(first posted 1/19/2018) We’ve been on a bit of a Fairmont tear here lately, if you hadn’t noticed. As a result, I must have had Fox-bodies on my mind when I was cycling my framed vintage ads. While I was putting the above ad out for display, the thought occurred to me: just how rare were the oft-forgotten 1980 Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr turbos? Well, that depends who you ask: either there were 1158 sold or there were zero.
Sometimes, books like the Standard Catalog of American Cars make mistakes. That book claims the distribution of turbocharged Fairmonts and Zephyrs to dealers never eventuated because of some technical difficulties. Despite this, there are various people on the internet that have claimed they owned one. While it may be easy to doubt the accounts of anonymous people on the internet, it’s also plausible a book may have made a mistake.
The turbocharger option was detailed extensively not only in advertisements but also in Ford and Mercury brochures. The two-barrel carbureted, 2.3 turbocharged four-cylinder produced 120 hp and 145 ft-lbs, matching that year’s 255 V8 in power and the naturally-aspirated 2.3 in fuel economy.
The only transmission available was a three-speed automatic with a floor shifter, which mandated bucket seats. Additionally, turbocharged Fairmonts and Zephyrs were available only in two- and four-door sedan and two-door coupe styles—there would be no turbo wagon. When selecting the $500-600 turbo option, full instrumentation and a unique, bulged hood were included.
The Mercury Zephyr brochure for 1980 suggested you should select the Sports Handling Suspension option as well, with firmer springs and front and rear stabilizer bars. There was also a special ES trim that added the aforementioned mechanical improvements as well as European-style blackout trim. Ticking these option boxes would have netted you a surprisingly capable, continental Ford and certainly a rare one, considering most Fairmonts and Zephyrs probably left the factory with bench seats and the 3.3 six.
Lest you think the Fairmont/Zephyr turbo was a truly inspiring, European-style automobile, however, it’s worth mentioning how disappointing these early turbo 2.3s were. Lacking an intercooler, many owners experienced persistent drivability and overheating problems. Although initial reviews spoke in glowing terms of superb power delivery and smoothness, Ford pulled the 2.3 turbo from the market after just one year in the Fairmont/Zephyr and two in the Mustang and Capri. For a company concerned about meeting CAFE targets, that was quite an admission the engine was underdone.
Over the course of my Obscure Special Editions and Forgotten Limited-Run Models series, I’ve often had great difficulty finding photographs of much more common vehicles than this. So, it’s a bit surprising that there’s a glut of promotional material for a car that was allegedly never sold. As for that 1158 figure I mentioned earlier, that was from an ad for a turbocharged two-door sedan on a forum somewhere. It’s unclear where the seller obtained that figure considering the VIN number coding didn’t actually delineate whether one had purchased the naturally-aspirated Lima or the turbocharged one.
Just to make matters more perplexing, here are some press photos that detail the availability of a four-speed manual with the turbo–a potential option that was dropped before prices and specifications were released to media outlets and before the rest of Ford’s promotional material was released.
I’m inclined to believe the Fairmont and Zephyr turbo did exist but were sold in pitifully small volumes before they were withdrawn. Does anybody remember seeing these back in the day? Better yet, did any of you Curbivores own one?
Related Reading:
Automotive History: Shockingly Low Volume Production Cars – The Ford Edition
Top 10 Obscure Special Editions and Forgotten Limited-Run Models: Ford Edition, Part I
Top 10 Obscure Special Editions and Forgotten Limited-Run Models: Ford Edition, Part II
Why does the red one have a column shift if it’s supposed to be a turbo? It said they only came with a floor mounted shifter.
That image is a cropped version of the typical Options pages taht you see in Ford brochures of the time. Notice the (B), (C), and (D) in the lower left corners. If you had the full page, you would see that (B) was showing off the ES option and the Turbo engine, (C) was showing off the available Interval Wipers, and i’m guessing (D) was showing off the optional Instrumentation Group.
They weren’t all on the same car.
Ahh. Makes sense.
My “turbo Plymouth Caravelle” had the shift on the column.
I love that the last picture shows a turbo hood with wire wheel covers and whitewalls.
Really… talk about mixed messages. ;o)
Especially with mandatory front bucket seats.
That car says: “I have sporting intentions but I wouldn’t want Fred & Ruth next door to think we were anything except respectable middle class people.” 😛
This would soon be the norm on Chryslers, like the stretched K-car New Yorker with turbocharging and louvers on the hood and fenders, but also whitewalls, wire wheel covers, and loose-cushion velour or soft Corinthian leather. Ford was just ahead of their time….
Let us not forget the fox Mustang in that era was commonly seen with wire wheel covers.
“Chrysler New Yorker Turbo. Once You Drive It – You’ll Never Go Back to a V8 Again. ” – Ricardo Montalban.
They did indeed exist, as I owned one in 1993. It was a 1980 Fairmont Futura with the 2.3l turbo and a 4 speed manual trans. Red in color with red interior and the TRX handling package with 390mm wheels..
