(first posted 1/12/2018) While Ford’s square new Fairmont/Zephyr was beloved by American buff book writers for its engaging handling and functional persona, the U.S. car market in 1978 was still dominated by the Personal Luxury phenomenon, with highly styled 2-door coupes topping the sales charts. So Ford’s “Better Idea” was to transform the frumpy Fairmont/Zephyr into the slightly more rakish Futura/Z-7. Car and Driver was happy to sample the Z-7, Mercury’s version of the “specialty” 2-door in March 1978. How did it fare as an updated take on Personal Luxury?
First, a bit of context on the tumultuous state of the American car market in 1978, as downsizing tore up conventional wisdom about product size and product attributes. General Motors was leading the charge with a new generation of smaller mid-sized cars, including reduced-scale personal luxury coupes, which turned out to be roughly the same size as Ford’s new “compact” Fairmont Futura/Zephyr Z-7.
| 78 Monte Carlo | 78 Futura/Z-7 | 78 Thunderbird | |
| Wheelbase | 108.1 | 105.5 | 114.0 |
| Length | 200.4 | 195.8 | 215.5 |
| Width | 71.5 | 71.0 | 78.0 |
| Height | 53.9 | 52.2 | 53.0 |
| Front Legroom | 42.8 | 41.8 | 42.5 |
| Rear Legroom | 36.3 | 36.1 | 33.2 |
| Front Headroom | 37.6 | 37.1 | 37.6 |
| Rear Headroom | 37.8 | 36.1 | 36.2 |
| Cargo Capacity (cubic feet) | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.6 |
| * All dimensions in inches unless otherwise noted | |||
The 1978 T-Bird, which had been dimensionally close to the ’77 Monte Carlo, was suddenly huge and impractical in comparison. Downsizing definitely served-up packaging benefits.
However, despite the new smaller size of its cars, GM continued with the traditional formula for Personal Luxury differentiation. While utilizing the same A-Body platform, stylists at each of the GM divisions worked overtime to craft flashy Personal Luxury 2-door variants, with looks that would justify their corresponding higher prices. By design, no one was going to mistake a ’78 Monte Carlo for a ’78 Malibu.
Ford also tried to inject some Personal Luxury style onto its new Fox-Body cars, but they didn’t go nearly as far. The roofline of the ’77 downsized (but still large) Thunderbird served as inspiration for the redesigned rear-quarters on the Fairmont/Zephyr. But something was definitely lost in translation: the Futura/Z-7 looked like stubby, cheap knock-offs of the larger, sleeker Thunderbird.
Around front, however, not much was changed for the modified “high-style” Fox 2-doors. The Ford Futura did get quad headlamps in place of the duals on the Fairmont, but the Mercury versions, which all carried quad lights, offered identical frontal appearance between the Zephy and Z-7. The net effect was a half-baked Personal Luxury car that lost some of the pragmatism of the sedan variants without offering enough in the way of true styling differentiation.
However, buff books like Car and Driver loved the new Fairmont/Zephyr, and generally were less enthused about the trade-offs associated with Personal Luxury cars. So maybe this combination of a “bit” of style with the already well-received Fairmont/Zephyr attributes would prove to be just the ticket.
Sure enough, Car and Driver’s editors did indeed enjoy the new Z-7, though primarily because it didn’t muck up the Fox-Body performance and handling attributes. Hidden in the praise, however, were all the realities that would indicate why the Futura/Z-7 coupes would be less than a stellar success.
Styling was obviously one area where the Z-7 was a bit clunky, which would prove to be a liability for Personal Luxury shoppers. Likewise, the rather spartan interior carried over from the Farimont/Zephyr, which proved to be less appealing than the interior trim upgrades that came along with GM’s mid-sized Personal Luxury coupes. Plus, for pragmatic buyers, the loss of interior room for the sake of style didn’t sit too well. So the Z-7 and Futura wound up being neither fish nor fowl, not really pleasing any of the intended audiences.
Sales were good but not outstanding for the Fairmont/Zephyr-based specialty coupes. With sales of 116,966 in 1978, the Futura accounted for a full 25% of Ford Division’s Fox-Body model mix, while the 44,569 Z-7 sales at Mercury represented 29% of that division’s “Foxes.” So, as “plus” sales for the pragmatic compacts, they did OK. But they didn’t make much of a dent in the overall Personal Luxury market, which continued to be GM’s dominion (and ultimate albatross). And despite their praise, I bet none of Car and Driver’s editors even considered buying a Z-7 or Futura coupe…. which pretty much sums of the reality of this half-step car.
