(first posted 1/11/2018) For years, and most particularly after the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, American car enthusiast magazines had been clamoring for Detroit to build more internationally-oriented designs, with pragmatic space utilization and good economy. For mid-sized cars, the buff books called for U.S.-made versions of the ultra-practical Volvo. For 1978, Ford Motor Company acted on the input and introduced the first cars to ride on the new Fox platform: the Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr. Car and Driver, Road Test Magazine and Motor Trend each spent plenty of time behind the wheel of the new compacts—did Ford deliver on the brief?
The new Fairmont/Zephyr replaced the old Maverick/Comet once and for all. Ford had intended to update the Maverick/Comet for 1975 with the Granada/Monarch (both still based on the old Falcon platform from 1960). However, due to the ’73 Oil Crisis, FoMoCo opted to keep the Maverick/Comet in production as “entry-level” compacts while the Granada/Monarch were positioned as more upscale “international-sized” cars. Buyers liked the strategy, but the U.S. buff books didn’t, and the “mini-LTD/Marquis” Granada/Monarch were critiqued for emphasizing style over substance. But all that changed for 1978.
Car and Driver was quite enthused with the new arrival, hailing the Fairmont as a triumph of the engineers over the stylists. Nothing truer was ever uttered. Ford’s own research indicated that the new car was low scoring on “youthful sporty appeal.” Hidden under the ultra-conservative sheet metal and plain interior was a decent driving car, with excellent space utilization and great visibility. Even by 1978 standards, however, the car was utterly conventional, with carryover power trains, rear-wheel drive and a live-axle rear suspension. The Fairmont was also still far behind global automotive best practices—the European Ford Granada had been offering standard fully-independent 4-wheel suspension and available fuel injection for years, neither of which was available on the new Fox-body cars in 1978.
Undoubtedly one of the reasons Car and Driver liked the new Fairmont so much was that the test car carried the 302 2V V8, giving the lightweight car good performance (especially in the context of the times). However, based on the Fairmont/Zephyr’s positioning as economy transportation, the majority of cars were fitted with one of the smaller engines. So how were those to drive?
Road Test Magazine reviewed an extremely basic Fairmont 2-door sedan with the 140 cubic inch 2-barrel 4-cylinder and 4-speed manual transmission.
This Fairmont 2-door was about as plain Jane as they came in 1978. The utilitarian vibe carried throughout the car, from the spartan interior (buckets were required with the 4-speed, but they didn’t recline), minimal instrumentation and chintzy trim to the minimally adorned exterior with dog dish hubcaps and trim rings. Road Test found the car to be fun in a “nothing-more-than-bare-necessities” kind of way, but this was not a car to fire up the masses.
The volume car of the new Fairmont/Zephyr range was actually the 4-door sedan with the tried-and-true 200 cid 1V inline 6-cylinder. Motor Trend sampled a Mercury version with this set-up, taking a Zephyr on a cross-country trek from Kansas City (where it was built) to Los Angeles (where MT was based).
Like Car and Driver and Road Test, Motor Trend found a lot to like about the new, functional Ford. Whoops, Mercury. Here was another example of bare minimum brand differentiation between Ford and Mercury small cars. Most people likely couldn’t tell the two apart without reading the badges. In no way was the Zephyr better or more upscale than the Fairmont, and as such represented yet another nail in the coffin of the Mercury brand.
This benign sedan with a workhorse 6-cylinder really embodies the Fairmont/Zephyr that folks remember (or actually don’t, since the cars were so forgettable). I had just turned 11 when these came out, and I thought they were about the dullest cars I’d ever seen. Plus, they always seemed to be the base-trimmed versions painted in one of the truly boring non-metallic colors Ford used back then, including the bizarre orangey-beige “Light Chamois.”
I’d bet 90% of the Fairmonts in New Orleans were either White or Light Chamois or Creme, with nothing more than the plain full wheel covers, if the buyer was feeling really saucy.
