(first posted 2/17/2011) 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 UK 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 from the English Granada, more or less.
And how about that driving experience? Well, my ever so thrifty father had a Mercury Zephyr version, a red two-door, 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 low-trim sedan yet with decent bucket seats, 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 just hung in there so willingly and well-balanced, even when pushed to its relatively modest limits, unlike the wallowing Fords of the time. A revelation indeed; Detroit could actually build what somehow seemed so utterly elusive for so long, at least since the Corvair: a true European-type sedan without any European trade-offs, starting with the price.
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.
Related reading:
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.
We had three early Foxes in our family, only one made it any length of time. My father’s ’79 Fairmont was ready for the junk yard by 1986. It was severely rusted and the 302 was completely worn out. This from the same many who owned and kept a Colonnade Chevy rust free in Ontario winters. I recall the carburetor being very problematic which caused many driveability problems, the engine leaked oil badly (front seal problems), and the body was not overly durable in Canadian weather. The car needed a complete repaint around 1983 or so and it was constantly breaking down and needing repairs. There was also a 1982 Cougar a family member had that was another car that suffered constant driveability issues and break downs although it had a 3.8L V6. It’s body didn’t hold up well either and it was basically scrap by 1990 when it was replaced by a much better Taurus.
The only decent one was the 1980 Zephyr with a 200 six. Although the six was very underpowered, it proved to be reliable for about 16 years of service. It did have some minor carburetor/driveability issues but my cousin was a mechanic so he kept it running well The body held up better than the other two, but it was parked inside and low mileage car. These early Foxes may have been a big engineering improvement over previous Fords, but they were poorly made and executed cars that suffered from poor quality, durability and had driveability issues.
I remember a car-savvy friend touting the merits of these cars circa 1985 or so, cars I was completely unfamiliar with.
Not long after that we were both at a local salvage yard and noticed quite a few 5 and 6 year old Fairmounts with rusted structural members. In northern Vermont salt conditions, they lasted about as long as the smallest imports before suffering terminal structural failure.
My family had a ’79, 2-door sedan with the I4 and an automatic. Bought used in ’83 or ’84. It only made it to ’88 before they got rid of it due to some sort of impending major engine problem (I was 7 at the time so i don’t remember what in particular). It didn’t rust, but then again few things did in central North Carolina.
Dad seemed to like the car just fine, but Mom hated it. She thought it frighteningly slow compared to her Malibu (no ball of fire itself, but the 267 was up almost 40 horsepower in a car that was only a bit heavier) and more so compared to her previous car, a ’68 Impala with a 327. I do imagine that the 86 hp four, while perhaps a pleasant companion in a no-frills, manually-steered example, would become quite lethargic when saddled with power steering, A/C, and an automatic, all of which ours had.
I have this one right now. Recently acquired it has been sitting in a garage for at least five years. Replaced radiator and thermostat. Runs good when driving. Stalls out when turning steering wheel and it does take a little time to warm up before it doesn’t stall. I’m going to change the pump for steering. It’s a automatic transmission and only a four cylinder. No air conditioning also has a little play in the steering, I’m hoping I can figure out and fix that too. Tired to ad pic but the attach button didn’t work? I have on fb.
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!
The Futura coupe, it should had been the 1980 T-bird. I wonder if one guy attempted to put a 1980-82 T-bird front end to the Futura coupe?
I’ve seen the ’83-85 LTD nose on the Futura, which is pretty close.
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.
As I recall the Turbo 4 was mentioned in the 1979 Fairmont sales brochure, but I’ve never actually seen one in the wild and I’ve never met anyone who’s seen one. Many people think that it never actually made it into production. I just don’t know. Sort of like Sasquatch.
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.
Aha! The twisted seatback. My Dad’s ’83 Escort (as luck would have, the successor to our Fairmont) had the same problem. Of course that car only had about 55,000 miles on it at the time…but it was as it the previous owner spent all his time leaning over toward the back seat. Maybe they had unruly children?
The Fox wagon was definitely a good-looking design, especially paired with the “semi-aero” LTD/Marquis nose.
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.
Back in my Treasury Dept. days we had a ’79 Fairmont in the fleet that no one wanted to drive, but it was a real sleeper. 302 with special Michelin X radials from the factory and upgraded suspension with a rear sway bar. I was surprised and amazed how well it performed and handled. Taxicab plain, but very tossable in the corners. Light enough so the 302 moved it pretty well. Was surplused after 4 years or so and 60,000 miles, as was the norm back then, so don’t know about the longevity of these.
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.
that’s the one I want for my 78 QOTD Black cherry please
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?
