(first posted 8/8/2012) Sometimes history really does repeat itself. Consider the Fairmont Futura: Both the car (in concept) and the name had been in showrooms before. Both times, it had the same job to do, and it did it well. Like its namesake, the Falcon Futura, the Fairmont Futura would do its thing in a modest and competent way until being more-or-less replaced by another car – the Mustang.
In 1960, Ford brought us the Falcon. It was an honest little car. A simple car.
In 1961, in a Ford Motor Company that employed a rising star named Lee Iacocca, the honest little Falcon got a little flash, and the Falcon Futura was born. It is amazing how a few simple bits of trim made the plain-Jane Falcon almost stylish: Bucket seats, chrome console, three little “venti -ports” on its flanks, and a little red, white and blue “Futura” logo. Suddenly, the dowdy little Falcon became acceptable to a different demographic, at least until the Mustang arrived.
Fast forward to 1978, when Ford brought us another honest little car – the Fairmont (CC here). Why was this car called the Fairmont and not the Fairlane? Or better yet, the Falcon? I have no idea. The 1978 Fairmont was the 1960 Falcon reincarnated, albeit with updates. Plain, unadorned shape? Check. Sound but undistinguished mechanicals? Check. But this time, Ford would not wait quite as long before putting a little personality into the car. Probably because Lee Iacocca was still running the show at Ford during the Fairmont’s development. Whatever the reason, midway through the Fairmont’s debut year came the Futura.
I just can’t let go of the name thing. Ford refused to recycle a well-known name for the car line, but pulled out an old name for the sporty model? Maybe in 30 years we have just become accustomed to everything being called a Sport, a GT or a SSEIRFDXR4TISVOETC. To me, the Futura name was a welcome blast from the past, and one of the few Ford names that was never sullied by a bad car. So Futura it was. Or was it Fairmont Futura. Looking at the ads, I can’t tell. Let’s move on.
Ford was alone in coming up with a unique sporty coupe that was quite different from the regular two- door sedan. Because the age of the convertible and two-door hardtop was long gone by 1978, this was how Ford chose to add a little Thunderbird-inspired spice to the lives of those who liked sporty, two-door cars. This was quite an expenditure for a single model, when you think about it.
It would have been cheap and easy to tart up the regular two door Fairmont, so Ford should earn some extra credit points for this car’s unique body.
Is there a single company that has been more enamored over the years with the outsize B pillar on a coupe? From the original 1955 Crown Victoria to the 1977 Thunderbird, to even the big Bronco (here), Ford was the home of the “basket handle” roof that seemed to get most of its support (visually, if not actually) from the central B pillar, while wispy little A and C pillars served largely as places for the windows to attach.
The Fairmont Futura coupe took the concept and made it the central focal point of the car. Maybe this is why the Futura may be the best looking of all of the early two door (larger) Fox cars – instead of taking the traditional dimensions of a 1960s two door hardtop and shrinking them down to a smaller size (like the 1980 Thunderbird), the Futura went with a roof concept that defied easy comparison to an earlier generation.
Is it just me, or did Ford miss the best looking variation of this body – a new Ranchero. The roof treatment of this car just begged for a resurrection of the little ute. Although there was the halfhearted semi-custom joint-venture Durango (here), a proper Ranchero would have been a fabulous and memorable addition to the lineup.
The new Futura staked out some real estate that would become pretty crowded in Ford’s pasture. Within a year, there would be the new Fox body Mustang, and the following year would bring a Thunderbird that was little more than a Futura in a bad tux. We would also have a Capri and a Cougar. By 1981, unless you picked an Escort or an LTD, you were getting a Fox – Fairmont, Granada, Thunderbird or Mustang, take your pick. While the Mustang had a unique niche, the original Futura coupe would be the most honest and straightforward car of the lot. No putting on the dog for the honest little Fairmont. Which was probably its undoing.
I have always found this car kind of appealing, but had more or less forgotten about it when I came across this one. This car reminded me how much I once liked these. It is funny that when you can go to any car show and see late 70s Malibu with a V8 and rally wheels, the Futura is never represented. This car ought to be a staple of Foxphiles at the car shows, with a 5.0 HO and all manner of Mustang-sourced chassis upgrades, these should have been universally popular with the hot rod and light custom crowd. But they do not seem to be. Maybe it’s because Ford never had any decent rally wheels.
I am guessing at the year on this car. These are not really easy to identify, as they were largely unchanged during their entire 1978 to 83 run. It is not a ’78 or ’79, because those years put some ventilation louvers low on the B pillar. What was it about FoMoCo and body louvers in 1978-79? I, for one, was happy to see them go. I prefer my cars with smooth flanks. Gills are for fish. If the wheels on this car are original, I believe that 1980 was the last year for these, so there we are. I do not recall seeing many of these with this style of alloy wheel, and ditto with the gold paint. Somebody’s grandmother picked out a nice car.
Being 1980, the preppie-plaid seats were, of course, available. I might have chosen a more subdued option, but 1980 is getting to be long enough ago that the plaid has its charms. The vinyl on the seats does not seem as faded as elsewhere, but this could be a materials issue as easily as it could be from a seat-ectomy. The piles of empty Dr. Pepper cans, however, do not really do much for the ambiance of this particular interior. Isn’t this what Cavaliers are for?
Mechanically, these were all over the place. Four, six or eight cylinders, as well as automatic or stick shifts. The six (the venerable 200 cid/3.3L ) and the V8 (302/5.0L) had even spent time under the hoods of Falcons. The V8 was of the magically disappearing variety, starting out as the old 302, then shrinking to the unlamented 255 (4.2L) for 1980-81, and disappearing altogether in 1982-83. And how many of you remembered that for 1980 only, the Fairmont could be had with a turbocharged 2.3? I certainly did not.
By 1983, the Futura name was on all Fairmonts, but the car was being squeezed out of the Ford lineup. You know that the end is near when the brochures tell you what a great value the car is. The Fox-body LTD offered sedans and wagons, and the new aero Thunderbird provided the attractive coupes. Then there was the Mustang that was, by 1983, starting to catch its second wind as one of America’s favorite sporty coupes. The role of the small value sedan would henceforth be filled by the 1984 Tempo. Once again, the Futura was done in by the Mustang (this time with an assist from the Thunderbird.) In the words of Yogi Barra, it was deja vu all over again. It is sort of ironic that the Futura was the only one with no future.
The poor Futura is all but forgotten now, which is such a shame. It really was an honest little car. But who says an honest car can’t have a fun personality?
Seriously strange proportions on the coupe. It actually looks like they started with a Ranchero then stuck an awkward canopy on part of the bed. Not a good look I don’t think. Now the ’78 Australian Fairmont, there was a lovely crisp looking car!
It seems to me that people just gravitated towards rounded vehicles that all look the same or very little difference
The turbo 4 was the carburated version as found on the 79-80 Mustang. Father of Eco-boost! It would have been an interesting ride to watch the Fairmont recieve the same engineering as it’s Mustang brother recieved in it’s Fox run: 2.3 Turbo, EFI and intercooled as on the Mustang SVO, the Quad shock rear axle to help with axle hop, the 302 EFI engines, improved interior fabrics and more agressive wheels and tires. Instead, Ford jumped on the front wheel drive craze along with GM and Chrysler and thus a real cost effective American version of the BMW 3 series died on the vine.
in 1978 i was going to buy a new car i wanted a ford fairmont 2 door sedan ,the futura was not out yet. my dad told me that the new malibu classic was nicer he was right .the fairmont had a cheep feeling about it,horn on the turn signal stalk ,dull bumpers cheep interior.the malibu classic 2 door sport coupe looked like a hard top . the 200 c i v6 was its week spot., slow and the valve train made alot of noise at 50,000 miles
The Chevy Nova was a direct competitor to the Fairmont, while the Malibu was a mid size, with more feature content.