Additional Reading:
COAL: 1978 Mercury Zephyr Z-7 – My First COAL by James Pastor
I rode in one of these a couple of times…dark green with tan cloth, belonged to a friend’s father. It was his company car and he was NOT impressed.
As I recall it had the oddball Ford tilt steering wheel that basically just “tilted the wheel” and the steering column itself was fixed, unlike GM’s tilt column that really got the steering wheel up and out of the way and was hinged much closer to the dashboard.
The way that the tilt column pivoted near the steering wheel, and the stalk-mounted horn, makes me wonder if Ford was preparing for airbags, which were planned to be Federally-mandated in the early 1980s.
A 1981 repeal of the regulation delayed the mandate for approximately a decade.
That tilt wheel thing was a Fox quirk, that continued on into Mustangs, Thunderbirds, Lincolns etc. until airbags came on the scene for remaining models. The column in Mustangs actually became fixed only when the airbag wheel came out.
First gen Panthers, Rangers and Bronco II had that “Tilt” wheel too. It wasn’t just a Fox thing.
It was a FORD quirk-my Colony Park had the same thing.
It also had 2 other weird quirks in common with the Zephyr: the horn on the turn signal stalk, and front door locks on the front of the door armrests!
All personal luxury buyers had to do was wait 2 years for Ford’s response – the “fabulous” 1980 Fox-based Thunderbird. Don’t think the Futura/Z-7 is fancy enough? Then how about a bordello front parlor wrapped in a shrunken T-bird, powered by a wheezy in-line 6. There’s the ticket to market share!
I’ve seen design study drawings of the 80 T-Bird that was essentially this Z7 body style. They evidently filched it for use 2 years earlier for a cheaper market segment. It may have served them better to wait until ’80 and have this as the T-Bird. Not only was there styling continuity but it also looked better. The Futura was merely dumpy looking, the 80 Bird was hideous.
More blend than hideous. The 1980 Cougar XR7 was also blend.
Having Ford used the Z7/Fairmont Futura body for the Fox-body 1980 T-bird, I wonder how buyers would had reacted when it got replaced by the 1983 “Aero-bird”?
Plus it had the effect of making the basket-handle Futura look dated the moment the last basket-handle T-bird left the line at the end of ’79.
Roger is this the one you are talking about?
Contours around the wheelwells are very mid-’70s Oldsmobile. Door handles are AMC, and everything forward of the A pillar is Dodge Mirada. Strangely long overhangs on this thing, though I suppose in line with larger Fords on the market when this was drawn.
The car at the far left looks more like what Ford actually delivered in 1980.
Not really, although it resembles it obviously. The sketch I saw was almost a dead ringer for the Futura.
Actually, I made a mistake on that photo, I had it mislabled on my computer. This was apparently a design concept for the 1977 T-bird, according to Richard Langworth. Although the time line does seem awfully close to production to be that far from the production model?
In any case, these were the only concept photos I could find for T-birds of this era.
Here are some more:
I take it the one that looks like the real car (and the only one with realistic proportions) was drawn later than the others. I seem to be the only one who thinks it looked decent, especially in the highest trim level, inside and out. These weren’t as smooth and quiet as their body-on-frame GM competition which I think hurt it as much as its appearance.
One more:
Geez, that bottom one is tough to look at!
The front end on that one is *so* not Thunderbird
There’s but one car that can make the 1980 Thunderbird look better by comparison: the 1980 Cougar XR-7, which I personally find to be one of the ugliest cars of all time.
The paint scheme is the most hideous part, but take away the gingerbread and they’re merely just bland.
The one GN posted makes me wonder what was going through the heads of Mercury stylists: “Hmm, it’s not quite claustrophobic enough in the rear seat of the ’80 T-bird; let’s add louvers to the opera window so you *really* can’t see out the window”. I suppose some buyers considered the added “privacy” to be advantageous though….
That two-color paint job really is hideous, especially in those colors. I wonder what sparked the brief two-color paint job revival circa 1977-’82 when it hadn’t seen much use since 1959, and never would on that scale again.
Aren’t law enforcement agencies pretty much the last people in America with two-tone vehicles?
One thing that jumped out at me was performance compared to the pilot line sedan C&D tested earlier. It was almost a full second slower in the quarter at a 1 mph less terminal speed . 0-60 was a little pokier as well.
