Everything remains the same until it doesn’t. Detroit’s Brougham era had gone undisturbed for a good number of years, guided by the wider and longer mantra. And while Detroit had a few products that bucked that trend, it was mostly business as usual. Then, it all was upended in a few years. Without that context, it’s hard to understand the automotive press’ excitement with Ford’s new 1978 Mercury Zephyr/Ford Fairmont duo. But excitement there was, for a car that was as plain and honest as could be.
Granted, it took the ’70s hellish mix of inflation, energy crisis, and regulations for Ford (and Detroit) to quicken change. But amongst the pundits, there had been worries since the mid-60s about Detroit’s future. Import sales had been steadily increasing, and it seemed Detroit was ignoring automotive trends happening elsewhere at its peril. The arrival of Ford’s new Fox platform twins was a sign the company wasn’t blind to those changes and that Detroit could adapt to world tendencies. There lies the relevance and hype around the Fairmont and Zephyr twins.
After the style-over-substance Brougham era, what made the Zephyr/Fairmont special was the way they had been designed and developed. As a comparison, GM’s new downsized A-Bodies were reviewed in the same R&T issue, which they found to be the same old stuff, just shrunken in size. Successful but utterly conventional. Meanwhile, the Fox body twins incorporated many of the traits of the imports, adapted to American consumption; a light unibody platform, a compliant and responsive chassis, and a space-efficient passenger-oriented package. The clean flanks and styling were modern and efficient, if dull. Honest could be another way of describing it.
R&T’s Technical Analysis is indeed extensive, going deeply into the technology behind the new models. Computer modeling was used on the unibody’s development, with plenty of wind testing to achieve good fuel mileage and a quiet interior. McPherson struts found their first use on a domestic, attuned to American needs (mainly, to handle the additional weight of an 8 cyl.). Passenger capacity, comfort, and an airy cabin were also among the project’s main objectives, and the Fox platform fulfilled them. With caveats, R&T did some road testing of the pre-production models and found they didn’t handle like any previous domestic-built Ford. Not sporty by any means, but “a large cut above the usual softly sprung, underdamped, ponderously steering American sedan.”
Not all R&T saw was positive though; if a buyer chose a 4-cyl. stripper, it was going to be a spartan and unfulfilling experience. And while the interior was very effective in keeping passengers comfy, its ambiance was close to that “of a taxi.” Part of the penalty of offering the models as low-cost as possible. Finally, in terms of hardware, there were no novelties; engines and drivetrains were known Ford quantities. This was just as well; there was only so much Ford could afford and risk to change at once.
In resume, the Zephyr/Fairmont twins were a stepping stone towards more groundbreaking products. A few elements were missing, but Ford was on solid footing towards its golden Aero ’80s era.
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1978 Ford Fairmont – That Very Rare Honest Car
Curbside Classic: 1978 Ford Fairmont – The Ur-Fox
Vintage Review: 1978 Ford Fairmont/Mercury Zephyr – Functional But Flavorless
Curbside Outtake: 1978-83 Mercury Zephyr – That Very Rare Clean Design
I have always liked these cars. If I could find one now in decent condition I would love to have one.
Clyde: I agree and find myself scanning the online ads now and then for one. I’d prefer the Mercury over the Ford. Part of what I like about them is the clean lines and simplicity of it.
Our neighbors back in the late 70’s had a big blue Buick LeSabre with I’m assuming a 350 V8. Then the gas prices shot up and they traded it for a brand new blue Zephyr with the v6. I had many rides in that car.
That was a really informative writeup, and everything reviewer liked about the car pleased me, too.
It seems silly to be troubled by the compact-intermediate-fullsize labeling parameters, but Detroit was really changing then.
If the Maverick had been simple to run and fix, but not terribly space-efficient, this car really made up for it, especially the wagon my family owned.
An economy-minded friend did own the (Pinto) 4cyl/4speed combination but—me then being used to malaise power-to-weight ratios—it was manageable even on on-ramps and such, even if I wouldn’t choose it for a “toy car” today.