No, not for 1978. The Malibu downsized that year, so it and the Fairmont were pretty much direct competitors. The main difference was construction–the Malibu was still body-on-frame while the Fairmont was unitized construction. That hardly mattered, since both were rattlers in middle-to-old age. The Nova was on it’s last legs and about to be replaced by the Citation in early ’79 as an 1980 model. Now THAT was a car that made the Fairmont look like a genius purchase!
The Malibu downsized, yes, but it didn’t get as small as the Fairmont. Its direct competition at Ford was eitther the LTD II (quite a bit larger) or perhaps the Granada (slightly smaller), both of which were above the Fairmont in the lineup. The Fairmont’s closest Chevy analogue in ’78 was in fact the RWD Nova as Chicagoland noted, though considering how radical a departure the Citation was, I don’t know how much cross-shopping went on there. When the Fairmont was replaced by the Tempo, it came back in line with the Citation.
We owned a ’79 Malibu and a ’79 Fairmont at the same time for three years (1985 to 1988). The Malibu was definitely the larger car by a good bit. As further evidence the Malibu was never offered with a 4 cylinder; the base engine was the 3.0 V6 for ’78-’79 and the 3.8 V6 for ’80 to ’83.
You and Chicagoland are correct. Even after the 78 downsizing the Malibu was considered to be the “midsize” Chevy and Nova the “compact”. In 1978 that put Nova against Fairmont and Malibu against LTD II. It’s market class not absolute size thats at play. Remember in1977 the Malibu and Impala where basicially “the same size”. But different market classes.
back when the Futura was new, I thought that “The Futura is Now” ad was absolutely hilarious. “You’ve got your own style?” If he’s got his own style, why is he obeying the fashion designers by wearing one of those non-functional scarves that were so trendy at that precise moment in time, and why is he trying so hard to look like Tom Selleck?
I remember that ad also. I always thought the guy was Donald Sutherland in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” in seen where D.S. opens his mouth after being “snatched”.
I was never a Ford guy but if I was…that’s one I’d probably own. I always liked the Fairmont and especially the Futura. I’d put a 5.0 and a 5-speed in it, some nice wheels and call it good.
Do i have to do a lot of changes in the chassis to put a 5.0lt in a Fairmont ventura thanks for helping me out
No: factory option, 100% bolt-in with all factory parts. The only caveat being that if your car was built with a 200ci six, you need to swap the engine crossmember (4, V6, or V8 were all the same).
Like the Cordobas, the glue holding the taillight lenses never held all that well on these.
I always thought these cars were “okay”, but I prefer the homely Fairmont 2-door sedan in its boxiness and cool “Fairmont” script on the decklid.
The steering columns were wonky on these..besides the aforementioned turn-signal stalk horn, the optional “tilt” really only tilted the angle of the steering wheel itself (not the column).
Either way, I like these better than the Malibu competition and wouldn’t mind having a 5 liter or 4-cylinder/4-speed car. It would be so easy to make a Malibu-eating hotrod out of one of these. Why haven’t more people done this…there are plenty of ragged-out wrecked Mustangs out there.
I agree with you on the steering columns – I drove several of this generation of Ford that was saddled with that strange tilt wheel. I also remember early versions having way too many stalks coming out of the column.
Ford did so many odd things with the Fox platform. About 1984 or 85 they offered an LTD sedan with the injected 5.0, although they did not promote it much. It was supposed to be quite fun to drive. There are so many Fox performance bits out there, and this would be my favorite platform to start with if I were inclinded to make myself a car. A fast, fun, frugal fox, if you will.
Trivia time – the Fairmont/Futura was the last Ford that did not have a blue oval somewhere on the exterior.
I believe you’re meaning the LTDII? My father-in-law had one, and it was a decent drive. Probably about as good as you’d get in the handling department for a car aimed at the WWII Greatest Generation.
I was referring to the 1983-86 Fox body LTD. Although some call it the LTD II, I don’t believe that the LTD II name survived after the death of the 1979 version of that nameplate. With Ford’s confusing name games in the early 80s, the Fox body car was the LTD (and the Mercury version was the Marquis). This was so confusing. Every time you said LTD or Marquis when trying to talk about this car, your listener thought you were talking about the Panther version. It is still happening.
I rented a few Fox-platform LTD’s in ’86 when I occasionally took business trips to upstate New York. I remember one trip trying to get from LaGuardia to my hotel in Kingston before they gave up my room, after a flight delay (no cell phones) and running 85-90mph up the Taconic Parkway. It handled better than any older-gen RWD American sedan I’d driven, and had decent power for the era …. I think that was an injected 5.0. On my last trip there, though, I got a Taurus, and it was a game-changer in 1986. But I’d rather have a 5.0 Fairmont or LTD now, than an ’86 Taurus.
Yeah, I think the LTD II only applied to the ’72 Torino based LTDs. IIRC when the “Fox” based LTDs came along is when they began referring to all “Panther” based Fords as “Crown Victoria” YMMV.
I think I remember the smaller LTD being listed as the LTD Brougham, and the larger LTD, the LTD Crown Victoria.
JPC is correct that when the Fox sedans got consolidated it was to the plain old LTD and Marquis names and the real LTD and Marquis got pre- and su- fixes to become the LTD Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis. Very confusing though I don’t know that it was that much worse than the LTD II.
It’s still less confusing than diagramming GMs A/B/C/D/G/H bodies1980-86!
The aforementioned 5.0 LTDs were called the LX and essentially used the same springs/shocks/sway bars as the Mustang GT as well as the H.O. motor (no other “baby LTDs” had even base V8s available). They’ve got a pretty interesting backstory to them, detailed here http://www.ltdlx.org/history.html
The concept was basically established by Bob Bondurant for 4 door training cars at his race school and adapted for production with the aspiration of being Ford’s “euro” package (ala Celebrity eurosport, and 6000STE)
Thanks for the refresher on these. All I remembered is that I found these really intriguing. Also that I do not ever remember seeing one in a Ford Dealer. I know that I never drove one. It is a shame that by the time the Mustang H.O. powertrain was hitting its stride around 1986-87, all of the Fox sedans were gone. The T-Bird/Cougar stayed, but they never got the really good parts either.
” the Fairmont/Futura was the last Ford that did not have a blue oval somewhere on the exterior.”
The current 2005+ Mustang doesn’t have a blue oval anywhere, unless you count the center caps on the base alloy wheels (more premium wheels have the horse emblem)
The short lived 2002-2005 T-bird also didn’t have the blue oval.
Nor did the aero Tbirds until the 1989 MN12s
Those tail light lenses that weren’t glued to the housing very well carried over to the second square bird too. That 81 I just scrapped had it’s lenses fall off in it’s years of sitting.
His, hers, its…
For me, retaining the squared-off front clip from the lesser Fairmonts lets the whole design down, and makes the basket-handle roof look like it had been grafted in from another car entirely. If I wanted a Fairmont two-door, I’d take the base version, thanks.
With that said, my parents briefly (until it got totaled when a particularly large Pennsylvania pothole flung it into some trees) had the Fairmont’s Mercury Zephyr twin, in the regular two-door with the small-block V-8. Despite appalling build quality (glue drips all around one of the rear windows, for example), it was an exceptionally good-handling car and very pleasant to drive, the best of any American sedan of the era, IMO.
I’ve seen pictures of a customized Futura with the front clip from the Fox-body LTD. It looked much more cohesive.