Favorite? Really? All the Hondas and Grand Prixs out there and you pick this mound of feces? You have issues. But then, ‘favourite’ is a European word, so you don’t really have much to choose from for a favorite, anyway. But a Fairmont?
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
Here, here!!! I completely agree. Pathetic is the word.
I rented several of them and a friend was stuck with one after he was totally hosed in a divorce, and all the time I was reading the article, I kept thinking, “This article has got to be a put on!”, but I guess it was serious. The Fairmont/Zephyr was a truly pathetic car that was just sad, even by malaise era standards.
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
Not.
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.
The Fairmont’s Fox platform was an outstanding design. It was so succesfull that it was employed on many models produced during the 1980s and 1990s (Mustang).
I’ve owned two. A 1982 Ford Granada (1985-1988) and a mid-size 1986 LTD (1993-present). They have been extremely reliable and easy to work on. Parts are very cheap! My LTD is still a daily commuter and a joy to drive.
Ford should have never stopped producing mid-size and full-size RWD sedans. I bet the old Fox platform was a lot more reliable (and easier to work on) than what followed.
My dad had a 1982 Ford Fairmont Futura, that car was a piece of junk. He had it from 1986-88, it had kite string controlling the instrument panel and the frame had to be straightened twice. By the time it was time to trade off, it was blowing a head gasket. He traded for a 1987 Chrysler Le Baron, electronic fire problem. Eighties cars sucked, It’s amazing there are still Fairmonts alive these days.
You just called it on the 80s cars. I made a list not long ago on the cars I had owned in 50+ years of driving. That included the cars of my spouse while married. It’s almost one per year which surprised me. When I broke it down I actually kept my cars 2-3 years (10years on 2 worktrucks from Nissan) except for the collection of surprising trash from the 80s that failed. That includes SAAB, Volvo, Olds, and Honda. Every time I tried to get fancy they turned to garbage. Full disclosure – they were used. Went through four daily drivers in 1994,
What never failed was when I kept it simple like Ford or Chevy vans or trucks. To give some idea of the toughness of the Ford six, I bought a stretch van for business. It had a six and C6. Turned out the six was a junkyard 240 and not the 300 is was supposed to be. Took a while before the truth turned up because it would not die despite being terribly overloaded. The 300 I put in lasted till after I became a teacher.
I passed on a wagon similar to the brown one in the article. I was interested because I saw that same simplicity that I saw in the van. It had a straight six and a MT. I thought I was making a mistake passing on it at the time. Still think so. I need 4WD now and despite the aberrant stats I keep my vehicles a long time. I guess I will keep driving the 4Runner and fix it when it breaks. It is proving to be a good car and a good tractor but I do lust for these mid size wagons like the brown one here and the aspen/volare.
My parents always bought cheap cars from 1970 on. First a 1971 Pinto designed and assembled by enslaved aliens. Utter rubbish compared to European Fords. A 1974 Vega whose engine wasn’t anywhere near as smooth as an International tractor engine, but for some reason their example was assembled by people wearing white lab coats – it never rusted, which was completely unusual in these parts, 3 years was about your lot for a Vega/Astre. Was totaled in 1979, so suckers for punishment, they bought a ’79 Fairmont – 200 CID six auto. Looxshury.
The engine was an unmitigated disaster. The best thing it did was to actually start. Put it in drive, and it stalled. Mother finally discovered that if you warmed it up for no less than 15 minutes, and preferably 20, it didn’t stall. Many trips to the dealer never made it better, the usual they’re all like that excuses. 85 flaming horsepower at 2900 rpm. My parents proceeded slowly everywhere accompanied by asthmatic sounds and took to being those slowpokes that never get out of your way on a 2 laner, and …. forget it. The car was a dog.
Yeah, the basic vehicle was tough, I suppose. It had that crap faux strut front suspension, because US Ford engineers couldn’t trust real Mac struts that they had first fitted on the 1952 Consul in the UK. And far too short trailing arms on the rear solid axle for flingable handling. It was a cheapie, just not as cheap as the Pinto and derivatives.
Only took it for a real flog on back roads once. It didn’t want to, I forced it. Back axle stepped out alarmingly on bumpy corners, and ten minutes above 2500 rpm, its tongue was hanging out and there was a pervasive smell of hot oil. My brother bought a 1980 4 cylinder Fox body Mustang with Lima 2.3 and 4 speed. A more joyless car to drive I cannot imagine. The engine pinged when faced with a 1% grade. Unfortunately, he lived in the Rockies, so a trip anywhere was accompanied by a Spanish flamenco dancer, the constant sound of castanets. Rubbish.
The transformation to Thunderbird Turbo Coupe was amazing. My best friend got one as soon as they came out. Hard to imagine it was a Fairmont underneath. Just couldn’t trust it myself.