Don’t forget the first test was done with at Ford’s proving grounds with a pre-production car. I would think that this car was more representative of the real world performance of a 302 Fairmont. Our ’79 302 Fairmont was peppy for the era, but certainly not high performance. FWIW, Popular Science also tested a 1979 Zephyr wagon with a 302, and it ran 0-60 in 12.0 seconds even.
Axle gearing may have been different. The car in this test had 2.47(!) gears. I wonder if the other one had 2.73’s, or even 3.08s.
The other article shows 2.45 gearing. In any case, it seems a lot of these press preview cars from this time performed considerbly better than the production models. I suspect that first test car was very well prepared.
The Fox coupe wasn’t bad looking in my opinion, but its biggest flaw was the blunt nose shared with the sedans. It should have a slanted nose.
I agree. I’ve see other homebuilt LTD-nose conversions on the internet, and they look good. Only problem was the Fairmont was going away just as the LTD appeared.
Never thought of this idea… I saved the picture. Thanks.
Here’s another shot of that car… I would’ve loved to have done that with my Futura….
Ideas…
The rear styling of the actual Fox LTD sedans resembled the Futura/Z7 coupes with their slanted wraparound taillight area much more than they did the Fairmont sedans, though I don’t think they’re identically shaped or interchangeable.
I think they are interchangeable. At least, I’ve seen at least one swap.
I believe the doors and front fenders on the Fairmont, Fox Granada, and Fox LTD (and their Mercury relatives) are the same, but each of those three cars had its own roofline around the C pillar, rear window, and probably trunk lid. The front and rear clips were all different but the front clips easily interchanged. I’m not sure about rear fender interchangability.
I was baffled why my parents got the Futura instead of the 2-door sedan. It was more handsome, in Fiat 130 way, had a thinner B-pillar with better visibility, and had better rear legroom.
All these years later and I still cannot decide if I like the car’s looks or not. There has always been something off about these and I cannot put my finger on it.
This car had a tough niche. In the same showrooms was the Granada Ghia and the Thunderbird, both of which were fitted out more like a traditional personal luxury coupe. I think the more spartan “European approach” may have been the only place in Ford’s late 70s lineup where this might have fit.
I also remember the original ’78 model was hobbled by a lack of options. AC and radio was about it. Things like tilt, cruise, power windows, seat, locks etc had to wait until ’79.
Speaking of luxury options unavailable on smaller cars, I’ve always wondered why AMC never offered power windows on the Hornet/Concord until 1980.
By 1980, it was officially the Concord, of course, and power windows were finally available. Pacer had them since ’79.
I think it’s because they were such a rare item for the larger Ambassador and Matador sedans, they figured why bother.
Power windows were actually N/A on Matador Coupes as well.
I think Ford really found themselves in product planning “box” with this car. The company knew that the Fox platform would underpin the next Mustang (which looked great and sporty/European) and the next Thunderbird (which was supposed to be “stylish/personal” but wound up hideous in its 1980 iteration). Due to these parameters, I think they copped out and only went part way. Make it too sporty and international, and it would trip over the Mustang. Add on too much glitz, and it would steal thunder from the ‘Bird.
With hindsight, I think Ford could have skipped this coupe entirely. I’m not sure that it wound up earning enough incremental sales to justify the unique rear quarters, and it sent a muddled message about the mission of the Fairmont/Zephyr–was the car purely functional, or trying (but failing) to be stylish?
In retrospect, these remind me of the 1963-65 Falcon Futura hardtop coupe and convertible. Those were handsome cars, but they never really gained traction in the market, and were soon pushed out of the market by the first Mustang.
Good analogy, once the Mustang became an instant hit the Falcon Futura was now a redundant also-ran, and was dropped completely by the 66 redesign. They should have never bothered with the Fairmont Futura in the same way, the Mustang was the sporty Fairmont the same way the Mustang was the sporty Falcon.
Save the rear body body tooling for 1980 and spend the development dough to thoroughly redesign the rest of the Fairmont for a better 80 Tbird.
I agree with Jim…there’s something not quite right with the proportions of this car. The basket handle is too big relative to the rest of the greenhouse. Ford ended up with a real mongrel, being unable to restrain themselves from adding overwrought design cliches to the clean basic, European-inspired Fairmont design. I remember sitting in the back seat of a Z-7 driven by a college friend and being annoyed by the lack of visibility, especially since I was giving directions to our destination.
Does this help?
That’s the one spot I like better on the Futura than on the .Thunderbird, I hate little opera windows
> There has always been something off about these and I cannot put my finger on it.