I typically dislike custom vehicles but that car is amazing. I love how the creator stuck with “Ford” stuff. Heck, even the Mustang wheels and 99% awful GTS headlight covers look right on it. Wow.
This actually looks pretty damn wicked. Too bad Ford hadn’t thought of this while the car was in production. They could’ve marketed in for ’83-’86 along side the LTD-II and called it “XL” or “Galaxie” or perhaps “Starliner” . . . Wow! Could you picture one of these with the HO 5.0 or Intercooled Turbo Four from the SVT???
I vote Starliner
That thing is awesome (although I could do without the hood bulge). I’ve always liked the Futura, but looking at these pics I realized I wanted it to have a flatter nose. Then I come to the comments, and there it is…
Very imaginitive. I wouldn’t have ever thought of it. The base Fairmont had a bolt-upright grille and a bolt-upright taillight panel, which was OK since they matched. The Futura had the same grille structure (but with quad headlamps), but the unique sloped rear panel, so that it looked like a reversed wedge, and kind of oddball. This looks a heluvalot better.
That is amazingly awesome and would have made a perfect LTD coupe–smooth out the taillight lenses just a touch, clean up the way the bumper meets the body, and that’s all you need.
+1 on calling it “Starliner” as well!
I wanted to like the Futura when it came out, I really did. But the rear windows just weren’t quite right. They were too small, and they appeared to run too high up (because of the framed glass on the doors). It’s like engineering couldn’t execute cleanly what styling wanted.
Nice article. I remember that the Fairmont attracted a lot of favorable attention when it debuted – Car and Driver tested one and put it on the cover with the blurb, “Ford Builds a Sedan for the 1980s, and It’s Great!”.
Within 18 months the all-new X-cars from GM would steal the show…as reviewers raved that GM had built an American Accord, and it was great.
And within another 18 months, people who rushed out to buy a GM X-car realized that they would have been better off with an “outdated” Fairmont.
This is one of those cars that I like better today than I did when it was new. The platform was sound, the styling was simple, clean and no-nonsense and the interior was very roomy in relation to the exterior size. It’s too bad that Ford didn’t continue to develop the sedans on the Fox platform instead of rushing towards a front-wheel-drive layout for all of its sedans aside from those based on the Panther platform. In particular, a restyled and refined Fox-based Lincoln Continental would have ultimately been better than the front-wheel-drive Continental we got in the late 1980s.
I love the crisp, clean lines of the Fairmont. The only thing that I feel doesn’t fit are the headlights. If they had used the kind of headlights that were once illegal in the US, it would flow better.
It’s essentially the American Volvo and in a good way.
Then again, it’s probably just the nostalgia of going apple-picking with my grandparents in grandpa’s Fairmont.
I had a couple of friends in high school (class of 82) who’s parents bought them a new car of their choice provided it was a 4 cylinder. One had a Fairmont Futura in all white. I thought it was a really nice. Another had a Firebird 4 cylinder. Even at the time I knew that was a dog.
Neighbor (1979 or so) had a fairmont that may have been one of these. It was ok but liked my own AMC Concord better. 4-5 years ago I ran across a fairmont wagon with a 200 six. That I thought about more than once. Beef up the suspension and drop in a 300 six with a four speed. They would call that a sleeper and it would be fun.
It wasn’t snazzy enough to be luxury. It was a car for sailors and other people with equivalent income, I don’t care what Ford says. Since I was a sailor at the time I did like it. Not quite enough power when stock and not quite enough fuel economy to make it in todays world but you could survive with one.
I owned the nicest Fairmont ever – in the guise of an optioned-up 1986 Mercury Marquis wagon. I came to like that little platform a lot, and it was a much nicer car to drive than the 85 Crown Vic that I replaced it with. The 3.8 V6 made decent power and nice torque (I thankfully avoided the head gasket problems that these had) and with the C5 3 speed auto, it was a nice driver. It was a car that I was really sorry to let go of, but my Mom was getting a new car and her low-mile Vic was too nice to pass on.
Oddball looking thing with ute lines. The Futura badge was used spasmodicly by Ford OZ on various models with no real rhyme nor reason.
Ford Oz used the Futura name from 61 or 62 til 75 then from 95 to 02.
I agree, looks better as a ute. It would suck sitting in the rear seat beside that pillar, like ‘that seat’ on the bus.
I’ve never spent any time in a Futura, but my aunt bought a ’78 or ’79 Fairmont wagon, to succeed her ’75 Marquis. I remember it being a smallish but very solid car, sort of a mini version of the ’71 LTD Country Squire she had owned (but without the side-facing rear jump seats). It even had the fake “woody” decal trim.
I could not have been more wrong on my Clue guess!
We all kinda jumped on a Mopar bandwagon. My excuse is that at the same time, I was doing a bunch of web searchs for various period Dodge sedans, trying to ID something my wife had seen… (looked like this? No. google google. Looked like this? No…) So I kinda had Dodge on the brain.
Who was it who said T-bird? That was the closest guess I remember.
It was me 🙂
There were scads of Fairmonts in Soviet Canuckistan of my teen years and I have had quite a bit of wheel time with them over the years.
The vast majority of the cars sold here were the horrid 200 cid boat-anchor six and three speed automatic. I recall Ford set up the accelerator so that you got like 70% of the throttle opening in the first 20% of the pedal travel. This gave the impression of decent power from what was truly a gutless, underwhelming powertrain.
What were the good points of the Fairmont? Well, it was fairly roomy inside and the four and six were easy to work on.
Downsides? Practically everything else. Steering rack and pumps failed just after warranty, as did water pumps, alternators and master cylinders.
I was always impressed how they managed to make the rack and pinion steering just as lifeless and disconnected as the larger Ford products with a steering box. Let’s not forget the aforementioned tilt wheel that actually was a tilt wheel; the column didn’t move.
What amazed me as how fast these cars disappeared. Seems after ten years they were all gone. The reason is simple: the cars were disposable junk.
My personal experience was that they were far more durable than many other cars of the era particularly when equipped with that boat anchor the “Falcon” six. Yes for some reason the water pumps Ford put on 6cyls, not only the Falcon six but the “Big” six the 240/300 and the later Vulcan 3.0 seemed to fail way too early. The racks did leak sometimes but far better than the GM boxes and racks that liked to seize up and not turn one direction every once and a while. That leaking rack and owners that didn’t keep the pump full was why the pumps failed. The alternators were very reliable the only issue is that for some reason they equipped many of the 6cyl versions with a low amp version of the 2g alternator, the basis of the really high amp (200-300) alternators offered for emergency vehicles today. They were reliable (hence the reason they are the basis of the emergency vehicle alternators) but a reman unit was twice the price of the common 1g. As Darts and Valiants started to disappear the Fairmont was the car I turned to recommending to people who wanted a low entry cost, durable, cheap to repair beater.
Here on the Wet Coast, we have big draws on electrics much of the year. Cars require headlights at least 80% of the time in winter and then the infamous defogger kicks in, a big draw. We tend to do alternators a lot up here, no matter what the brand. The Fords of this era were the worst in this regard.
East vs West has nothing to do with it, it’s North vs South when it comes to how much you need headlights in the winter. I’m not that far South of you in the grand scheme of things so I know all about the fact that headlights are required for the average driver going to and from work in the winter. I hardly ever replaced alternators on Fords back when cars of this era were on the road. GM cars were much more common to need the alt replaced but then again there were more of them on the road. Now if you get into replacing the alternator that has already been replaced once that is another story, back in the 90’s I could buy a “reman” 7127 for $8 and those often were only good for a year or 2 at best.