My father had a stripper Zephyr 2-door with the 2.3 L four and four speed. The engine was anemic, and the steering a bit too slow, but it was a surprisingly fun car to thrash around the curving, bobbing, windy country roads of northern Baltimore county.
The Fox platform was something of a preview of the Taurus, showing Ford’s greater international (European) orientation than GM in the US. It was a pleasant surprise, given what Ford had been building here. And of course, it essentially saved Ford, as the Fox platform bailed them out of their near-bankruptcy during and immediately after the second energy crisis.
I had a 78 wagon my mother passed down to me in 1987. It was pretty much used up from too many harsh central NY winters. One non functional spark plug was seized in the block so it was a 5 cylinder commute to work car. No interstate please. The gas tank was rotted at the mid seam so i could only fill it about 1/3 full. Lasted a year until body rot cused it to fail NYS inspection. It was a rugged little beast and always started and never quit inspite of the abuse. and deferred repairs. My other Ford experiences were not so uneventful.
I remember these when new, not overly impressed as my buddy M’s mother bought a nice Fairmont with i6 engine, we put 6 or 7 teenagers in it and went cruising ~ on the way home a half block from his mother’s house he took a normal 90 degree corner going maybe 30 MPH, it ploughed badly, hit the curb on the far side and blew the tire .
This was (IMO) unacceptable in a new car .
I think these were in fact pretty good Dollar value for commuters and poor folks .
I can only imagine what a hair shirt the 4-banger must have been .
Many years later another buddy,S. got one and said it was pretty good . a V8 IIRC .
-Nate
I recall on car magazine referring to these as an “American Volvo” when they were first introduced. A lot of the enthusiasm died off once people became accustomed to them. My wife had a 1979 Fairmont Futura, which was nice enough to drive, but didn’t seem to be designed to be repaired. I recall we had a leak in the steering rack and the only repair available was to replace the entire rack.
My brothers “79 Zephyr” (light/dark gold tutone) was a cool , hideously underpowered, ride.
Came in handy in wstrn PA winters; not enough “go” to spin tires.
It pretty much just went forward.. Crawling, but crawling forward.
There are several points made in this article that are really deep (and possibly well-deserved) digs at the new-for-1978 GM A-bodies. The Malibu, etc. really *were* the same old thing, aside from being slightly smaller and more space efficient, than the Colonnade cars they replaced.
And while the Fairmont and Zephyr weren’t really groundbreaking in any regard, they absolutely did represent a vast change in thinking by the executives in Dearborn.
I drove a mustard yellow Fairmont 4 speed 4 cylinder 4 door as a company car. Not the fastest thing on wheels, but the A/C was ice cold which was deeply appreciated in the humidity of the Deep South.
I spent a full day interviewing at Ford Dearborn as a soon-to-graduate mechanical engineering student, in December of 1976. I saw a lot of Fox (Zephyr/Fairmont, not yet Mustang) prototypes, the completed cars featuring bodywork quite similar to what was launched. They really were groundbreaking for Detroit in those days: the strut front suspension and rack & pinion steering, the boxy styling, the fitment of an OHC four with standard 4 speed. Sure some of those things were borrowed from the Pinto, but I was impressed and surprised by what I saw. However, I think in the actual execution, these cars were best when they balanced the “Euro style” with a good old fashioned V8 … and, in the case of the Mustang, the subsequent 10+ years of refinement.
I had a 79 Fairmont Futura Coupe. Loved that car. It had the 302 2bbl w/auto trans. Actually a pretty quick little car. Surprised a couple of guys in a Monte Carlo SS. The look on their faces when I kept up with them for the next 1/4 mile or so was priceless. Eventually we back-halfed it, put a 351 Cleveland in it to legal Super Stock specs and went bracket racing. Beautiful car, should have Pro-Street it and kept it. Last I heard, it’s still around.
