
I test drove a police LTD II version of this. With the uprated suspension and 302 HO engine, it was actual fairly nice. I have often regretted not buying it.
Since you bring up the issue of front end weight making the 4 cylinder a much better handling (if slower) car than the V8 or even L6, I wonder if Ford ever used the Cologne V6 in any Fox body car? It seems to me that the shorter, lighter 2.8, especially with K-Jetronic fuel injection like the hotter European Fords would have give a useful power and prestige bump while still retaining good weight distribution.
Initially, the Cologne V6 was available on the new Mustang. But by the following year, it was discontinued in (dis)favor of the boat-anchor in-line 250.
Those were the years when the deutschemark/dollar exchange ratio was out of control; a time when “cheap” VWs sold for almost twice what American-built cars would go for. And a time when Ford was under the gun; the logical answer would have been to clone the Cologne but there just wasn’t the money.
It took a lot of nerve to unveil a box like the Fairmont. It was a severe design that demanded drivers to look beyond faux fashion and reconsider why they own a car. After the blase’ wrecks they passed off so sucessfully during the 1970s, the Fairmont represented a new brand of vanilla they needed to create so that the Company could return to being the kind of company that gave the Public a Falcon and a Model T.
I had an 1981 Futura and 1983 Cougar sedans. Then a 1992 Mustang hatch. Driving them and living with them as I daily drove around Utah and Colorado, revealed to me that Ford could make reliable, intelligent cars that were good enough not to need commercial market spin.
I also use the word “honest” in describing cars such as the one Ford produced here. Honest is the only word I found to describe some cars. They appear to establish a clear new company direction and to reconnect with an auto market looking beyond glamour. These are not Lee Iacocca cars. They are cars that can be stripped bare and be seen for what they are without apologies.
I was never a fashion driver. I have nothing against fashionable cars or cars that make statements as long as those statements are not intended to insult the rest of us. I like invisible cars. I prefer to not drive a billboard. But I love cars.
So I love cars like a 240, a Fairmont, a 1992 Corolla, a Falcon, a Valiant, a Chevy II, a Saturn S, and a Marathon, because they meet my driving criteria, and always exceed expectations set upon them by other drivers. These cars are good values. The Market often overlooks them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being average, recognizing it, celebrating it, and recognizing the blessing that comes with the daily level of humility preventing one from becoming a bloviating bore. The Ford Fox family of cars is a great average car. The kind of car we can always use in any market today.
They deserve a spotlight, thanks for providing it.
The Fox platform was one of Detroit’s best at the time, but that doesn’t mean the Fairmont wasn’t a cheaply made bucket of bolts, either. My dad still talks about how awful the Fox Fairmonts/Granadas/LTDs that he was repeatedly subjected to as rentals were. Poorly assembled, very cheap interiors, thin doors, etc. Granted, he was driving A/X body GMs at the time, but still. These were not good cars, but that’s an inditement Detroit’s customer indifference more than anything.
But the Fox platform itself was a great foundation. The Mustang, the aero Thunderbird and Lincoln Mk VII were really good vehicles. It’s too bad that Ford’s basically given up on developing new RWD platforms, because they keep proving they can do a lot with very little.
What great memories from this review. I had a 1980 Fairmont 4 door, same brown colour and tan int. but with the 200 CID 6 cyl. I learned to drive on a 1960 Falcon wagon and have owned a ’63 Fairlane, ’70 Maverick, ’72 Cortina, and a ’74 Pinto wagon so am very familiar with Ford’s small cars from the day.
The Fairmont is just as described in the article, good steering, handling and braking for what it was and compared with many other sedans of the day. Besides being a good family daily driver I took it on a couple of long trips, 10 hours each way, and over 60-70 MPH mountain roads it did OK, if a little underpowered.
I liked the good visibility and solid feel to the body. It was not babied and lived outside in a rainy climate and saw snow/salt but showed no serious signs of rust after many years. Reliability was good, a few electrical problems once the mileage was higher but low cost parts and easy to fix myself, for example, about thirteen dollars for an ignition switch, and this from the Ford dealer parts dept.
A neighbour recognized what a good car it was and wanted to buy it, so I sold it to him when moving to another town.