I can – the rear half of the car is that of a PLC but the front half is that of a compact sedan, without the long hood and swoopy front fenders a personal luxury car normally has, like the ’77-79 Thunderbird. The Futura/Z-7 are reminiscent of early attempts to ape the Mustang formed from routine small cars, like the 2nd-gen Barracuda which despite completely unique sheetmetal still had the proportions of a Valiant, not a Mustang or Camaro. PLCs and pony cars have similar proportions – long hood, long doors, fairly low roof, tight rear seat compartment. The Futura and Z-7 coupes missed the mark on all of those.
Basket handles! Always liked these cars, including the fake vents on the fenders. I know there were aftermarket conversions, but these would have made a great Ranchero… a GT version with a 302 4-barrel would have been a blast.
Ask, and you shall receive:
Ford Durango
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Durango
See, *this* looks right!
Totally agree! This also would have been a logical challenger to the downsized Chevrolet El Camino.
Except that the bed was too short. The El Camino was stretched compared to a Malibu coupe.
No s***…
Absolutely nothing wrong with this setup. Sharp styling, sharp handling, reliable engines. Try to fault it. I guess now combine it with the slant nose LTD.
This and the station wagon were the only two Fairmonts that looked really right. And they only built one of the two.
True for Ford but although no official production totals were kept by either company (estimated between 80 and 350), approximately 212 conversions were known to have been made by National Coach Works
One issue with this design. What are you supposed to do for taillights when the end gate is down?
This may have been one reason why Ford didn’t bother, and left it to the aftermarket. The only solution would have been to tool up for an GM A-Body-like bumper with the lights there (costly given projected volume) or some type of auxiliary lamps embedded in the quarter panel ends (also costly) or auxiliary lamps mounted in the tailgate top, possibly with a mercury switch that would switch circuits when the gate was tilted down. (also costly, and dumb looking).
Awesome, the first time I saw one of these that was my thought, and it was my first thought on seeing it again today.
Maybe that’s the real pretending, it’s actually a pickup pretending to be a car.
A big mistake for Ford for stopping the Ranchero. Having a Fox-body Ranchero, we could imagine some “what if?” like the Fox-body LTD Ranchero then with the LTD departure, the Ranchero inherited the Mustang nose while we could said the Mustang inherited the Ranchero to soldier until 1993.
However had Ford continued the Ranchero, would it steal sales from the Ranger?
Nahh, compact trucks were huge in 80s and 90s, and buyers wanted a real bed, 4×4 option, etc.
The other issue with the design is the length. I suspect the bed would be pretty short. The El Camino had an exclusive wheelbase for the 1978-87 models, The Malibu used a 108″ wheelbase while the El Camino was 117.1 ” long resulting in the El Camino being longer be about 8″ or so.
I was just thinking last night that the roofline looks like a Ranchero with the bed blocked off.
I would buy one of these – with the 200 Six. Comfy, good handling, relatively efficient and serviceable with parts available in every town.
I appreciate these old road test reviews- great stuff. One thing not mentioned was the Zephyr’s real problem- the Olds Cutlass still had a hammerlock on this market segment, and would continue to until the segment itself declined. In the same vein, Chevrolet did themselves no favors with the restyled Monte Carlo. We knew clouds were on the horizon when we sold out of our entire ’77 inventory within a month after the ’78 was introduced. The Cutlass Supreme found market acceptance, the poor Monte did not. It wasn’t until the ’83 T-Bird hit the market that the general public started to rethink the personal luxury car. That was really Ford’s breakthrough car- it paved the way for the wildly successful Taurus.
The 1978-80 Monte Carlo looked awkward. Chevrolet tried to apply the dramatic side sculpturing of the 1973-77 generation to a smaller package, and it did not work. The 1981 face lift was a huge improvement.
The 1978-80 Pontiac Grand Prix also was not nearly as attractive in its “downsized” version. The Buick Regal and the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme hit the sweet spot.
Futura competed with Nova Concours/Custom, Pontiac Phoenix, or Volare/Aspen top trims, not Monte Carlo. The ’80-’82 T-Bird did. It was replaced fairly quick by the ’83 aero Bird, would be a good background story.
No, I wont post too many replies, sorry for all the rants on the Fairmont one, I was in a bad mood.