GM “A” body FWD’s had that same problem of leaky p/s pumps and racks. My older ’88 Celebrity would suffer that malady. I knew the power steering fluid was low when I began to hear that “whirring/soft howl” . . . then I knew it was time to add fluid . . . . and all was well. Towards the last year of driving it, I always kept fluid in the little compartment in the rear (it was a wagon). When my wife was finishing up law school (at the time we were in Northern California, but she was commuting to Cleveland and Cincinnati to finish school and to work), she’d fire up the the ’88 wagon we’d left behind at what was our house, but were renting out. She’d top off the fluid and drive, drive, drive. We ended up giving that car away to our realtor when the tennants moved out and we sold the house in 2005. It still ran great. Unfortunately, the brake lines rotted out and the realtor drove it out of our driveway after charging the battery, tried to stop and rolled across the street hitting the curb on the opposite side.
My father had a stripper Zephyr two-door sedan, with the 2.3 Lima four, four-speed stick, and manual steering. It was hardly powerful, but was the closest facsimile to a Volvo 240 series I’ve ever driven. Not a bad drive at all, coming from Detroit. and he had it for some eight or nine years, without any major issues.
I always thought the Futura was a great looking car. I always thought the design would make a nice downsized Lincoln Mark, with improved quality. Never did like the aerodynamic Marks.
My friend bought a new Futura in 1980, two tone metallic brown. Fairly stripped down, it had the four and manual trans. He always drove it like it was a race car, revving it in all gears.
After a year or so, the painted roof started to peel. He had the whole car painted for $ 400, and it looked awful afterward. The shop that painted it blamed the metal on the car for the disaster and gave him no satisfaction. I recall when the car was about five years old, the vinyl bucket seats were tattered beyond recognition, the dash pad split in many places, and in general the car was a mess. My friend put a very cheap stereo in the car around that time. I guess it had an AM radio originally. The aftermarket radio was so weak that the engine noise drowned it out. He had the car a couple of more years, putting in a lot of work, but the car had well over 100K on the clock.
My friend got his money out of the car, in my opinion. I won’t call it a bad car, due to the fact that he drove it harder than an elderly owner would have. Had I bought one, I’d bought it in white with green vinyl trim on the roof, green cloth interior to match, and of course, whitewalls. A six cylinder automatic, along with some sort of radio would have completed my order. I’d have driven it with care, so it would have aged better.
But, I was already into Cadillacs.
Just looked on Ebay. Not a Fairmont or Zephyr in sight. Any survivors must be very, very rare.
Keep looking, you’ll find one. A friend who’s into Fords (he has a ’78 Granada Ghia and an ’82 Thunderbird — yes the square one everyone hates) has sent me a lot of Craigslist ads for old-lady Fairmonts and Zephyrs. In fact, another friend just sent me this link yesterday, not a Fairmont/Zephyr but close: http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lgb/cto/3188955256.html
Cripes! I’d buy…in a nanosecond.
But I’m three-quarters a continent away…
It’s not a high dollar collectible, so you won’t see it in Hemmings or eBay. I use Craigslist Reader to view multiple states (West Coast) and found many Fairmonts and a few Futura Coupes. And some Zephyrs too.
My father-in-law had a light blue Zephyr Z7 version of this car, automatic and a six (I think – I’m not sure if I ever even rode in it.) A thoroughly unremarkable car as far as I was concerned.
Well, it’s almost 30 years since the last Futuras, and survival rates for cars over 25 y/o is low. Especially if not a ‘muscle car’ or collector vehicle.
These pop up on CL around here from time to time. The “survivors” all tend to be the straight six cars. Those are hard sell for anyone that wants to build a Mustang alternative on the cheap, the K member for the six shooter won’t work with the V8, 2.3 or V6 engines.
The only Fox cars that tend to pop up with regularity are the 83-88 T-birds/Cougars, 79-93 Mustangs, and 84-92 Mark VIIs. These Fairmonts/Zephyrs never really seem to be anywhere for sale, or the Marquis/LTD that replaced them. I know where a dead 84 LTD has been sitting for about 8 years. It has some rot, a faded interior, and the engine is dead. The guy can’t get $400 for it. If it was a late 70’s Malibu he could sell it for $1200 as is all day long. People tend to preserve old RWD midsize GM cars because you can “swap a 350 in” for cheap and have a “race car”. The only Fords that get any real love are the Mustangs. “Why spend money swapping parts on a Fairmont when you can have a Mustang?”
It also helps that the downsized GM intermediates still used body-on-frame construction, while the Fox cars were unit-body cars. If I recall correctly, the post-1977 Malibus were some of the smallest and lightest cars to use body-on-frame construction.
Actually the 1968-82 Chevrolet Corvette were the smallest (but with a larger 1970 1/2 -1981 Chevrolet Camaro Curb Weight) to utilized a body-on-frame construction. It also ironic that the body-on-frame Corvette from that era were only slightly longer – half a foot longer than the lighter unit body construction Chevrolet Monza which weigh on the average 700 pounds than the Corvette.
I always thought that the Futura created a very awkward situation for the designers of the ill fated 1980 Thunderbird. The 77-79 Tbirds were very hot sellers and when the inevitable downsizing came and the existence of the Futura meant that any carried over elements like the basket handle roofline or slanted taillight panel would instantly make it look like a dowdy Fairmont at a hefty premium.
I like the look of the Futura above with the LTD front clip but I also wonder how it would look with the 80 Tbird front end. I can’t help but speculate that if that had been the look for the downsized Tbird, it would have been more successful. The Futura as a “mini” 77 Tbird is, to my eyes, one of the better scaled down adaptions of large styling of the era.
You raise a very interesting point that I had never really considered. It was one thing to make a sporty coupe of the Fairmont in 1978, but quite another thing for it to be there when your Thunderbird will be on the very same platform. And for 1981, throw in a 2 door Granada as well. It would be interesting to know more about this, because the T-Bird concept must have been set while the Futura was still under development.
By 1981, almost everything Ford made was on that Fox platform, as the picture below shows. Hindsight would seem to say that the Futura should have been the T-Bird. Or else, the T-Bird should have been on the Panther platform.
My impression is that the Fox platform (at least that early in its development) made a lousy T-Bird. I remember driving a new 1980 model that my aunt bought. I tried to be tactful, but all I could think was “bleeech!” That underpowered, undersized car was no Thunderbird. It did, however, make a pretty nice sporty Fairmont. 1980-81 was truly a dark time for Ford from a product-in-the-showroom standpoint.
I guess Ford was already aware of it, it was during that time they worked on the final stages of the “Aerobird” planned for ’83 and they beginned to work on early drafts of the upcoming Taurus for ’86.
Interesting then you mentionned the Panther. If the 1980 T-bird used the Panther like the Continental Mark VI, if things could had been different?
I remember being surprised as a kid when the new ’80 TBird didn’t have the “wrapover” roofline. You’re right — they kind of painted themselves into a corner by putting that roof on a Fairmont. Of course, that thinking didn’t stop GM from putting the Cadillac Seville roofline on the Chevy Malibu, Olds Cutlass sedan, etc.
Found this in the Thunderbird book Soaring Spirit. It is captioned “fairmont based Tbird study” from march 1976
Makes sense this was considered for a Bird. Too bad the whole Fox line wasn’t ready for 1977. We could have had this as the 1977-82 T-Bird, thus dispensing with the 1977-79 Torino Birds (which managed to pull off the feat of being downsized and bloated at the same time), and the 1980-82 Box Birds (although they do have their fans, that is definitely a minority view).