The original Fairmont compared to a Volvo 244 of the same vintage? There is no comparison to anyone with a clear head. The Volvo wins by a country mile. But the Volvo was just as equally beaten by a post ’77 Chev Impala, the best US car made ever, IMO, and handily better than the other GM division versions. Another friend went from Volvo 244 to one of these, and after 200,000 miles, yet another.
One of my girlfriends needed a new car to replace her old V8 Nova, and I did help her buy a 1980 Futura 302. In the real world, it was much more livable than the six, and she quite liked it, but changed to a 3rd gen Honda Accord when they came out and never looked back.
It was underachieving cars like this Fairmont that helped Honda and Toyota take over. You know, smooth engines, decent mileage, well-assembled, nice interiors with decent seats, but let’s not talk about rust. Their only competitor was the original Taurus, a very good car until design neglect set in on the ’95s. Why bother updating the suspension? Ford and the Detroiters never got, and I’m not sure if they get it even now, people with self-respect don’t keep selling the same old restyled crap, but put in a few bucks to the mechanical design as well. But Detroit was never into self-respect. All flash and not much substance. Like the Cavalier introduced in 1982. Never updated underneath until the Cobalt came out. By then, Vauxhall/Opel were on their fourth generation/iteration, and by comparison were lovely cars.
My 1st car bought was a 1978 Ford Fairmont… in 1998. At 16, I drove this car like a teenager for the 3 years I had it, and it held up beautifully, being 20+ years old! I was mortified at first, and my dad’s famous words were “It’s made of steel. If someone hits you, you aren’t going to die.” After the initial getting used to it, it became legendary, always try to fit more people in it than the last time. 🙂 It was a great first car for me, and I’ve loved the older big cars since.
Katie I had the same experience in this car! Party mobile, would not die.
People forget America didn’t just make tyre frying muscle cars or huge luxury cars but plain vanilla cars like this.Never driven the US Granada but I had a European Granada the same as the featured one,a favourite car of mine.
Well….other than the name there were not many similarities between the European (German or English) Granada and the US one. The European version was probably a milliiiiiiooooooon times better in quality! As was the case with all US cars compared to European brands at this time. And….it is not different today….just a couple of Asian brands that has been added to the competition. Ok, I should not be too tough on the US brands, things have been picking up the last couple of years but if US car makers should have a chance in today’s global market, they better try harder…and for heavens sake, no more Fairmont-like experiments!
It makes little sense to compare the Euro Granada with the Fairmont; they were aimed at very different buyers & price-points. In this respect, if not size, the Cortina/Taunus were closer.
A major shortfall on the Fairmont was the 100 in³ gulf between the barely tolerable Falcon six & 302. We had a ’78 V8 Futura that had lots of punch & was fun to drive, but didn’t break the teens in MPG. Why not the 250, was it no better here? Ford was handicapped by its lack of a V6 comparable to Buick’s 231 which would’ve been excellent in the Fairmont.
And yet Aussie had the alloy head 4.1 introduced at roughly this time on the XC Falcon that could have been put in the US line up, it eventually replaced the V8 in OZ coz with fuel injection it put out more power.
Sounds good; nearest equiv. here I suppose was the later Jeep 4.0 popular with Cherokee fans. Otherwise, the domestic I-6 simply got no respect in America once the V8 was popularized; it was for Basic Transportation buyers uninterested in performance. If you wanted a hot six, you bought a German or Japanese prestige machine.
The Fairmont just felt so tinny compared to other cars its size. And I really dislike the C pillar window. It’s too tall and makes the car look dorky. I forget, did the Zephy have that window as well? Even in our foriving climate, where road salt, cracked dashes and sagging headliners are rare, the original Fairmonts have completely disappeared – a testament to their build quality or lack thereof.
There is a Granny in Kerrisdale that has one, I see it parked at KCC now and again. There is also a really old Granny driving a Citroen DS21 in Point Grey.
By the time the Fox Fairmont came out, it had been years since Ford stopped using strut front suspensions in their Cortinas and Granadas. While other companies had great success with developing effective strut front suspensions in the ’70s, Ford wasn’t one of them. They weren’t good enough for Ford’s European customers, but they had no problem introducing them later in the US. The rear suspension of the Fox platform was no great shakes either.
Another thoughtful, logical, well-reasoned and…pragmatic…entry from Paul N.
Living in the Deep South and not having fender rust to contend with; my choice would be a Slant 6 or 318 V8/TorqueFlite automatic Volare from the same time period
Drove one. Third suckiest car ever. Vega #1, Chevette #2. Fairmont #3. Yugo was better than these 3.