For those who have always wanted one here is your chance in San Francisco
As common as the Fairmont/Zephyr were, I only ever drove one: a two-door Futura with the V8, a loaner. It was fun, and the engine was quick. All in all, it was about as far from the Maverick and Torino as could be. Finally, the Blue Oval’s advertising jingle from 1964 had come true: “Ford has changed.”
Drive on with a “4 cylinder”; was a whole different experience.The “4 cylinder , Mustang II was a “speedster” by comparison..lol
My drill sergeant – who seemed to be a confirmed GM guy – would endlessly lament his new ’78 Fairmont in front of our platoon. On our zero-dark-30 morning runs, he’d verbally harangue stragglers telling them they were slower than his Fairmont climbing a hill. To motivate someone to knock out a few more pushups, he’d tell them their arms were as weak as a Fairmont’s front suspension. If someone groaned under the weight of their pack load, they were dragging their butt like the trunk of an overloaded Fairmont. If they didn’t shave close enough, their puss was as ugly as the front end of a Fairmont.
Given his seeming hatred for his own car, I always wondered what had ever possessed him to buy the darn thing. The relationship between trainee and drill sergeant being as it was, it remains an unsolved mystery.
The new, “efficient” Fairmont always seemed to simply scream “cheap!”, to me. Yeah, it was way lighter than the traditional, old-school competition (including the Granada/Monarch), but that wasn’t exactly a good thing. TBH, it was quite similar to the original, barebones 1960 Falcon relative to the competition.
I can vividly recall marvelling at the exceptionally cheap plastic in the Fairmont’s interior, specifically the glove box door that had a big gap on one side.
Not to mention that “Euro-style” placement of the horn on the turn signal stalk. The rationale was it was easier to use than the typical placement in the middle of the steering wheel.
I guess it’s theoretically true if Europeans constantly had their left hand on the stalk to flash their headlights and blow the horn when approaching intersections on crowded city streets, but American simply did not drive that way, having been trained to keep both hands on the wheel.
I loved my Fairmont Futura. It was a 1979 model, Midnight Blue Metallic, with a Midnight Blue vinyl roof (split with the basket handle) and light blue interior.
Someone ordered it, and then backed out, and they drove it down to Baltimore from PA. When I took delivery, it had 253 miles on it. Story of my life… either new with a few miles or slightly used. The only car I ever got with all zeros except for the last digit (7 on the test drive & 13 miles when I picked it up) was my current 2016 Honda Civic.
I mentioned this car was a special order, as it was very unusually optioned. Since I was just coming out of my Brougham years at the age of 19, and it was affordable, and the dealer just wanted to be rid of it. This was an advantage to a first new car buyer. The LTD I’ve mentioned here several times became a hand-me-down down again, this time to my younger sister.
The car had all the exterior options so it looked like a million bucks (although it had the standard wheel covers), but inside, you may as well have called it a penalty box. Basic cloth bench seats (nice looking, be really basic), NO AC – yeah, last time I would do THAT in Humid-Summer-Baltimore – 200 CID I6 (3.3L) and 3 speed auto. This car was SO SLOW… but as Paul said above, a fun car to drive in Norther Baltimore County. It handled WAY better than the LTD. Of course anything would. 😉
Ford was importing the Fiesta, and we were kind of wondering when they’d build something like that. It came in the form of the Fairmont. Yes – they were pretty underpowered because they were designed to lower the CAFE averages, but after the Escort showed up, the Fox bodies – all dozens of them, got the 302 and that problem was solved.
Until I got a Futura as my daily company car, I never realized that Ford could make something that was modern. Then I got the Escort – and that changed how I looked at the cars my father and uncle were building in Chicagoland. Goodbye bloated Torino!
The first new car I ever purchased was a ’78 Fairmont Futura, black with a 302V8. It could have used a 5 speed over drive manual trans or a 4 speed O/D automatic. Performance was good. Only nasty repair I had to do was replacing the heater core. Car had A/C so the whole HVAC module needed to be removed. But…….that required removing the whole dash first, drop the steering column, dump the Freon, detach the dash and lay it back on the front seat and now you can remove the HVAC module, open it up and get the heater core out.