I have only ever seen the one Fairmont with the TRX package and only the one with the turbo 4. I do not miss the thing as it did have constant problems with spark knock and overheating, Some of this was solved with the addition of an intercooler from a Tbird turbo coupe. As the car was involved an and accident and totaled shortly after that, I don’t know if that would have been a long term fix.
One of the “music teachers” in HS had a “Fairmont wagon”, with a “4 spd”. Was that sort a “yellow putty”, color that was so common at the time. (79).
These are an odd one. There was one on Barn Finds that looks factory but the VIN comes back as a N/A 2.3. The Fox forums seem to have a couple floating around too.
https://barnfinds.com/sleeper-sedan-1980-ford-fairmont-futura-turbo/
I can’t see someone going through the trouble of faking a car that wasn’t quite ready for prime time like these.
I’ve seen a grand total of 2 turbo-equipped Fairmont Futuras and 1 Zephyr with the turbo engine. I’ve also seen about that many Monte Carlos with a turbocharged engine.
Ironically, one of the Fairmonts and 2 of the Monte Carlos were seen in emissions unfriendly California.
In all cases, the tip-off was the bulged hood, as the Turbo badges were miniscule.
I haven’t seen a Futura coupe for several years, although there’s a Fairmont wagon still gracing my neighborhood. To my eye, the Futura design screamed to be made into the next iteration of Ranchero. Ford apparently contracted with a Los Angeles-area coachbuilder for a conversion called Durango. I suspect that because Ford had the Ranger p/u waiting in the wings, they didn’t see the need for two small trucks in their lineup at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Durango
That’s actually the later LTD wagon 83-86.
Ah. Thanks for the correction. I’ll take a closer look the next time I see it on the street.
A true unicorn, but I wonder who really would have wanted one? Just stick a six/auto in it and be done. These cars were never meant for the sporty crowd, they were meant to be solid family transportation, and that’s what they were. If you wanted a sporty car, get a Mustang.
I owned the inline six/auto combination in a 1980 Mustang, and the reason I would pass on that drivetrain is the double whammy of dreadful fuel economy and a lack of power. At least it was reliable.
If I had to do it all over again and suffer with 80-something horsepower in a Ford of that era, I’d go with the 2.3L four.
And these days, nearly every Ford Fusion is a turbo 4-cyl with bucket seats!
I hope the Ford Fusion turbo failure rate is nowhere near the Chevy Cruze’s…
I vividly remember seeing a Fairmont with the power bulge hood once before and to my best recollection it’s weathered patina matched the rest of the car, so I don’t believe it was added on. That’s the only one though, I believe they existed but are extremely rare.
Speaking of mythical early foxbody options, how about the recaro bucket seats in the 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar? Rare or non existent?
Wow Recaros in those shrunken little brougham abominations?
That’s like racing stripes on a Coupe de Ville…
Especially with that little “this is where the manual shifter goes, but you settled for a column-matic so here’s a *COLOR-KEYED* coin tray” in the console.
I have never laid eyes on a turbo Fairmont or Zephyr in all of my 46 years. I have seen a couple of 1980 Mustangs so equipped but they were very low mileage collector cars.
95% of these cars seemed to come with the 200 six or 2.3 NA engine with a couple of 302 wagons in the 1978-79 years. Come to think of it I have never seen a 1980-81 255 equipped Fox either. This was one of many things that annoyed me about these cars at the time. How sparsely and cheaply equipped they were especially in comparison to GM’s A/G body and even X-body cars.
My 1979 dark blue Fairmont had the 200 six with automatic, power steering, AM radio, a body side molding and a white vinyl top and that was it. All of my A/G body cars had power steering and brakes, a stereo or stereo cassette, tilt and cruise, a split front seat, remote left mirror, passenger seat recliner and A/C with 6 and 8 cylinder engines in comparison and were obviously pitched as more equipped and higher priced cars.
I actually owned a 1981 Zephyr Z-7 in top trim that originally came with the 255, but the previous owner at some point had replaced it with an era specific 302 (standard 2 bbl carb), so while I have never actually owned a Fox with a 255 in it, I did own a Fox that came with one!
I loved that car, it’s the one classic from the past that I would give anything to have again! It had it all… AC, sunroof, full console with floor shift, power windows, the list went on!
Not too hard to find in 1980s want ads, so I’ll figure it was a real thing rather than figment:
You’ve made the point, and very convincingly. Thanks!
one more:
That Impala sure looks like the steal of the century here in 2018. You have to wonder if it still around while it is certain that the rest of those went to the crusher long long ago.
1986 (lower RH):
Well, this would be unicorn no one would want. Terrible turbo in a frumpy car. I’d wager it did exist, but probably shouldn’t have. I’m guessing that since the Turbo was an engine option and not a standalone model, specific production breakouts are hard to find and verify. That said, I think Ford would have issued corrected revisions of the sales brochures for subsequent printings if the car had not materialized, and to my knowledge that did not occur in 1980 for either Fairmont or Zephyr. The Old Car Manual Project website shows the early 1980 Fairmont catalog and a revised version from later in the model year. Both “early” and “late” catalog variants contained the Turbo. It was gone for 1981, but I really think they did offer the blown engine for all of 1980.