A girl I almost married had a “Fecal Brown” Fairmont wagon, same color as the first example in this informative article. Six-in-a-row-that-don’t-go, 3 speed, slurpy automatic tranny, excellent factory air conditioning.
That wagon was HUGE inside! With the back seat folded down we used it for camping more than once.
The six cylinder’s valve guides turned into crumbling crapppppp by 40K miles; she would tell gas station attendants to “fill up the oil and check the gas”.
Had the same brown, 2.3 liter 4 speed, no options, orange interior and $4888 out the door in1978. I had read the comparisons to the Volvo 240 and as a (poor) car enthusiast it was affordable. No drivability issues and reliability was good but at 88k miles the 2.3 was tired. Power had been merely adequate when new but the westbound grade into Buckley Wva on I 64 was taxing the engine hauling three teenagers and vacation luggage. Traded it for a Chrysler E-Class to express my upward mobility. Ha! (I like cheap cars).
My favorite Fairmonts were the wagons with turbine wheels, and the Durango variant.
Weren’t these the cars that introduced that weird Ford design feature, the horn that sounded by pushing in on the turn signal stalk?
Despite the sound underpinnings of the Fox platform, I remember these as some of the most appliance-ish cars ever. My grandfather had one of the 4-cylinder Futuras, I don’t think it was turbo, I know it was slooooww.
My driver’s ed car at age 16 was a 1979 Fairmont, with the 200 Six and automatic transmission. El-cheapo crap that car was. Slow, poor brakes and the cheapest materials that Ford could get away with. My Dad’s F-41 Impala (with 350, ordered by yours truly) is an infinitely better car. The six was barely adequate around town and the wagons especially were downright dangerous in the mountains. I recall seeing lots of them dead on the side of steeply graded mountain roads.
The later ones with better trim were better cars, especially with the 302. Problem is the 302 cars sucked gas down like a 350 Impala, which had way more power.
The Impala of the same era was better in every single way, except mileage, compared to the lower end Foxes. As cheap as gas still was, I saw no sane reason to penalize myself, or my mother when we went shopping for a car for her in 1979. The ’77 Impala she ended up buying was pretty stripped, just A/C, an FM radio, and 350 auto. It was bulletproof and you actually felt safe in it, unlike every time I drove one of the Fox cars I rented, or when I rode in my friend’s car. What a piece of crap. He couldn’t wait until he dumped it.
Always interesting to read about the “Malaise Era”, because in exactly that timeframe both Ford and Opel (GM) were at their peak of success and popularity in Europe. Really, everybody drove Fords and Opels back then. Poor folks, rich folks, young folks, old folks and “The Fast and the Furious”.
The model range of both brands was h-u-g-e, from stripper economy boxes with tiny engines to big (from a European point of view) sedans with a bit of Broughamness, like a Ford Granada Ghia with a V6 and an automatic. Both brands also offered a wide range of sporty and fast models.
Quality was good, rust proofing for that era was good, all models were well-built (the German cars, don’t know about the English ones) and the price was always right.
Really, what could possibly go wrong when you bought a new Opel or Ford in the second half of the seventies or early eighties ? Always a wise decision, never a gamble.
If a Ford Granada is good enough for our Royal Family then it’s certainly good enough for the common people.
Source: http://www.autoblog.nl/de-autos-van-het-nederlandse-koninklijk-huis
Do the still have the ’72 Ford LTD convertible in the Royal Garage? They still did when my copy of Koninklijk Autorijden was published in 2001. The had quite the collection of cars over the years, from the early Spykers to an Austin Sheerline parade pheaton to a stretch Lincoln Town Car in the late 70’s.
Strangely, the never seemed to own a Hudson, even though the Royal Family owned a chunk of stock in the company.
The 302 was the only way to go in these.
Great write-up! That and the comments bring back memories.
In 1980, after considering the following–Citation,Fairmont, Malibu, LeMans, my dad ordered a Fairmont. 4 Cyl, 4sp, P/S, P/B, Exterior Accent Group (wagon featured has nicer Exterior DECOR group), turbine wheel covers (like featured wagon–they looked like real alloys!). I think we paid $5300 total with tax–we ordered it the last day of the $300 rebate–MSRP was either $5300 or $5600, I wish we had saved/kept the sticker! Salesman promised car in 6 weeks–I think it was more like 9 or 10.
I inherited the car when it was 5 yrs old and 66k miles, and put another 14k on it, before selling it for $1100 in 1987 and buying my 1st new car (a VW GTI).
I thought it was a good car. Great visibility, decent acceleration, fairly economical (19-33 mpg, about 22 in suburbs, 29-32 on trips), good ride and handling, easy-shifting manual trans. The engine had a nice hum at low to medium rpm, and the car was quiet for a 4-cylinder as long as you didn’t wind it out.