You’re correct- but the uplevel Nova trim (and it’s GM sisters) had few takers. This surprised me- they were really decent cars with the right options. On the other hand, a base Cutlass Supreme was priced just a few hundred more than a top trim Nova/Phoenix/Skylark. Olds sold 350,000 Cutlass Supreme Coupes in ’78 (that figure doesn’t include the other body styles). Looking back, that’s an astounding number- and nowhere near the numbers at the peak of the Cutlass popularity.
True, the Nova was fading and had a stodgy image. I’d forgot that Concours name was dropped for ’78. GM was eager to bring out the FWD X bodies, but that is another long story.
Fox platform was moved up market eventually, to Stang, T-Bird, Granada, LTD, and the ultimate version Mk VII.
Base models of Supreme and Regal did well. Partly since the Aerobacks, meant to be entry level A/G bodies for Olds/Buick, flopped.
And don’t forget the ’82 Continental. I never cared for its exterior styling (its bustleback looked good only in comparison to the contemporaneous Seville’s), but step inside and you were in what was probably the nicest, plushest interior to sit atop the Fox platform.
I for one really liked my Futura. At 19 years old, after driving the family LTD as my first car, a ’73 2-door hardtop (REAL not Pillared!), I still had a thing for broughamy cars. I loved the new Basket Handle T-Bird, but obviously as a kid that graduated high school only a year before, and just starting my career, that kind of car was WAY out of my price range. In the fall of ’79 when the ‘80(s) were just coming out, I found one in the color I liked (Midnight Blue Metallic) that was a great deal as they were clearing out the inventory of the ’79 models. It was stylish and satisfied my desire for a brougham, but taught me I didn’t have to settle for a wallowing road monster like my LTD.
This car proved to be fun to drive, even though it was only powered by the 200 (3.3L) straight 6 and 3 speed automatic. It had plenty of room for my friends, although they complained a bit after all the time they spent in that huge LTD.
By 1983, I was ready for something new, and fell in love with this car’s platform mate, the Aero Bird. And after someone made a left turn in front of me driving a ’77 Monte Carlo in early 1984, the Futura’s time was up, and I finally got my Thunderbird (first of many)… a modestly optioned leftover ’83 for a sweet deal. As a 23 year old kid with a new T-Bird, I was a pretty happy guy.
The Futura may’ve pretty cheap, but it ushered in a great platform in the Fox. Ironically, despite my handle on this site, I’ve never owned a Fox Mustang; just this Fairmont and all the T-Birds.
Have I mentioned I really miss personal luxury coupes? sigh…..
Yeah, as the driver of a 1977 Monte Carlo in 1980, I have to agree that PLCs were pretty awesome, especially for that era. Big car, but not inviting for rear seat passengers, so you got to fly solo or with just one person beside you for miles of enjoyment. Brougham, but not marshmallow squishy in ride. Splashy, but not over the top. It told the world a story that a lot of people believed in, and liked. It would be nice to see that choice still around and viable.
That Brown and Tan (Chamois, in fordese) is identical to the 78 Futura my sister bought new. She traded in a Corolla (in that same color combo) and as a stylish single nurse, it must have appealed to her and quite a few of her contemporaries. Was it really stylish, sporting, or overall a great car? No, but it was for her and her ilk. I recall it served her well, and she traded it for something new a few years later. That was how cars worked back into the late 70s and early 80s. Buy new, drive for 2-3 years (maybe 4, but that was pushing it) and trade in on the new flavor of the month.
My driver’s ed car was a Fairmont with the 200-6 and automatic. It seemed pretty gutless compared to my dad’s 350 equipped Impala. A family friend used to led me hers while I was in Vancouver, and it seemed like a decent car, if a bit buzzy. It always stymied me as to why Ford didn’t offer decent engines. The GM V-6 of 1978 was newly smooth and made for a nicer drive than the Ford boat anchor.
I saw lots of the Z-7 as a kid on Vancouver Island, owned by older women. Then one day they were all gone.
They did offer decent engines if you wanted a V8. As I’ve stated many time before, the only power choice for me would have been the 302.
I get that, but the GM 3.8 even fire V-6 made almost as much power as Ford’s 5.0 V-8.
But 302’s are sooo easy to wake up power-wise.
The problem was while you could get a 302 in a Fairmont, they were stuck with Ford’s horrid carburetors, ignitions and emission controls. The Variable Venturi carbs were notoriously bad, and the red strain Dura-Spark systems had a very high failure rate (blue strain was decent). Chevrolet had most of it’s engines on the Q-jet, which was super reliable, or the old basic 2GC. For ’79 Chevrolet’s started to use the dualjet in place of the 2GC. While it was restrictive, it wasn’t a problematic carb.