As silly as those Torino Birds seem in retrospect, They were a rip-roaring sucess for Ford and cost nothing to develop. Plus, even if the “fox” was ready a year earlier, I wonder if Ford was really ready for THAT dramatic of a “jump” from a Mark platform to the “fox” in one generation.
I knew that Ford based a lot of cars on the Fox platform, but almost 40 years later, I’m impressed with how many body styles they made….today the only thing that seems to be made is the 4 door sedan…almost 40 years ago, they not only had the 4 door, but a large number of 2 doors (the Fairmont 2door sedan, the Futura, the Thunderbird and the Mustang). I know we still have the Mustang, but the other 2 doors are gone…as likewise is the wagon. Guess we had an embarassing amount of choices, if you include interior/exterior colors that we also lack for these days on new vehicles.
The one that I seem to have the most problem with is the Grenada, I know it predated the Fox platform by 3 years or so, so it didn’t start out being Fox but wasn’t there a Fox Grenada later on (maybe in the 80’s)? This marketing name stuff really confuses me, especially in retrospect, guess I wasn’t paying enough attention in the early 80’s to it.
Working for Hertz as a transporter in ’77/’78, I did get to drive the ’78 Fairmont as well as the Grenada, many times as both were mainstays of the rental fleet (mostly Fords back then). Curiously never drove a Maverick (guess my chance ended in ’77) nor a Pinto (available both years I was driving for Hertz). Probably the most common car I drove would have been some variation of the LTD II, either that exactly, or the Thunderbird which I guess really was a different body style of LTD II. Never drove the “full size” LTD (except at home, parents had a ’73 Country Sedan) nor the ’79 LTD which came out in the fall of ’78 after I stopped driving for Hertz…though my Dad I think test drove a ’79 Ford full sized wagon, but ended up buying a leftover ’78 Chevy Caprice Classic wagon instead.
Never since have I gotten the chance to drive that variety of cars…nowdays models seem to come and go multiple times between my admittedly long buying cycle, and I don’t really otherwise have an excuse to look at them, as I no longer even help out with selecting them for younger relatives (who are no longer as young as they once were, same as I). But it was a good time to do it, as cars were changing quite a bit at that time.
In answer to “Why was this car called the Fairmont and not the Fairlane? Or better yet, the Falcon? ” The name came from the global parts bin since Fairmont was an Australian Ford nameplate for higher trim versions of the Falcon. Why Ford chose an Aussie name rather than reusing a name is probably down to a desire to escape baggage from the older nameplate, as with many Ford nameplate decisions since the early 70s.
That Futura should had been the 1980 T-bird instead of the current one. Also, Ford intented to revive the Futura name on what we known today as the Fusion but someone else got the rights to the name.
One guy imagined a perfect “what if?” for the Futura coupe, he grafted the Mustang nose and the 5.0 engine to his Futura. http://www.mustangandfords.com/featuredvehicles/ford_powered/73718_ford_fairmont_futura_fastback/
Another “what if” on the table: what if Ford had made a Fox-body Ranchero, could we imagine a Ranchero 5.0 with the Mustang engine? 😉
the wheels in this Fairmont were used on european fords too…my dad’s first car was a base model 2-door 1977 Taunus, a real stripper and with a 1.3 liters engine with 58hp it barely hit 85 mph but it was ok for a young family man as it was dirt cheap, solid and in the 2 door configuration, silver with blue interiors, was quite beautiful…anyway those wheels were offered as an option in the Taunus, and probably on many other euro-fords of the time…maybe in the Fiesta too ?
When the Faimont came out, I thought that it, at least, was cleanly styled. Not only that but it seemed to have escaped the omnipresent fender caps so prevalent in previous years. Unfortunately, like many lower priced cars of it’s ilk and era, their task in life left them vulnerable to tinworm, eventually, lack of maintainance and early scrapage. I was amazed for some time that I could walk by, perhaps a 1980, fordor in my parking garage. It had a few scars but was rust free. Sadly it dissapeared about five years ago. I imagine that the same fate befell the Tempo/Topaz twins. I do not see many of them anymore and at one time, they were everywhere.
I didn’t realized the round-cornered windshield and rear window were unique. So every piece of glass was unique to the Futura. Really a lot of expense for a low-volume variation that still looked very similar.
My neighbor’s brother has one of these. It drives me nuts, and not in a good way. He decided to try and make a muscle car out of it. It’s painted black with dark gold stripes down the top of it. He recessed the bumpers so that it looks like he bumped into something with it. It has the dash from a late 80’s Mustang and black leather front seats. It is loud and requires constant attention, as he is always tinkering on it. I think he likes the sound of it, as every time he leaves in it, he has to rev it up.
Normally I find these cars attractive, but I’m not feeling the neighbors.
FWIW, he wants to sell it…
“Is it just me, or did Ford miss the best looking variation of this body – a new Ranchero. The roof treatment of this car just begged for a resurrection of the little ute. Although there was the halfhearted semi-custom joint-venture Durango (here), a proper Ranchero would have been a fabulous and memorable addition to the lineup.”
Nope – it was a great opportunity lost. But to understand why, you have to consider what was going on in the Ford boardroom at the time.
Lido was recently sacked; and Hank da Deuce and Head Bean-Counter Ed Lundy were doing their victory dance. The bean-counters had Henry’s ear; and what they wanted to do was NOT spend ANYTHING on ANY but existing models. “Standard Volume” was their buzzword – any new model would cut into “standard volume.”
At this time, the Ford bean counters had recently killed the Mini-Max, the car/concept that later saved Chrysler as the minivan. And they sacked the most vocal proponents, notably Hal Sperlich.
At the time, the big struggle was for new four-cylinder engines – the bean counters wanted to cut down the anemic thirty-year-old Ford sixes. Save money, don’tcha know.
In such a toxic environment of non-innovation, the idea of a new Ranchero, one that would actually require new tooling and a new advertising campaign, hadn’t a chance. The old LTDII-based Rancho didn’t sell; wasn’t that proof the public wanted standard models, at standard volumes?
Ed Lundy and his cast of idiots came SO close to pulling Ford under…
I recall that Ford lobbied NASCAR to have the Futura homologated for 1981 when they finally went to a smaller 110″ wheelbase car, but were refused on the premise that it was too much of a stretch from 105.5″. They were stuck using the T-bird with its blockier nose because it was on a 108″ wheelbase (same as the GM A/G cars, which had been okayed).
While it was advertised (as shown) and there were factory photos, I don’t believe the turbo Fairmont was ever actually offered.
I gotta jump in here on this, further. I never had a Futura – although a hot chick in my agency did…anyway she was hot until she was undeniably pregnant…it was that era…
…but I DID drive a few Fairmont taxicabs. Frankly…good runners. Better than the downsized Caprices another cab company was running. Nothing to found a cult over…but the Fox chassis was a solid one.
For the times. We were inured to numb power steering in that era. The Fairmonts had it; but with some suggestion of road manners. Sports car? No. Performance car? No.
Value car? Yes, to some extent. Depended on how much you were willing to maintain it…weekly washes; oil changes. Cars like this don’t inspire such; but they pay back for good treatment. Like an ugly mongrel dog, who’s delighted to have a fair master who’ll feed and comb it…
It would have been so much better if those were cans of TAB in the interior…..
How about a Fusion Futura? Kinda has a nice ring to it.
Erm, without the Hyundai/Aston grille please.
Aston-Martin for sure (that’s part of the design, formerly owned by Ford) Hyundai? Hell no! They look like they used spaghetti for draping the contour lines LOL.
I had a friend in college who lived in East Brunswick, NJ. His next door neighbor was building a Futura into a Pro-Stock car. That would probably have been in 1980. The last time I saw it, it was about 80% done, but I never saw it run.