It had many little nits. Interior looked cheap–we should have spent $70 on the Interior Accent or Decor Group for the nicer buckets and door panels. Resting my hand on the A-pillar, you could feel the door frame flex as you drove it. The paint job was bad horrible–I asked if we could have some touch up paint! The “f’ hood emblem was tacky and crooked, the clutch had to be replaced at 30 or 40k, the trunk was big but shallow, it lacked a tach, the engine was thrashy over ? rpm (4,000 I estimate). During its time in our family, the electronic ignition module had to be replaced at 4 years (engine died on highway), at 5 years the power steering pump leaked and was replace, and at an oil change a month before I sold it, I found the front wheel would not turn (brake piston had seized and needed replace). Not a perfect car, but not a lemon by any means, by the standards of the 70s/80s. Perhaps even by today’s standards (except for driveability).
The rear axle was replace under warranty when my dad couldn’t put snow tires because the wheels would not come off the drums…by the time the axle came, winter was mostly over, so we never put snow tires. Driveability–the carb was temperamental–some winters, had superfast idle, one summer when hot it wouldn’t start. Co-worker removed air cleaner cover and held butterfly open with a ruler, lol–but these problems seemed to have evaporated by 1985-86. Car had no rust when I sold it.
It was good honest car that served our family well, and with the 4-cyl and 4 speed was even fun to drive. I remember it fondly
My sister had a black Zephyr back in the late ’80s when she was working in DC.
When I opened the bonnet out of interest,I couldn’t believe Frod were still using that ancient Falcon 6 cylinder engine. But there it was, buried under an aircleaner the size of
a manhole cover.
On the credit side, it was reliable and honest enough transport.
I really I appreciate the models of car displayed and featured by FoMoCo.
Since my boyhood around ’78 & ’79 up along ’80 that myself and my friends admired such cars when we watch those on Tv films.
My high school sweetheart and I had joint custody of a ’79 Fairmont sedan and it was my favorite car of all time. Pukey green with a pukey orange interior, what a plug-ugly little car, the best car I ever had the pleasure of co-owning. Inline six engine, easy to work on, no frills, great gas mileage, decent get-up-and-go, it was the little engine that could. A tendency to burn out starter solenoids, but those were cheap and easy to replace–we kept a few extras in the glove box. During the great Kansas City ice storm of ’02 that little car just kept on truckin’ up ice-covered hills while 4WD SUVs spun their wheels. A small, lightweight RWD car shouldn’t be able to do what that Fairmont did, but she did, and she did. I ended up getting an old Thunderbird while the (then ex-) sweetheart kept the Fairmont, and he drove the poor ol’ gal into the ground. Ended up selling what was left of her to the demolition derby. I miss that car so much. I’d gladly trade anything I’ve owned since to get that Fairmont back.
Anyone got a running Fairmont wagon they’d be interested in trading for a loaded ’05 Honda Odyssey in great condition?
Okay, got rear-ended in the 2005 minivan (yessssssss!) and bought me a stone stock 1979 Ford Fairmont station wagon with only 53K miles on it. Sky blue with fake wood paneling and the inline six. And although it looks like no one’s been here in a while, I just wanted to say to the author of this article, thank you. You helped me remember how much better (and more exciting!) it can be driving an honest car. As silly as it sounds, the Ford Fairmont wagon is my dream car, and I now have the keys to one in my pocket. I admire her long Fox legs and the simplicity of her instrument panel, and the fact that parts are as readily available and inexpensive as they were 10 or 36 years ago. She reminds me of my old Volvo wagon–you mention the similarity–minus the expense and difficulty of maintaining a European import. So thank you. A lot of people think I’m out of my mind doing this, but I rather feel I have come to my senses.
Great! Enjoy your “honest car”.
Great piece! My first car was a 78 fairmont sedan! Oxidized maroon with a straight six and a flowing front end. I took that thing to more Bon fire keggers out in the high deserts of western Colorado than I can count. Ripping around gravel road corners throwing up a rooster tail 40 yds in the rear. This was old school drifting! I sold it to a migrant harvester for $100 and I’ll bet it’s still driving today. This thing is dependable!! Would love to experience those troubleshooting days again. Think it’s broke? Replace it! Plenty of room to work!! Love this car!
I owned a brand new 1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon.
It was hands-down the worst car I have ever owned.
It was pretty loaded, AC/V8/Power Steering/Brakes
Power steering pump failed a little over 2 days after delivery.
I only had the car 2 years so all this stuff happened during this amount of time.
Car always rode like it had out of center “Clown wheels” on it, like egg shaped tires, even after tire replacement this issue continued throughout my time with the car.