The 200 six was a wheezer, not even remotely comparable to the weak V8’s of that time. In my area, the Fairmonts and Zephry’s disappeared pretty quickly.
I think lack of a competitive midrange engine was Ford’s biggest weakness in the compact market. Relying on a late-’50s six for a late-’70s car was inexcusable since it was never that great to start with, compared to the /6 and Buick V6.
By the time Ford’s Buick clone was introduced, it was for the heavier Fox Granada. Too little, too late. Then there was the HSC 4-cyl for the Tempo and Taurus, cloned from the Falcon block. Pathetic; once again, Chrysler did better with Hagenbuch’s clean-sheet 2.2 engine. It seems engine development was at the back of Ford’s funding queue back then.
You’re right the lack of a good mid-range engine was a factor, but at least the one thing I will give to the 200 six was that it was relatively reliable, especially compared to a 302 with a VV carb. I don’t know how many customers turned away from the car just because of the 200 six though.
FWIW, it wasn’t the carb but the C3 Bordeaux automatic that eventually gave trouble in my mother’s 302 Futura. I wouldn’t rule out inadequate maintenance, however; it’s possible it was less forgiving here than the C4 for example.
I agree with this. I wanted a cheap Fox based coupe (non mustang) as my first car but for whatever reason or another the Futura never was in my radar, I looked at literally everything else, including even the standard Fairmont 2 doors. I could never quite put my finger on exactly why the Futura doesn’t appeal to me, it should, but it just doesn’t.
I do think the proportions are a bit screwy, the 77 Tbird was very much in the long hood/short deck mold with it’s proportions but the Futura/Z7 was almost the opposite, the trunklid looks massive.
A friend in college had a ’78 Future Coupe, white with red vinyl roof and the same seats as this test car. He bought it in spring ’84 for $2k to replace his ’72 VW Super Bug. It has the 200 six and auto. I rode in it a few times, thought it was a nice car.
Having vented on occasion about what a miserable POS my 78 Zephyr Z7, bought new, with the same 302/auto as the test car, was, I will address the raves in the road test about the handling.
I see from the text and data panel, the test car was a ringer, with the optional suspension setup. With the stock suspension, there was nothing sporty about a Z7’s handling. More like slightly below competent, especially after the shocks had a few miles on them. By 10,000 miles, rough pavement would cause the rear axle to bounce uncontrollably, even at low speed, while aggressive application of the brakes would lock the rears, sending the back end slewing to the left. My previous ride, a 70 Cougar with somewhat worn Gabriel Red Ryders was vastly more buttoned down. My Mom’s 64 Rambler had better suspension control than that Zephyr.
How perceptions have changed department. The data panel in the test says the Z7 was 195.8″ long. My 70 Cougar was roughly 200″ long. They seemed reasonably sized at the time. A few years ago, I decided to see what all the fuss about SUVs was and bought a used Taurus-X, which was 200″ long. The Taurus-X seemed ridiculously oversized and, in two years, I never got used to it. It yielded to a 180″ VW, and there are times I wish the VW was smaller. How in the world did I live with such huge cars in the 70s?
Re shocks, I suspect shoddy, low-bidder factory shocks was Std. Practice at Ford. After my ’81 Escort’s had to be replaced earlier than they should have, the aftermarket replacements improved road-holding dramatically.
By contrast, my ’88 Accord’s shocks lasted as long as I owned the car, 16 yrs. Another reason why Detroit lost my trust.
Re shocks, I suspect shoddy, low-bidder factory shocks was Std. Practice at Ford.
Yup, that was not a “better idea”, and not exclusive to the Fox bodies.
My mom had a 72 Torino after the Rambler. She came back from a road trip and complained the Torino would barely stay on the road. A quick trip to the shop for a set of Gabriel Red Ryders, and she said “wow, what an improvement!” The car had about 25K on it at the time.
The foundry I worked at in the summer of 75 had two company cars: a 74 LTD and a 74 Ambassador wagon. Each with over 40K on it. I loved the Ambassador’s firm, planted feel on the highway. Hated the LTD with a passion for it’s constantly weaving, wallowing and bobbing ride.
…my ’81 Escort’s had to be replaced earlier than they should have,
I had some wheel time in an 81 Escort wagon, a brand new one. I would drive through an intersection where I would go up and over the crown of the intersecting road, and watch the Escort’s front end bob up and down about three times. Crossing the same intersection in my Renault resulted in one compression of the suspension, then a rise back to normal ride height.