If your car didn’t have A/C, drop the glove box out, remove about six screws and pull heater core out thru the vacated glove box hole!
I found the reviews comment about the position of the power brake pedal allowing heel/toe control of brake and throttle. I’d guess that heel/toe driving was used about .00000001 % in a Fairmont.
I definitely don’t buy the front suspension arguments. The strut was not easier to change than a shock in a Pinto, Mustang, Maverick, I done both several times. Also if you pull the strut you should do an alignment as most struts had a slotted upper mount hole on the spindle end for setting camber. You can change shocks on many front suspensions without affecting alignment. Yes, give me the weight penalty, I want a decent double wishbone front suspension.
The body colors were also horrid, pale blue, pale green, pale yellow, pale brown. “Look dear the new car I just bought comes with pre-faded paint, just like my pre-faded jeans!”
I like the Euro look paint jobs, made the 2dr and 4dr sedans look much better.
The Futura was the good looking one of the bunch.
The platform was pretty useful, in production from 1978 thru 2004.
I was really surprised the Ford reps gave so much information on future features for the cars. These days they are very tight lipped about stuff in the pipline to not ruin current sales.
Family friends had a Fairmont wagon. I remember it was red in and out, and they’d often find it in the street after it would pop out of park and roll down the driveway. Not sure why the parking brake wasn’t used, or a block of wood stuck behind a tire, to keep it in the driveway.
My brother bought a Zephyr ESO brand new in 1978. 4 cylinder, 4 speed, and AM/FM radio and nothing else. IIRC, it was about $4400, not exactly inexpensive for the level of options on the car. It was quite a different car from the other Fords my family owned and the first of many Fox bodies our family eventually acquired.
However, the troubles started almost immediately after delivery. The car stalled and ran roughly especially when cold, but not much better warmed up, either. The fuel mileage was pretty awful for what seemed like an economical drivetrain, but I’m sure that the driveability problems were affecting that, too.
The dealer could never get the engine to run right, nor could the local mechanics. In the eight years he owned the car, it never got better. However, the rest of the car was solid and held up well in our environment for the ownership period. It finally was traded in on an AMC Eagle sedan once the Zephyr couldn’t pass Pennsylvania state inspection any longer. The Eagle was exceptionally long lived as he drove it for the next 17 years.
Many of us in our family had Fox body derivatives. I had three Mercury Capris, and we had a bunch of other Fairmonts, Mustangs and other Foxes in my family throughout the 80’s. But that first one, ugh.
These were one of the most common rentals I drove as a transporter in ’78 for Hertz, at least from our location (2nd might have been LTD II or Thunderbird, drove lots of them starting in ’77).
Probably drove fewer Granadas than in ’77 due to these being popular. I remember the side view mirrors were incorporated into the A pillar, something I thought of as “Mercedes” type mirrors since I think they predated Ford’s use of them. Now just about every car uses them (even some trucks or SUVs) but they seemed pretty new in ’78…probably because there were way more Fords than Mercedes, so they barely were a blip before ’78.
A co-worker bought a new ’80, a 4 door sedan, for some reason I thought the car kind of stodgy for a young newly-hired person 43 years ago, but 2 door cars were common especially for those without a wife and kids back then, but now they are uncommon. I had the same reaction when another (then young) co-worker bought a new Volvo 240, which is an admittedly good choice, but to me seemed targeted towards a buyer older than he was. But by the late 80s the move away from 2 doors was in full steam, and I guess I lost my 2 door for young people bias along the way. Funny thing was I was briefly in a carpool in the early 80’s with 2 other young-at-the-time people who worked at my same facility (they’ve since married but were not then) and each of us had a 2 door car…not exactly optimum for a carpool of 3 persons (or more) but we were young and didn’t think anything of scrambling into the back seat. Fast forward 42 years, and we wonder why our (back, knees, fill in the blank) didn’t bother us more.