Heater core started leaking and was spraying coolant and fumes through the AC ducts at me.
Transmission failed at least once, possibly 2 times.
Rear end broke, had to be rebuilt.
Electronic ignition module failed, it would stall at speed requiring you to turn the ignition to off and then restart the car (a neat trick on the freeway)
I also recall the dashboard always vibrated over bumps etc, I had a friend who bought a 79 Fairmont and I noticed they had put all kinds of extra bracing into the dashboard underneath it.
Most of the work was covered under warranty by Bricker Lincoln/Mercury in Hollywood California.
After we got rid of the car I wrote FoMoCo a letter and never heard back from them.
Needless to say I have not purchased any new Fords again since this one.
I’ve had two Fairmonts, a new 1980 4DR with the 4cyl and 4spd (my company car at Keebler at the time, don’t know how I got away with the stick as company policy was automatics only in their lease fleet); and an ’81 4DR with the six and auto that I bought used for $600 in Seattle in 1995. The four-banger performed better but it was temperamental at times, the six was pokey but dependable. I never experienced the stalling problems (in either car) mentioned by other commenters. When we relocated to Florida in 1997 the Fairmont made the trip, loaded with my locksmith tools and hardware. It was leisurely travelling through the hills on I-5 and I-10 until we got into Arizona, then it cruised at 70 all the way here.
People who expected today’s interiors from cars made 35 years ago are being excessively picky, I believe. Come on, it was a Ford – not a Buick or a Packard or a Lincoln. This was Ford’s first serious attempt at shaving weight from a true intermediate-sized car, and for the times I think they did OK. Fit and finish in my cars was good, the interiors were durable if a bit plain but who cares? One didn’t buy a Fairmont for flash. My only annoyance was that damned horn actuator in the turn-signal lever instead of the usual horn ring.
All in all, it was a good car for the money and they held up well, too. The ’81 had 181,000 miles on it when I sold it in 2004. They also were easy enough to work on that I did much of my own work (not that it needed much in the nine years I owned it, biggest job I ever had to do was replace the water pump at 140K miles or so).
My Fairmont/ Zephyrs Were Reliable and fun in a inexpensive way,. The Mont Wagon had a 2.3 l Four and Manual trans. and wouldn’t quit sold it For More than I paid for it. The Zephyr 4 dr. had the six and Was like a cheap Limo. Both a Minimal of Expense and pretty roomy for their Size.
How can u say that ford was at the “bottom of the barrel” in the 70’s when Chrysler went out of business in the 70’s? And again in 08′. All cars were immasculated in the 70’s, blame tougher emission standards and higher fuel prices….aka embargo.
“How can u say that ford was at the “bottom of the barrel” in the 70’s when Chrysler went out of business in the 70’s?”
This old perception just won’t die. Chrysler did *not* go out of business in the 70s. Chrysler might have gone under in 1980 but a combination of new management, some modern designs coming close to release and a Federal Government that was willing to guarantee a line of credit kept the enterprise afloat until things turned around. In the end the company prospered in the 80s and repaid all of the guaranteed loans early, costing the U.S. taxpayer exactly *zero*.
! am 55yrs old, graduated from high school in 1982, and am the youngest of four Generation-Jones-Baby-Boomers siblings. In 1974 my brother went off to Oklahoma State University in Stillwater in his used Blue 1966 mustang with 6-cylinder, 3spd manual and no options which he wrecked and abandoned, the car was not drivable and needed a new front clip and hood which it never got. dad towed the car home and got it running and reliable and drove it for the next four years. My eldest sister graduated from high school in 1976 and started college at OSU in Stillwater and after a year of driving her back and forth to Stillwater every week my Dad bought her a used Chevy Vega from one of our cousins, the car was a oil burning pain in the neck and eventually needed its engine rebuilt. In 1977 my other sister graduated from high school and started college, both of my sisters carpooled in the Vega. in 1978 my Dad being fed up with the Vega traded the 1966 Mustang in on a red 1978 Fairmount 4 door with !-4 4 cylinder, 4spd manual, and ac. In 1979 with my eldest sisters impending graduation from college my Dad bought a white with tan vinyl, I-4 4 cylinder, and aftermarket add on ac 1979 Fairmount 4 door. Dad gave my eldest sister the red Fairmount and my other sister the white one. both cars were ok transportation but you couldn’t run the ac in either car when driving in the city without risking burning the small 4 cylinder engines up, they were not powerful enough to handle running air conditioning. The white 1979 one had one of Fords first electronic brains which were total junk, if you were not careful the electronic brain would fail all the time, making the engine stop and stranding you wherever you happened to be My sister and I were stranded out in the middle of nowhere a couple of times on our way home from Stillwater in the fall of 1982. Overall the Fairmont was a cheap car that wouldn’t last I don’t know about the 6 cylinder and V8 models but the 4 cylinder engine was a underpowered piece of Junk, Fords early electronic brains were worthless garbage. Also both of the cars had those useless temp Doughnut spare tires and expand jacks. Expando jacks should be banned if they already haven’t because they are a safety and death hazard.