My 02 Escort felt reasonable enough around town when it had 40K on it, but when I got it out on the highway, in subfreezing weather, it was like the car had no shocks at all, for about 75 miles. My theory is the cold temperature would cause the gas in the struts to contract enough that there was no pressure on the hydraulic fluid and the fluid would foam, eliminating any damping. Driven far enough the struts warmed up enough from the agitation to exert some pressure and eliminate the foaming.
My 98 Civic’s OEM shocks didn’t go south until about 100K.
I drove a lot of Fords growing up and I can relate to the bouncy-jouncy shocks and particularly the horrid brakes.
I can remember taking out my mother’s 1974 Mercury Montego and hooning around with some friends on country roads. In my part of Northeast Ohio, the country roads followed creeks and old trails, i.e., they were very bumpy, twisty and hilly. It didn’t take long for the suspension to hit the bump stops and the brakes to fade away to nearly nothing. Only luck and teenage reaction times kept me from flying off the road that evening.
Actually, it was mostly luck…
A decidedly inharmonious design. Ford was split into two camps then; the stylists that were in love with the Mark-TBird look, and the engineers who were in love with the Volvo 240. Combining the two was a bad mistake. There could have been an appropriate coupe for these, but t would have had to look quite different then these.
I thought these were a bad joke. And raising that trunk height only accentuated the imbalance with the low and sloping front end. If they really wanted a smaller TBird, they would have needed to add a suitable front end to it.
This was the first step that led to the the abominations (TBird/Cougar) in 1980. We can see the pendulum swing back to the designers, and it almost killed Ford in the process.
It’s almost like a reverse ranchero in it’s inharmony, the rear is stylized and the front end is utilitarian.
I don’t feel this is the result of styling trampling engineering though, the Mustang prioritized styling on the basic chassis and was thoroughly harmonious, desipite being designed at the same time as the Futura/Z7. When it comes to design the loathed Granada wasn’t actually that far off from the Fairmont stylistically, or the Volvo 240, (besides the very “70s Ford” fussy front end and trim pieces) it had those same clean European design aspirations the engineers loved, but without the actual engineering and packaging to make it anything but a facade on an old Falcon.
If anything I’d say the opposite may be the key to the Futura and 80-82 Tbird’s problem, designers who were trying to apply the more American styling that sold a lot of 77-79s were hamstrung by engineering hardpoints of the Fox platform – the Fox never got reconfigured proportionally the way the old Falcon platform did – so cowl heights, dash to axle ratios, and track widths determined when engineering the original fairmont had to be retained, and they just couldn’t be more different than a 70s intermediate. The reason the 83s worked wasn’t that engineering had the pendulum swung back at them, it was that designers got their heads out of the 70s and worked with the otherwise unchanged engineering hardpoints to create a good looking new car, just the designers did for the Mustang four years earlier (many of the styling proposals for the 79 looked as dismal as the 80 Birds, carrying on Mustang II styling themes).
I thought these were a bad joke. And raising that trunk height only accentuated the imbalance with the low and sloping front end.
Styling is entirely subjective. I found my Z7 to be very attractive, with it’s relatively clean, straight lines, especially compared to what Ford had been turning out, like the LTDII and Elite, even with the gills.
The higher rear deck lid is nowhere near as high as the rear decks on cars of the last dozen or more years, and there was a practical reason for it on the Z7: the trunk was ludicrously shallow. I couldn’t get anything of size in that trunk. The trunk would have been even worse if the deck was an inch or two lower.
Surprisingly, Dearborn heard the howls about that trunk and responded. When my dad died, I inherited his car: a 82 or 83 Futura coupe. Loading stuff from his apartment into that car, I opened the trunk and fell over laffing. Ford had dished the trunk floor stamping in later years to add an inch or two of height.
Found this pic from an ad for a 78 Futura. Look at the trunk floor in comparison to the tops of the shocks and wheelwells.
> Ford was split into two camps then; the stylists that were in love with the Mark-TBird look, and the engineers who were in love with the Volvo 240. Combining the two was a bad mistake.
As Volvo would prove with the 262C
True that. I had a mental image of the 262C while I was writing that. Who would have thought?
Something more like the 780C would have been better, for both of them.