Ugh. My parents had a 4-door Fairmont. Probably a 79 if I remember. Silver with a red vinyl roof – an ugly combination.
It drove well enough – but it had this odd problem of fogging up the windows – all the time – and when the temperature dipped below freezing ice would form on the inside of the windows!
Repeated trips to the dealer and a looking at by the “regional manager” never fixed the problem – it was unsafe to drive and my parents took a bath on it. My father traded it for a 79 Datsun 510 – and never bought a Ford again.
My father bought my mother a silver ’78 Futura with the 302 (133hp, IIRC). I wish he’d gotten the more attractive & roomy sedan or coupe, & mom might’ve been content with the 200 six, since she is by no means an enthusiast, but I had fun with it on Glendora Mountain Road (Calif.) while they were on vacation (yes, they *told* me to exercise the car). Now I did not have broad driving experience at the time, but I was impressed by the steering & chassis, except that the hybrid-strut front suspension could’ve used more travel in the downward direction. Since I hated “lead sleds” (as I called them at the time), the Fairmont was a definite improvement, and the sedan & esp. coupe were the best-style Fords of the decade.
She drove it until they replaced it with a Taurus wagon.
Love this article. Fell in love with the Fairmont (as I kid) back in 1978.
What followed Mustang (1979), T-Bird/Cougar (1980), Granada/Cougar (1981) Lincoln Continental (1982) and LTD/Marquis (1986) were in my opinion among the loveliest cars designed by the Ford Motor Company.
The Fox platform was well suited to support various styles. The cars had a very balanced and attractive profile, roomy interiors, great visibility and spacious trunks. The engine compartments were designed to house different engine types. Parts were cheap and engines easy to work on.
I was sorry to see the LTD/Marquis replaced by the Taurus/Sable back in 1986. I always thought this was a big mistake. A friend of mine who worked for a rental car company once told me the the Taurus/Sable were not as well designed and rather flimsy.
I’ve owned two Fox cars. A 1982 Ford Granada (from 1985 to 1987) and a 1986 LTD (1993-Present). They have been very reliable and repairs have been on the cheap side. They are a joy to drive (if you like to take your time).
I just love my mid-size “Fox” LTD.
There is a reason you don’t see many of these at car shows and such. They were very cheaply constructed economy compacts much like the 1981 K-cars with low powered 85 HP 4 and 6 cylinder engines much as like the Rambler’s of the 60’s. The GM A-G-body cars were far superior in many ways save the dumb no roll down rear window and the silly areo back Salon/Century blunder from 1978 -80. Never was this more apparent going from my first car- a 1979 blue stripper Fairmont sedan with 200 six and automatic and little else to a family members 79 Malibu Classic with 305, A/C, two tone paint, rally wheels and far nicer interior furnishings and seats. It was seriously like going from a Pinto to a Cadillac. The Fairmont was not only dog slow, but a hog on gas, never ran right until it was warmed up, had windows the thickness of a dime and door panels not much better to a very very noisy highway ride that really took all the joy out of driving. Worse the windows fogged up terribly in the cold months and it was really tough to keep them clear plus those flight bench cloth seats that were as flat as a park bench were real butt killers over the long haul. The trunk was as shallow as parking lot rain puddle, the dash vibrated madly at anything over 55 MPH(even with perfectly balanced tires) and everything rattled.
In comparison the 79 Malibu felt like a luxury car. The interior consisted of nice split red comfortable seats, very relaxed hushed cruise driving, loads of pick up from the 160 HP 305, that ironically got about the same mileage as my 200 six or about 20 overall MPG, handled bumps and ruts much better with the HD suspension option which literally no Fairmont ever came with unless it was Police equipped, had far more equipment and noticeably more interior room plus the trunk was deeper and more useful. It was quite a revelation. Dad was so impressed with the Malibu that he bought several other G-body coupes after that, a 1982 Cutlass in light green and then a 1985 tan coupe with 307.
I will give one thing to the Ford. It’s rack and pinion steering did feel far sharper than base equipped recirculating ball equipped GM cars of the time. I did drive a 1984 Fox LTD and was much more impressed than with my Fairmont. It like the Malibu was much quieter and had a nicer finished interior and the 3.8 was very torque rich off the line. Even the trunk seemed deeper which was a running change Ford made on the 81’s from what I have read…
i was in high school when i got my drivers liscense and bought my first car in 1986 which was a 1978 ford fairmont futura 2 door sport coupe with a straight 6 cyl 200 cid which was an ex police car and would easily do 100 mph with out trying too. when it was not road worthy any more i bought another ford fairmont futura and dropped the motor and automatic tranny into it and drove till 1990 when i sold it for the 200.00 that i had paid for it at the salvage yard and then drove a mercury zephyr, then when it was not road worthy any more i bought a ford ranchero and drove till i got married and it became another project car. then me and my young wife bought a couple of murcury xr7’s and those were the best running cars that i ever owned because they all were biult great ,ran great , drove great, and looked great. i have never driven another car since 1994 that could stand up to the high standards of these 5 ford cars and one ford [car/truck] ranchero i hauled heavy rock in it, i hauled log’s in it, i hauled things in it that would cause a normal truck to break down but not my 1974 ranchero which i only paid 800.00 for which was all that i ever paid for any of these cars/truck, accept for the ford fairmont futura that i only paid 200.00 for right out of the salvage yard.
p.s. they dont biuld them that great any more!
p.p.s.sorry no pictures
I have ridden in a Futura, and the Mercury version, but never drove one. I did have the misfortune of driving a base model 2 door “Squaremont” 2 door one summer when I was working for Coca Cola…underpowered, red with red vinyl seats, wide white “dynamic ribbon device” Coke stripe on the sides of the car…and a piece of two by four to whack the starter with it it wouldn’t spring to life. Finally cadged a Cavalier wagon with working a/c partway through the summer and the Fairmont was retired.
You people are all nuts. Those things were boxy, ugly pieces of crap. The motors sounded like a go cart. The interior was awful, seats felt like plywood. I know I replaced at least 4 friends’ Fairmont transmissions. The starter/flywheel alignment made them chew up flywheels. I see alot of reference to European cars of the time, those were also boxy, basic, uncomfortable crappy cars, except with a higher price tag for people who don’t know any better. The malibu was a billion times better. Unfortunately everyone started making the worst cars ever shortly after this.
Did the design studio attempt to emulate a Pagoda Mercedes?
for sale. 1980 ford futura great condition. many parts added. ac ps title c. pb a/c factoy paint new cut pile black carpet all black interior ( painted) padded dash frame connecters200cisix chomebrakecoverand valuecover s,s,headerone wirealternator c4 transwithshiftkitatfoilcooler and remote atf oilfifternewfloorshiftr glassallgreat no radio great speakersfrontandback soundproofing undercarpet many more added on itemslocated eastern north dakota clear tittle engine not running on good tires for moving make an offer 218 443 2830 i’ll send pixe to show condition. onlye interested caller please
One of these Futura’s (with euro plates, no less) features prominently in the music video for Foxes’ “Body Talk”. It actually fits the other era tie-ins quite well:
Hehe, “Foxes.” I wonder if anyone involved with production was aware of that automotive pun?
My pops bought a new 79 Ford Fairmont Futura, it was 2 tone yellow with yellow matching hubcaps. To an 11 year old it was a nice car. I learned to drive on it. He traded a 74 Olds Cutlass for it, think the Cutlass tranny was starting to slip & he traveled a lot at the time. It had the 6 cylinder & it was very slow compared to the Cutlass. Our other car was a 78 Lincoln Mark V, a nice car but very big. I remember the Fairmont having the coldest a/c that I ever experienced in a car. Dad put well over 120k miles on that car but traded it for a new 82 Nissan Stanza.