I owned a 78 Futura from 78 until 86. 250 ci six and automatic. My first car with AC. Quality control was poor. A jagged piece of metal inside the door frame scored the window. The emergency brake cables rusted solid and a pivot tore off of the underside. The drive train was very forgiving of poor maintenance. I once drove to a funeral 160 miles away with oil leaking from a pressure sending unit. These was sizzling and a wisp of smoke from the vicinity of the ignition switch. These cars could have been better, if they would have had better quality control.
Boy, this post has been popular for commenting over so many years, the Fairmont sure left an impression on alot of people.
I always felt the crappy 4 and 6 cylider engines were the incentive to make you buy the V8. I owned a 78 Futura was a pretty decent car. My parents owned a 78 4 door just like the one pictured. It had the V8 but must have been a lower level trim model as it did not have any of the chrome trim this one has. Ran for along time until the trans crapped out. Probably from negelected maintenance, and after the trans repair the steering started to act up. Had to warm up the engine for a bit and try to move the steering, it would usually come around after a few minutes, convinced my parents that its time for it to go, drive to the salvage yard and take the check.
A big fan of these here! Extended family & friends owned several in various configurations/trims, so it was nice get the sampling. The cars really did feel lean, taut, and non-bloaty, and the visibility was outstanding. I rode along several times with colleague who owned the 2.3 4cyl and 4-speed, and I would loved to have driven it myself, but it sure left a nice Volvo-y impression (even if down on power my many folks’ standards). If I could find a clean survivor wagon, I’d be tempted to give it a home…
I hate to be thay guy, but these are 1979 Fairmonts. The ’78s have clear front parking/directional lenses with amber bulbs beneath; the ’79s and later use amber lenses with clear bulbs beneath them. There are other minor differences on later models too.
The interior shot shows the famous ‘Fall Out Of Park’ warning decal on the door panel, the ‘fix’ for one of Ford’s biggest recalls ever. Ford’s automatic transmission column shifters were notoriously sloppy, and driverless Fords reversing through parking lots and down driveways happened a little too frequently to go unnoticed. Nonetheless I thought the Fairmont and Zephyr were good cars. In many ways Ford’s answer to the Aspen and Volare and certainly better executed than the Mopar F bodies.
Great discourse on this classic CC, with Paul arguing it had a completely honest appeal to the essential auto buyer, while others are saying “NOOO, it was a huge turd”.
Originally maybe they were decent cars? But people kept the fox stangs and tbird going. Fairmonts (and LTDs and etc) rotted off the road in the mid 1980s and were completely forgotten, except to the extent you could pillage them for a Mustang. I lived in the salt zone and these disappeared quickly, and have never met someone who cared.
No doubt the Fairmont suffered from the less-than-stellar quality control that was the hallmark of late 1970s Detroit. Plus, it was available with a wide variety of drive trains and trim levels, which affected everything from performance to comfort. Detroit was still operating in the “have it your way” mode in the late 1970s.
I do find it interesting that posters have compared it to the downsized GM A-bodies and even the Chevrolet Impala/Caprice. While the Fairmont was the same size as the GM A-bodies, it was a compact designed to replace the Maverick. The 1978 GM A-bodies replaced the Colonnade intermediates, and were initially priced higher than the Fairmont. They were not direct competitors – at least, not at first. The base price of the Fairmont was about $630 less than that of a Chevrolet Malibu, which translates into $2,600 today. That wasn’t an insignificant amount of money in 1978. Customers didn’t have the option of 0 percent financing or 60-month loans in 1978.
The GM B-bodies were larger and considerably more expensive. One could probably count the number of people who cross-shopped a Fairmont and a Chevrolet Impala/Caprice on both hands, and have fingers left over.
Despite how they were marketed, many people cross-shopped the new Malibu and Fairmont, it was hard not to. The base price differences are largely because the Fairmont was available in a low-volume four-cylinder, three speed manual configuration, with a taxicab-like interior with flat featureless bench seats and metal-capped inner doors painted in the exterior color. Add common options like a 6 or V8, automatic, and the high-volume mid-grade interior trim and the prices become comparable to the Malibu. Interestingly while Chevy didn’t allow rear roll-down windows in Malibus, the Fairmont not only had them standard in sedans and wagons, but also offered two other side window area ventilation options – front swinging vent windows and (in coupes and sedans) functional rear louvers that could be opened for ventilation.