I really liked the styling on these. What a breath of fresh air after years of bloated, wallowing, huge-on-the-outside-cramped-on-the-inside Ford cars. I never liked the lumpy, bumpy, bloated styling of ’70’s Fords. Although all the Big Three were guilty of that sin, Ford seemed to be one of the worst at delivering cars which were aircraft carrier size externally and had no interior room, huge wheezing engines, and wallowy handling. The straight lines to me were a vast improvement over the doughy curves of the Torino and Elite.
I thought the Z7 and Futura were very attractive, more so than the dowdy sedans/other coupes. I even liked the ’80-82 TBirds, and better than the bar of soap looking Aerobirds.
I remember these as being pretty decent sellers back in the day, at least in Atlanta, although by the late ’80’s they were pretty much all gone. The Fairmont got a very attractive refresh both as the Granada and then the LTD/Marquis.
Poor Fairmont! I don’t think any car had such a dazzling and brief day in the sun before or after. In 1978, it was so much of a leap forward from the hoary Falcon, with space efficiency and rational styling and almost the same interior room as the aircraft carrier size LTD, and then by 1979 it had been immediately eclipsed by the GM X cars, the Omnirizon, and the GM A bodies.
The styling is a bit off-color; cut off that rear roof section and it reminds me of one of those “flower cars” funeral directors use.
I have a 1978 Ford Futura Crown Coupe it has no opera windows in the back I don’t know if that’s a rare vehicle or not it also has the Chrome strip that goes over the top I’ve checked a lot of pictures and none of them show it that way
Ford should have followed the predecessor 1955-56 Crown Victoria basket handle more closely.
I am a Fox fan, but never found these coupes to be attractive. They didn’t look right. There seems to be a lot of them around, but I pass these up. I don’t like the basket roof.
I like the simple design of the two door coupe roofline. More honest.
My grandfather’s last car was a ‘79 Futura. Ford compacts were his car. The Futura was preceded by a ‘75 Granada coupe, which was preceded by a ‘71 Maverick sedan, which followed a ‘’65 Falcon sedan. Before that was before my time. All were straight-six automatics, the first two being 4-doors, the last were 2-doors; which he bought because he felt he didn’t need a sedan anymore as his youngest child was out on her own.
I ride extensively in all of them. Adequate, but not thrilling cars. I should note my dad did have a ‘71 Conet sedan, my mom had a ‘74 Maverick sedan, and an aunt had a ‘73 Comet sedan. All were similarly powered.
I would strongly digress that the Futura/Z7 were intended to compete directly with GM’s personal ‘78-up luxury coupes. I don’t think anyone would’ve bought one over the other, except for loyalty, perhaps.
I always considered the Futura/Z7 as a throwback to the Falcons of the early ‘60s. They were offered in sedan, coupe (both sedans technically), and a sleeker (not much) sport roof model. The similarity to the T-Bird was consequential, as that was Ford’s design motif in the late ‘70s for their full-size coupes, largely due to safety requirements that ended the B-pillar-less hardtop design.
That’s my take.
It may sound harsh, but I consider the 1970s, a lost decade for domestic styling at Ford. Other than the ’79 Mustang and ’75 Econoline, nothing I’d call outstanding, in exterior design.
After a year on the market, Fairmont styling already seemed like yesterday’s car.
Was the sport coupe of these cars introduced halfway through the 1978 model year?
The coupe could have been a late introduction. I donated a lot of brochures. including my 78 Fairmont and Zephyr books, to the Gilmore Museum a few years ago, but I think I noticed the Z7 was not in the 78 brochure. I bought my Z7 around May of 78.
Yes, the Futura and Z-7 coupes were a late ’78 introduction; I can’t remember the exact time though.
In later years Ford would also apply the Futura name to higher-trimmed Fairmont 4 door sedans, which also got the Futura coupe’s grille with quad headlamps.
It screams UTE at me, Ranchero would have worked very little tooling needed,GMH turned perfectly innocent Vauxhall sedans into roadsters and Tourers even those unibody cars had a light commercial in the background,
Then lo and behold the Holden ute, roof, doortops, tailgate sundry other bits, stick it on a CA Bedford chassis and which one would sir like 4 or 6 cylinders, but,
One more juggle of the panels and theres a roadster falls out, Ive only ever seen the Vagabond in Velox flavour six cylinders,
Chopping cars is an American pastime somebody should have done these at the factory
Looking at the comparison tables on the specs page, the 2 liter, 4-speed 320i looks like a smoking deal at $9.500 compared to nearly $8,000 T-birds and Monte Carlos. I think the Z7 made a better case for itself by being meaningfully cheaper.