When I was in my twenties, in the early 80s, I drove one of these, leased by a television studio, to take home a middle aged actress from the set of a sitcom she was starring in. My recollection was that it was solid, ergonomically sound within, with an almost light but sure feel on the road. Around that same time, my daily driver, provided by another studio from its fleet–Crown Victorias for ordinary workers, Lincolns for top brass)–was a ’82 full size Ford, which floated down the L.A. freeways, and felt like a comfortable lounge inside. A few years before, my father had driven, and quickly disposed of, a new blue mid 70s LTD, and a new white late 70s Grenada, both of which I drove from time to time, and quite enjoyed. The quick turnover of these cars led me to remark to him, “You’re a Chevy man, right?” because he had bought, and kept substantially longer, a new off white ’63 Impala, and later, a new silver Chevy Malibu. He answered, “No, actually I’m a Ford man.” I had been too young to remember very well his beautiful white ’57 Fairlane convertible, which he had bought new and traded in for the ’63 Impala. Reconstructing his ownership history, his car preference now made sense. Not long ago, I saw a flawless Fairmont Futura, like the one featured above, at a car show. With incredibly low mileage, the owner scooped it up rapidly from a used car lot. I couldn’t stop looking at it from every angle, inside and out, especially the amazing basket handle top, which I also visualized handsomely setting off the bed of an imaginary Ranchero. Count me now as a Ford man, along with one other major make, which is irrelevant to this post. Long live Ford!
I worked for a large Ford dealer in the late 70’s down south and he made a purchase of 100, 4 door stripper, ’78 Fairmonts……..4 cylinders, 4 speed stick, no power anything, vinyl interiors, every one of them was cream yellow with maroon interiors. He advertised them at $2500. At one point, these Fairmonts were everywhere on the property. Some were sold with add on air conditioning which if I recall added $400 to the price, and was installed in the service shop. Within a few months, every one was sold.
I rented a Futura during a vacation in Hawaii in 1978. Powered by a straight six under the hood it was a very blah ride. Years later I would buy an 80 Fairmont wagon for our family and with the straight six it was pretty blah too. Yet the wagon served us well even taking our family of five on a short vacation to southern Alberta and back. Without AC I might add.
Last year I came across a Futura for sale south of here but had little desire in the middle of winter to check it out. From what I learned it had only one owner and was complete with decent trim, but faded paint.
Fairmont finish wasn’t of the best quality.
I think your photo car is a 1981 or later, by the steering wheel. If you see it again…easy check: 17-digit VIN (beginning with 1FA) is 81+.
Older Fords, first VIN digit is the year.
Speaking of steering wheels, did any Futuras come with the poverty-spec, cheap plastic, two-spoke steering wheel from the Fairmont? Geez, it was one of the most plain, cheapest-looking steering wheels I’d ever seen. It really seemed to scream “Cheapass!”. I can’t imagine having to wheel that tiller everyday without feeling like you were the poorest bastard on the planet.
I will say this about the cheap interiors of the Fairmont, though: at least it was all still color-keyed. It wouldn’t be much later that lower-tier cars would all get one, dark, solid color dash, steeering wheel and carpeting, with the only difference in color being seats and (maybe) a color-keyed strip on the front door panels.
Our Fairmont wagon, a basic model, had that steering wheel. The designers could have done better. Somebody in management was trying to save pennies.
But then if you don’t have a horn button in the steering wheel why get fancy, eh?
My first new car was one of these, a 1979 Futura in midnight blue with a midnight blue vinyl top. The car was similar to the one from the cover of the ’79 Futura brochure pictured below. My car had the ‘Exterior Accent Group’ which included goodies to brougham it up a bit. The moldings down the side were a little wider than the thin strips on the car below, and had wide ‘chrome’ (actually brushed aluminum) moldings that arched up and over the wheels, but only on the top. The vinyl top was cool too, because it was split into two parts; the front half (think ’73 Charger SE); then the basket handle split the look (pinstripes up and over to break it up) and then the other half “landau’d” behind the basket handle.
I think someone ordered the car special, and then backed out on the deal. The reason I think that is the car was all brougham on the outside, but had no AC, a split bench cloth front seat (light blue), column shift 3 speed automatic, no radio (I installed my aftermarket one from my ’73 LTD), and only sported the 200 Straight Six. It also had the standard Fairmont wheel covers, but they looked really good on that car. I also bought it in Baltimore, but although a “new car”, it already had 253 miles on it from being “driven down from Pennsylvania in a convoy” as the salesman put it. Don’t new cars arrive at the dealer on a car carrier?
Anyway, I loved the car, but it was done by early ’84, and I traded it in on a nearly new ’83 Aero Bird.
This brochure car is a really good-looking example.
Yeah, I actually wanted the slightly lighter dark blue, or even the two-tone dark blue/light blue combination like the car pictured below, but with NO vinyl top, but it was nearing the end of the summer of ’79, and with the 80’s coming out, I got a good deal on a ‘clearance’ model. Hey, when you’re 19, you’re looking to save a few bucks, right? ;o) I was happy I found a blue one at all, and the fact the vinyl top was the same color midnight blue, it really looked good. I kept it well Armor All’d and the paint well waxed, so it looked great until one night in early ’84, a kid in a ’77 Monte Carlo made a left turn right in front of me, and the Futura met its demise. The Fox Body’s crumple zones saved my life that night.
BTW, the standard Fairmont wheel covers are pictured below, and that’s what my car had, and they really looked sharp on that midnight blue car. But I really wanted those wheels shown in the brochure pic, but again, I was a 19 year old kid trying to save a few bucks on my first new car ever.
I liked the regular Fairmont sedans and wagons when they came out. They were tauter and nimbler than the big mid ’70s boats. But the bouncy dashboards and interior plastics screamed “CHEAP!”. I truly hated the ‘Landau-roofs, ‘Opera-windows’, and ‘Basket-handles’ – all those tacky ’70s styling cliches that American car designers thought could turn a turd into something classy!
Happy Motoring, Mark
I always like the plain Fairmont better than the Futura. I was stationed in Korea when these came out. The 1st ones I saw were all strippo AAFES taxicabs. They were much more comfortable than the Hyundai Ponys that were the main competition. I don’t know why, but that rectangular styling just looked “right” on the Fairmont. Of course, I always like the styling of the ’60 and ’70 full size Ford too. Both were a bit different from Fords that preceded and followed. So was the Fairmont.
I agree; back then I wished my parents bought the 2- or 4-door sedan instead of the Futura; for one thing, it has less backseat room.
These things in a solid color and some nice wheels really look great.
I saw a black one with tinted windows and Magnum 500 wheels a few years back and it was beautiful.
I remember when Ford first intro’d the Fairmont. The car had decent room in the back for adult passengers. That was a big deal back in those days, as there were not many cars that could be said about.
A generally attractive car, I wanted to like the Futura (and, by default, the Fairmont from which it sprang) but it just seemed so flimsy and cheap, particularly that hard-plastic dash and interior. It was like the complete opposite of the heavier, old-school Aspen/Volaré which seemed like it was stuck in the sixties’. Ford seemed to be trying way too hard to get away from the old ways and overshot the mark by a wide margin.
Fortunately, Ford had a much better Fox-chassis execution in the 1979 Mustang.
I agree the basic Fairmont/Zephry did come off rather cheap or flimsy looking so it’s no wonder they disappeared off the streets so quickly. Durable they were not. At the same time with the right trim, wheels and colour they were handsome looking cars.