The Malibu came with a three-speed manual as standard equipment, too. Its interior ambiance in standard form wasn’t much better than that of the Fairmont. The base versions of GM’s downsized intermediates weren’t noted for their interior ambiance.
According to the “Owners Report” published in the June 1978 issue of Popular Mechanics, 9 percent of Fairmont owners and 9.5 percent of Zephyr owners chose the standard four-cylinder engine. Given Ford’s need to meet CAFE requirements – which first took effect during the 1978 model year – it had an interest in treating the four-cylinder versions of the Fairmont and Zephyr as more than price leaders. Particularly since their sales would offset the sales of gas-guzzling Lincoln Continentals and Mark Vs, which were still selling at a healthy clip in 1978.
The standard Malibu engine was a 3.3 liter V-6 that offered a whopping 94 horsepower. I seriously doubt that many Malibus went out the door with the base engine and standard interior in 1978, at least to retail buyers.
Given the aim of each car at that time, I’d wager that more Fairmonts went out the door with the base engine and interior trim than Malibus.
After Ford discontinued the LTD II in 1979, the Fairmont was upgraded to better match the Malibu (a Futura version was then offered in sedan and wagon form). This culminated in the introduction of the Fox-based Granada for 1981.
The Fairmont was the first Ford designed with computer CAD-CAM. Unlike other cars made at that time, the Fairmont was a pretty well designed car with better fit, due to computers, than other vehicles.
There were other more attractive cars available in the Fairmont market, but there was something so clean and simple about it that made it stand out. After the Brougham Age, the Fairmont was quite a statement about the future of driving. We were facing lean times and it seemed that the better cars were the cars that were efficient looking, not bloated with faux luxury.
The simple Fairmont couldn’t have been less embellished. Ford was still selling ridiculous padded-Levi jean vinyl trunk decks when this car arrived. The other cars in the Ford showroom swallowed you up in high polyester fashion, deep shag carpeting, endless hoods, faux opulent opera lights, windows and hood ornaments – and the Fairmont was 180 of that. Being a stripped box was quite a fashion statement in 1978.
If you grew up, as I had, during this time – Fords were giant pillowed rides with water-bed-like handling. After almost a decade of seeing every vehicle turned into a vinyl bordello, including the Pinto/Bobcat, it was quite the eye-opener to see the Fairmont.
There were good honest cars, hence the Fox love still bestowed upon them 40 years later.
Paul, your dad’s car had the same displacement 4 as my ’74 DS Pallas. Except mine was an aging pushrod that would run all day, but wasn’t in any hurry to get up to speed, even with the 5-on-the-tree mine had.
I always sort of liked, but didn’t love these Fairmonts/Zephyrs, but you’ve given me a new appreciation. I wonder which handled better – one of these, or a Volare/Aspen?
Having driven both, the Fairmont handled like a light car with modern steering and the Volare handled like a classic car of the era, and quite nicely.
I purchased a base model used 1978 Fairmont 2 dr 6cyl in the same brown seen above. About 1983 or there about. Paid $2250. plus tax. I thought it drove ok, the gas mileage was not great but it was good transportation for my needs back in those days. I probably put 20,000 miles on it before selling to my cousin after 3 years.
Neither of us had any major problems.
A 1978 Ford Fairmont was my first new car.
There were compromises as I was budget challenged.
The 3.3 engine and a c-3 transmission was chosen.
You needed to add in the following options to make it a decent vehicle.
The midrange seats gave enough padding for short trips, but there was no contouring of the seat so it became uncomfortable on long drives.
The standard tires were c78-14 and I wanted DR70, but I settled for DR78 Firestone tires.
A rear sway bar was added to improve handling.
I added the optional hood ornament, a useless addition so I could figure the end of the hood.
Gas mileage was abysmal, I never got over 20 miles per gallon.
Grocery shopping was difficult because you could not stand up a bag in the trunk.
The car was roomy enough for 6 people even though they had a large transmission bump. They only made it for 5 people which did not make sense.
Brakes in real life faded considerably. Parking brake cables were not shielded and froze.
It was a good concept but it lacked certain features for long term ownership.
It was replaced after 7 years of ownership.
I replaced with a Dodge Lancer ES which was light years ahead in design and execution I had that car for 12 years.
My first new car was a 1980 Ford Fairmont Futura 4 door, 4 on the floor speed transmission. Two tone paint. Beautiful inside and out. Very slow, but fine enough for me. I truly believe this was the only car spec of it’s kind at the time. I think I paid 5 grand for it new. I should have kept it.