So, at the end of the day, could the Fairmont/Zephyr be considered American iterations of the Volvo? Not really…. At least Volvos, no matter how boxy and non-descript their styling, carried that elusive import mystique. One could always imagine a Volvo, brimming with beautiful blondes, bombing down a frosty road, ever alert for elk, on their way to a Scandinavian soiree. And there was also the distinct imagery of American Volvo buyers: tenured professors, smugly satisfied that their Swedish sled was “smarter” than a comparably priced Olds Delta 88.
The square Fairmont/Zephyr, by contrast, just screamed dull and cheap, driven by Seventies goobers trying to play tennis, skinflints and retirees, or by people who were assigned them, like government workers, traveling salespeople, car renters…. Practical, logical, cost effective? Absolutely. But in no way enticing, interesting or inspirational.
Over time, Ford would pay the price for such a boring design. Out of the gate in 1978, Fairmont/Zephyr sales were strong, with 460,981 and 152, 172 sold, respectively. But the results tailed off from there, and by the end of its 5-year run, the Fairmont/Zephyr was barely limping along, challenged by the headwinds of more interesting and more modern compact offerings.
Even the much-maligned “shrunken LTD/pseudo-Mercedes” Granada/Monarch proved to be more successful over time. For the 5 years that the 1st generation Granada/Monarch (based on the ancient Falcon platform) was sold, total sales actually exceeded the 5-year sales totals for the Fox-based Fairmont/Zephyr. Plus, the Granada/Monarch only came in 2-door and 4-door sedan models, while Fairmont/Zephyr also offered a wagon and a specially styled “sporty” 2-door (Futura/Z7). So while the buff books may have loved the quasi-European and wholly pragmatic Fairmont/Zephyr, American buyers still weren’t fully weaned from American styling cues in a more rationally sized package.
Thankfully, Ford would soon snap out of the frump funk as embodied by the Fairmont/Zephyr. The competent Fox platform would underpin other successful products including the ’79 Mustang/Capri and ’83 aero Thunderbird/Cougar. And Ford shed the T-square for the wind tunnel, and became an American aero pioneer in the 1980s, leaving the boring, boxy Fairmont/Zephyr in the rearview mirror, just like car buyers did.
Additional Reading:
Classic Curbside Classic: 1978 Ford Fairmont – That Very Rare Honest Car by Paul Niedermeyer
Curbside Outtake: 1978-83 Mercury Zephyr – That Very Rare Clean Design by William Stopford
This is how the Fairmont is remembered in Israel… Yes they did sell to the public also. They all seem to have disappeared by now, for some reason the GM equivalents have held together a lot better.
The police package was introduced mid-year 1978 on these cars. They were not popular for police work in North America. At this time compact cruisers were becoming more accepted, but these Fairmonts seemed to be limited to more urban patrol. With the 302-2V they performed well. A 9C1 Malibu produced essentially the same performance, had excellent handling, and was the small cruiser of choice for the era. It is remembered fondly, while the Fairmont was a footnote. Of note, the Fairmont did very well in the CHP small car study in the late 1970’s, but by 1980 the 302 was no longer available making performance substandard. Further, the interior room, officers criticized it as being too small compared to other cruiser options.
In 1984, Ford introduced a police package on the LTD (Fox) with the 302 CFI HO V8. It was a very high performance cruiser for the day and out ran a 351 LTD Crown Victoria with ease. It was short lived but generally fondly remembered. It’s major criticism was its inadequate brakes.
A car for the 80s that looked like a car of the 70s.
Not being an especially big fan of Ford or the USDM in general, I therefore love the Ur-Fox.
Call it bland all you want, for me it’s crisp, lithe and lissom, with great proportions. Make mine a Zephyr station wagon with 4/4m and a bench with center armrest, I’ll gladly take care of suspension- and induction tweaking.
How well did that special genus of vulpini hold up in its original habitat, btw?