It was replaced with a ’99 Chevrolet Malibu, no wonder GM went under if the reliability on this car was any measure. I should have kept the Fairmont.
Yeah, great basic cars. I had a 1980ish coupe with the 200cid six and a slush box. Bought it after getting into some law trouble with my 1989 Mustang for lower insurance rates. Nice handling but the engine/transmission was crap as many posters have mentioned. It did remind me of my first car, a 1965 Falcon but with barely improved amenities.
THATS MY CAR!
Seriously, I drive a Brown 78 Fairmont Sedan, mind you mine has a 302 and a C4 in the driveline. No rust, No major dents, and it still handles great and drives comfortably to this day. Even with a mammoth (by todays standards) engine in it, the old gal manages around 22MPG.
It is my everyday driver, and i have completely fallen in love with it.
Replaced the Ball Joints, Ignition System, Carb, Headers, and 2 Barrel intake with more modern and effective equipment. The old unassuming “grandpa car” can blow the doors off of any Honda Prelude at the Track, then take me back and forth to work every day in comfort (and warmth).
The age is FINALLY starting to show after 33 years. Headliner has to be reattached, paint is fading all over, bubbled in other areas due to exposure, and the original wiper arms are starting to not work with as much gusto anymore.
One day the old lass will fail me though, and when it does, shes getting a total rebuild with new paint, parts, and a modern engine and drive line. I think this car may actually outlive me if the wear and tear is to be any indication.
Darn good article, thank you.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Granada-European-Sport-Sedan-/270832379017?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3f0ede2489
OK here ya go guys, a one and only Granada ESS!
An honest car…that sums it up well.
I drove one as a taxi…the cab company favored Granadas, and those were out of production, so the newest two the company bought were Fairmonts. Same 250 sixes as the Grenades; as far as I know, the same rear ends. It drove better, given its modified MacPherson front end; and you could see better out, given its higher chairs and lower beltline. I did like it; I wouldn’t have bought one then but I would now.
I see it as evolutionary. The Granada was an intermediary between the flowing, blown lines of the Maverick; it basically introduced “cubist” styling to Ford showrooms. The Fairmont followed through on that theme. The new front end both cut costs and gave more crisp road-manners to the car; this a nod to pressure from imports. An evolutionary step.
The engines were tried-and-true (manner of speaking; that 2.3 wasn’t exactly bulletproof). This to cut costs, yes; but it had the heavy benefit of protecting the customer from “new” technologies which had burned so many at the GM stores.
I never thought of the Fox platform as revolutionary, or anything to rave over; it was a good design, but nothing to set the world on fire. Ford knew its customers…and sensed the times. They couldn’t have predicted the 1979 fuel panic, but the stars aligned. This time.
Ford got a lot of mileage out of the Fox platform. I remember when “Car and Driver” kitted out a Fairmont 2-door to be the Eurocar it was meant to be (Recaro seats, suspension upgrades, great stereo, etc.).
My mom had an ’85 Cougar; 5.0 V-8, 4-speed automatic, black with gray interior and red pinstripes. I still remember the weird quasi-digital dashboard, syrupy transmission and tiny steering wheel. It was a pretty nice car.
It was a great car, but several mags took FoMoCo to task for their perceived stark interiors. I think Popular Science did a comparion of the Fairmont vs. Volare, Phoenix from Pontiac and even AMC’s Concord, and said that those cars had much posher interiors. I also remember several newspaper reviews that said the same thing. The following year, more options and posher interiors were offered. This went on until the car was morphed into the Granada/LTD. Which was fine, but by then the platform’s dynamic qualities were hidden under fake wood and crushed velour 50-50 seats.
I spotted this recently (Wheat Ridge, Colorado): a 1978 Mercury Zephyr Z7. 302/automatic, Lipstick Red, white bucket-seat interior, A/C, AM/FM cassette stereo, alloy wheels. In this guise the Fairmont/Zephyr was pretty sporty. I have always been fascinated by this roofline.
My favourite car has always been the 1978-82 Ford Fairmont. It’s the best looking Ford I’ve seen in such a long time. I used to have a neighbour who had a Fairmont station wagon. It’s too bad they didn’t keep it, for I would liked to have bought the car for personal transportation, and possibly business. Who knows?