I’ve never known anyone who owned a Fairmont Futura. I’ve seen plenty of them during its production run, and I’ve always found it more attractive than the standard Fairmont. I particularly liked the Futura grille. I’m not complaining about the Fairmont appearance. Both the standard Fairmont and the Futura are handsome cars.
A high school friend and his wife bought one of these circa 1979. It was a replacement for a Mustang II and I will let everyone draw his/her own opinion as to whether or not this was a step up, down or sideways. I can vaguely remember riding in the Futura a couple of times, about all I can say for it was that it was new. I don’t really remember but I’m sure that Tony’s Futura had the 200 CID six, I know that it had the auto trans as the Mustang II had the four speed manual and Mrs. Tony was tired of shifting gears. They ended up getting divorced not long after this and I have no idea who got/had to take the Futura in the split. I find the styling of these to be somewhat odd and prefer the regular Fairmont. As a matter of fact I seriously considered buying a Fairmont instead of my Rabbit but you couldn’t get the four speed/V8 combo, at least not in California, and I was a dedicated self-shifter at that time.
I wonder if JPC knows his posts are in syndication… LOL!
There’s a very clean, original looking Futura very similar to the one in the pics roaming the streets of my town right now. Some young guy is using it as a pizza delivery vehicle. Seeing this post reminded of that fact. I drove up behind it the other day and thought: Why is this kid using the car to deliver pizzas (in Michigan in the middle of winter)? WTF?
I’ve mentioned before that my family (parents, siblings, nieces, nephews, etc.) all have had Fox body Fords in a variety of styles. I alone accounted for three Fox body Mercury Capris. I’m familiar with their ups and downs.
I guess it really bugged me that the kid was driving a certifiable classic. Maybe not an universally well loved classic like a Beetle, or an universally reviled classic, like a Citation. But, due to condition and age, it’s a time capsule and should be treated as such.
Maybe he really needs the money. If he were smart, he could sell that thing on eBay for more than he’ll make shifting pizzas, especially after fuel costs…
Bummer.
I’ve actually been waiting for this syndicated re-run to comment myself (above brochure pic like my car). ?
Perhaps this kid DOES know what he has and keeps it nice, since you say it’s very clean. I’m sure that Michigan winters are much worse than here in Baltimore, but down here, we have an extremely paranoid SHA (State Highway Administration). At the first sign of flurries, these folks are treating the roads with salt, brine, and all sorts of chemicals, even in unwarranted threats of just a little winter weather.
If this kid is anything like I’ve always been, he probably washes that thing as soon as the snow event is over, to keep the salt off of it. Despite the over use of salt here in Maryland, I have never had a car rust out. Ever. There was a little surface rust on my ’73 LTD, but not a lot, even by 1981, and that was more my sister’s neglect after I got the Futura in 1979. But from that Fairmont forward, they’ve all been maintained and kept perfectly clean whenever possible. I have never had a garage, but even kept outside in the elements, my cars all look good with no rust. Now mind you, a decade is about the longest I’ve kept a car, but I typically keep a car to well over 100K and roughly 8-10 years. This guy’s Futura is approaching 40 years on this planet, in a harsher climate, but if you’ve ever been to Baltimore in the winter, you’d know we are way to salt happy down here. All of my cars did about a decade of daily driver status in this slop, and still, no rust. My Mustang is retired from the DD grind, so I can keep it off the road on days like that, but for its first 9 years and 171K, it was my DD and still looks amazing.
Funny thing about all of my Foxes: I’ve had the aforementioned Fairmont, and several T-Birds, but never a Mustang until I got my 2007 in ’08. Of course I’ve heard some say that the S-197 platform is the Fox platform’s grandchild.
I graduated from college in 1980. Some guy was making one of these into a drag racer, to race at Englishtown. Whether it was Pro-Stock or a bracket car I don’t know. I never saw it finished or on the track.
I think that the Fox cars definitely make for an interesting “hot-rod” platform. With so many different variations that were built over the years, they are a lot to choose from. And with the Mustang as part of that, essentially anything you can do to a Mustang you can/should be able to do to any other Fox body. You may have to fudge some here and there to adapt, but it shouldn’t be all that hard.
The Futura with the LTD front end on it was posted earlier, here is another photo of the same car after some additional mods (supercharger, new wheels, etc). I had always loved the roofline and rear ends on the Futuras, and seeing this car definitely renewed interest in it. The LTD front end just works with the rear of this car, even better than the squared off front end of the Fairmont.
Ranking near the top of my mental garage would be a Futura similar to this one. Futura body, LTD front end, DOHC 4.6 V8 (from 03-04 Mach 1), 5-speed manual, IRS from 01-04 Cobra), 5-lug wheels, lowered…. that’s how I’d mentally build out my Fox body.
Yea, that’s nice, it works……..
It looks like he worked with a Mercury Zephyr Z7 rather than a Futura, Brian. Notice the taillights (you can just make out the horizontal lines wrapping around – the Futura’s were vertical). There are also shark-fin vent-louvers on the side that were unique to the Mercury. While I liked my Futura’s taillights better than the Z7’s, I think that the Z7’s horizontal lines are more cohesive with the horizontal lines up front on that LTD grill. Having seen pictures of this car many times before, I always drool, wishing mine looked like that back in the day (only I’d like the midnight blue color that mine had). After its accident in ’84, I probably should’ve done that to my Futura (I even thought it would be cool at the time), but by then, I wanted a new Aero Bird and got one. ;o)
That has to be just about the perfect Fox. They really should have updated the rear of the car, while keeping the “basket handle”, and made it into an 83-86 LTD coupe.
If we don’t enlarge your little blurry photo at very fast first sight we believe in a Gran National .
My sister bought one new, brown with the camel interior and vinyl top (with the brown stripe/basket handle). It was a decent car for the time, and slightly more sporty looking than a basic Fairmont. My best friend in HS had a cream yellow 4 door, and that car was referred to (completely sarcastically, natch) as “the Sexy Fairmont!” It pretty much guaranteed that he never got laid.
I had a 78 Futura, black, with red interior. Removed all the badging, trim items and pinstriping, painted the bumpers black. 302 automatic. TRX wheels from a Mustang. Nice car, tin worms started to reclaim it.
My favorite Fairmont Futura was Bob Glidden’s Pro Stock Futura, Bob was undefeated in the 1987 season. The only undefeated Pro Stock ever!
As I was finishing up college in 1979, I will admit that I was attracted to the Yuppie look. That guy striding purposely toward his Futura certainly was dressed to the nines in true Yuppie style. I even affected that style of dress for a time. I had read John T. Malloy’s book; Dress for success. I was a huge fan of the Audi Fox, but the Fairmont sedan and especially the Futura coupe was considered as an alternative. I still check CraigsList hopefully for a Fox, but perhaps it’s better that I never found one. I don’t know how many real Yuppies would have cross shopped a Fairmont against a 3 series BMW, which was the king of that world.
I still like the Futura, it can accept every Mustang upgrade, a smog legal fuel injected 5.0 swap would be a great car. However I’m pretty sure my time with possible engine swaps is long past.
My “Dress for Success” period ended even longer ago. Once I figured out that I wasn’t going to be that successful, I figured I could save a lot of money on clothes!
Almost got a blue one in “1981”;wanted “fwd” though.
My recollection matches StuMacks – the turbo Futuras were heavily advertised but never built. They had a short run in the Mustang and were troublesome so never made it to the Fairmont. By this time, Ford was focusing on the new Fox Granada, the resurgent Mustang, the new T-Bird, and upcoming Fox LTD, and the Tubro Futura was quietly dropped.