One more, on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway. And regards how they compared with the GM equivalents, there’s no question their looks did not help – they were not significantly cheaper and if you had the money for a US-made car in that class in late 70s Israel you’d probably have wanted something with a bit more pizazz than that plain Jane Fairmont…
I still remember the Car and Driver article. At the time, I took the magazine very seriously, and for them to get this excited over an American car that wasn’t a Corvette, Camaro or Firebird was absolutely exceptional.
While I always liked the car, I was never so tempted as to actually BUY one. Then again, good luck in finding a bucket seat, four cylinder, four speed model at the dealers. If it weren’t for the buff books, you’d have thought the base model of this car was the six cylinder, automatic, bench seat version.
True American car buyers just weren’t interested in European cars back then. Even if they came with American nameplates and factories.
Great reviews!
Also, what was with late-1970s/early-1980s American car ads/brochure pictures featuring people in tennis gear? The Big Three and AMC probably featured several among their various brands/model lines each year. Was tennis really that popular or just a sign of youthfulness?
Haha, I do recall tennis being a thing in the 70s. Watch enough detective shows of that era and you would see rich attractive people appear regularly on tennis courts.
And John Newcombe peddling Canon AE-1 cameras in the commercials.
Thank Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs. Once the Bicycle Boom died, tennis was the next hip sport for fashionable people staying fit.
Speaking of tennis . . . remember the 1979 movie releases ‘PLAYERS’ with Ali MacGraw and Dean-Paul Martin -AND- ‘RACQUET’ which starred game-show host Bert Convy as a tennis pro trying to finance his own court? 😀
Speaking of the ‘Bicycle Boom’ I have a 1976 movie called ’10-SPEED’ on the long-gone LIGHTNING VIDEO label. I reckon I snagged this movie approx. 20 years ago, but I have ~no~ recollection of WHY I bought it . . . but I still have it and it’s all about a bicycle race and a Battle-Of-The-Sexes between a girl and guy riders. I have watched the tape and it’s not an exploitation movie filled with nudity and bad words. It’s a very mild movie as a matter of fact; who knows what audience this movie was intended for? I’d never so much as heard of it before I bought it on the cheeep, but the video box was still in good condition and maybe it was some unseen force that made me fork out a few bucks to acquire it on VHS.
→ While we’re on the subject of 1979 sports movies does anyone else remember the bowling movie ‘DREAMER’? Tim Matheson stars as a pro bowler trying to hit the ‘Big Time’ in professional bowling. Also stars Susan Blakely, Jack Warden, Richard B. Shull, Barbara Stuart.
I don’t think any of the 4 movies ^above^ have ever been legally released on DVD. I know “Dreamer” was released by the Magnetic Video Corporation in 1981 [I’ve got it] and I’ve never seen a later video release than this one time it was put out on VHS.
I remember when I was a little kid our subdivision had an activity center that had FOUR tennis courts (which were later replaced by batting cages and a basketball court), the suburb I grew up in was developed in 1978.
I briefly owned a Zephyr wagon – pale yellow, fake woody, brown vinyl interior, 6 cyl, AT and a/c. I rather liked it but my wife was not a fan. I think she drove it less than an hour total for the year we had it. She much preferred her stripper Escort wagon though she did appreciate the a/c in the Mercury. Which lead to always having at least one daily driver with working air conditioning – the Zephyr was replaced by my Isuzu Spacecab 4WD truck with killer a/c courtesy of GM. The Zephyr was more fun to drive than the Suzy but having a truck (or cargo friendly van) is way more useful than a wagon. If I had my old Zephyr back I’d probably be tempted to swap the straight 6 for a Windsor V8…
My mother’s Futura had the 302, and indeed, its tendency to chirp the tires when she backed up our downhill-facing driveway embarrassed her sometimes.
Once she entrusted me with exercising the car while they vacationed. I gladly complied on Glendora Mtn. Road, which has very sharp hairpins which have claimed a few careless high schoolers over the years. Maybe I had little to compare against, but it was a blast with all that torque (low HP notwithstanding) and relatively quick steering.