I completely disagree that the Fox platform expressed as the Ford Fairmont was a “honest” car. Cynical might be a better term to describe it as it has to be, hands down, perhaps the single least imaginative automobile ever designed. A Volvo? Hardly. An interior easily confused with the European Granada? Not in a million years. The designers of this car simply phoned-in their T-squared designs and called it a day. The people at Ford in charge with executing the design brief chose the cheapest materials closest to hand (the dashboard was so cheap you could easily push your thumb right through the fake wood applique), the most expedient design solutions they could find and generally exhibited every possible sign of simply just giving up. It’s a horrendously embarrassing effort that Ford should rightfully be shamed into eternal penance.
No sorry, there is simply nothing redeeming about this car and when you compare it to the efforts the company exhibited when the Taurus was introduced just a few years later, then one can easily see how the Fox platform was just plain pathetic and definitively embarrassing for all americans
Hardly embarrassing for ALL Americans!
This was the early age of the computer generated designs…..not a T-square, more of a vector. One thing the computer aided was light weight design. This wasn’t an over engineered German car to be sure. There’s a simple beauty to it.
Elegant: 3. cleverly simple; ingenious an elegant solution to a problem
Had 3 of these cars in the friend/family fold. Dad owned a blue 79 sedan with 200 six and automatic and little else then given to me for a nominal fee, Grandpa had an 80 wagon with same drivetrain but A/C and upgraded interior and my friend owned an 81 coupe with 2.3/auto.
All 3 were miserable cars. Yes the outward visibility was fine just as it was with most sedans of this time era. The rack and pinion steering was more precise than the recirculating ball setup and the 200 six was fairly reliable. But it all went downhill from here. The 85 HP six was pretty sluggish in the 79 sedan and downright slow in the wagon which often required foot to the floor action just to keep up with traffic with resulting poor mileage. The driving range was pathetic on the 79 and 80 or about 210-215 miles. The 81 coupe with the nasty rude crude 4 banger could sometimes manage 300 miles if you kept your speed under 60 MPH! The trunk was shallow and you could barely fit brown grocery bags upright without squashing something (not an issue in the wagon). The front bench seat in all three was horrendous. Zero back support. Uncomfortable after an hour. Dad and mom used to have to pull over at most every rest stop on long vacation trips because of this in the 79 and they were only in there late 40′s at the time. The interior was very cheap and spartan. Gauges were non existent and the dashes vibrated themselves to pieces at highway speeds in excess of 55 MPH on all 3, even with perfectly balanced tires! Worse, the tiny paper thin windows not only contributed to excessive road and wind noise but also had the annoying habit of icing and fogging up in the Winter months and staying that way all day long. Road noise was to the point of having to shout in the 79 and 81. Grandpas wagon had the deluxe interior/sound deadening package that made it semi tolerable. My 79 seemed to also suffer from alignment issues, the rear end blew out at only 60k miles, the passenger window literally fell down into the door one lovely cold Winter night followed soon after by a busted plastic interior door handle to try and let my friend in for a ride home. Electrical issues left all three of us stranded more than once with Ford’s famous separate ignition starter solenoid that would corrode and quit unexpectedly. My buddy’s 2.3 blew it’s head gasket and the transmission started slipping requiring eventual replacement from a junk yard wreck.
Dad soon after obtained the neighbors 1979 4 door two tone Malibu Classic with 305, A/C, split seats, rally wheels and cruise and it was like stepping up to a Caddy save those ridiculous fixed rear windows. Grandpa traded the wagon for a 1985 Cutlass Supreme 307 coupe and thought he died and went to heaven and my buddy picked up an 84 Honda 2 seater CRX which he hated because it was so small. But it was sure good on fuel!
My ’79 Fairmont wagon was my first Fox, and started my, er, love affair with Foxes. Since that time I’ve owned an ’81 Fairmont, an ’88 T-Bird, a ’90 Mark VII LSC, and three Fox Mustangs, an ’84 3.8L, an ’89 5.0L, and a ’90 5.0L ragtop. And soon I will be adding a sweet ’78 Fairmont 302 a/t two-door to fleet. Simple, honest, and very easy to modify.