Currently for sale in Denver. Not mine: https://denver.craigslist.org/cto/d/ford-futura/6451320378.html
Tempting features and overall condition, but it’s about double what I’d be willing to pay.
Make an offer.
Now how could potential FAIRMONT and ZEPHYR buyers in 1980 possibly resist TURBO CAR?!
Well, shucks. My Dad did. His Zephyr wasn’t a turbo. I didn’t even know these things existed until I began reading this thread 20 minutes ago.
I reckon if I lived near Denver I’d just ~have~ to go take a look at Futura Turbo Beastie. 😀
I was paying attention to Fox bodies at that time, but if I knew about these, I’ve definitely forgotten about them. Today, the early 2.3 turbos get a bad rep, but I considered buying one (Mustang) and drove a low mileage used one in 1980 or ‘81. It wasn’t mind-blowing, but it wasn’t really bad by the standards of the time. Definitely a lighter, “sportier” feel than a V8 Monza, by comparison.
I think it was an escort turbo that was advertised but due to even worse durability problems, never actually made it to market. Turbos + carburetors = failure. Carburetors just cannot meter and deliver fuel precisely enough to work well with a turbo. I don’t think turbos really got drive able until Buick put sequential port fuel injection on the v6 in 1984.
Wasn’t there also supposed to be a 1.3 liter base engine in the ’81 Escort as well that never made it to production, leaving only the 1.6L? The first C/D test drive I read mentioned it.
The Escort/EXP Turbo cars came out in 84…with fuel injection. On YouTube there’s a MotorWeek review of one.
Ford should have learned that lesson from its crosstown rivals the Jetfire and the Corvair, but I guess desperate times call for desperate measures…
Besides the turbo, many other options shown in the above advertising seem to be exceedingly rare. I saw very few Fairmonts or Zephyrs with the upgraded velour-and-woodgrain interior (the highest of three available interior trim levels), the ES/ESO blackout package, or the functional rear air vent louvers that were optional on 2 and 4 door sedans. People who bought these weren’t looking for luxury, sportiness, or high tech; they wanted a low purchase price.
I’ve long learned not to assume that the Encyclopedia of American cars is infallible. I remember these from the time, and I believe I saw one or two back in the day.
It wasn’t the lack of inter-cooler that was the main problem; this was a primitive carburated “suck through” design that…sucked. It lacked the necessary fuel injection and electronic controls that made the second 2.3 turbo, as used in the 1983 T Bird so much drastically better. And it didn’t have an intercooler either. That came a few years later, which allowed boost to be increased further.
It always struck me as strange that Detroit added nice-looking fake airscoops to the hoods of non-supercharged cars, trying to imply the presence of a charger.
But ACTUALLY blown cars usually had ugly non-scoopy humps on their hoods.
They didn’t scoop because they didn’t need to, air intake was in the usual spot, but they may well have been needed for clearance.
As big as a Ford fan as I was back at that time, I don’t think I ever saw one in real life.
I’ve chronicled my disastrous ownership misadventures with my 1980 Mercury Capri on here before, no need to relive all of that. However, it does not surprise me that these had a very short, abortive run before being withdrawn from the market.
Besides, at the peak of fuel prices then, everyone wanted something that did nothing but get excellent fuel mileage.
The 1980 turbo four (along with the craptacular 255 V8) were Ford’s early effort to combine acceptable performance and fuel mileage during a time when fuel prices were among the highest in US history. Unfortunately, the technology just wasn’t there to make it viable. But they stuck with it and, eventually, with advances such as EFI, ECM, and intercooling, turbocharging (Ford calls it EcoBoost) today works well with small four-cylinder engines.
Wow, I had NO idea these existed. Very interesting, thanks for the in-depth report and good to see that it did actually exist as per the responses above. I also like that you display vintage ads of 1980’s Fox-body sedans and the like. Also very interesting. 🙂
I bought one new in april of 1980…..beat the living crap out of it for 8 years and had “0” issues with it.
Did regular 3000 mile oil changes and regular maintenance.
I put about 90k miles on it and probably 75% of those miles were highway miles which probably helped with longevity issues.
While I did not know about the sedans, friends did own a turbo Mustang and Capri back then. We took a ski trip in the Mustang and the turbo sure did its job at high altitude. The only real problems I recall them having related to high underhood temperatures boiling the battery and causing some other electrical issues. What helped was some insulation around the turbo housing.
Nice article, thank you for posting it.
One thing that people don’t realize….Kevin Marti/Marti Auto Works has rights to the FoMoCo production database for 1967-2003 (or so). For a price, he could (or perhaps already has) query the database to answer questions like this (Was it produced? And if so, how many?) for all.
Those of us into older FoMoCo products have come to rely upon the information he provides as the final word, since he has the evidence.
What a comedown from those 1940s Buicks from the other day to these in terms of style lol.
The Mercury Zephyr we owned had the horn control on a stalk coming off the column. I remember beating on the wheel before fumbling around to find the stalk.
Here’s me and my regular 2.3 from 1980