Given that the independent rear suspension as practiced by Ford of Europe (and most European automakers of the time who bothered) was semi-trailing arms, I’m not convinced that a decently located live axle was that much of a negative. Non-U.S. automakers seemed to prefer five-link arrangements to the U.S. four-link, but for the time, many of them were very well-sorted. Semi-trailing arms had less unsprung weight, which made for better ride quality, but their camber and toe changes could be a handful in a way not really desirable for a cooking family sedan. That was Volvo’s rationale.
Agree; especially given the Fairmont’s market role as a cheap family sedan, like the Falcon, one can hardly blame Ford for retaining a live axle, which was also used by more enthusiast-friendly Volvo and Rover. They should be credited for losing the Falcon’s “buggy” springs.
BTW, Bedard’s remark about high suspension travel puzzles me a bit since in my experience, the Fairmont tended hit the rebound stops easily.
Well, he says suspension travel was better than on the outgoing Maverick and its derivatives, which it may well have been. However, I don’t know that the Maverick platform exactly had an abundance of travel, especially in back!
Could be. I was thinking of the front suspension: the modified strut, with spring down low, might explain the short travel. But it must’ve had better road isolation compared to “pure” struts.
Nicely done! One minor nitpick: “…driven by Seventies goobers trying to play tennis…”
That’s actually a racquetball racquet he’s holding in the photo.
Is that game even still played anymore?
Haha good catch! Racquetball makes it even more appropriate for the late 1970s!
Haha, oh the racquetball stories my mom has from the early 1980s…
LA Fitness, which seems to be taking over the health club biz, has racquetball courts.
BTW, it was founded in Irvine CA, and has no locations in LA proper (unless you consider the entire region “LA”).
Although the Fairmont seemed like (and was) a giant step for the US industry – especially Ford – in 1978, things would turn completely upside down within another 3 years. When the Chrysler K cars hit in 1981 on the heels of the 80 GM X cars, these Fairmonts with their rear wheel drive suddenly seemed like throwbacks to the 1960 Falcon.
For those too young to have been there, it is hard to describe the extent to which FWD became a foundational requirement for a “modern” car in the 80s. In this light it is easy to see why these cars had such a short-lived freshness date.
With hindsight I would pick a Fairmont over an X or K all day long. As long as it wasn’t thar awful light chamois color GN reminded us all of.
I remember that awful color. One would see a Fairmont in one of the higher trim levels…but never in that color. A light chamois color Fairmont was invariably one of the bargain-basement models.
An American Camcordima.
As I’ve revealed before, I worked at Hertz in Denver in the late ’70s. The Fairmont/Zephyr joined the fleet in a big way when the cars were being introduced. They of course replaced the Maverick/Comet and were just a much nicer car in the “B” class at Hertz. The large trunks were very useful for a rental car and were a big improvement on the prior cars. They were wider too, more comfortable.
Hertz had mostly four door sedans but there were some, few coupes too. All were six cylinder, three speed autos. I think they served Hertz well and after I left and was often renting cars myself I found them to be perfectly fine one or two day cars for one to four people, plus luggage. And I certainly agree with the comment above about having a clear preference for the Fairmont/Zephyr over any contemporary “X” or “K” car.
One big factor in the Fairmont ‘s declining sales was the economy. Unemployment was around 10% and interest rates were around 18%. It was a tough time to be in the car business.
I was going to say the same thing. The Iranian Revolution in early 1979 sparked an oil shortage, which quickly tipped the U.S. economy into a recession. Car sales began slipping in 1979, and were hammered in 1980, 1981 and 1982.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve began tightening the money supply to fight inflation, which was in the double digits by 1979. Interest rates on new-car loans for people with good credit were soon in the double digits.
For many years, 1982 was cited as the low point for new-car sales in various articles. So I’m not sure that the decline in sales was entirely the fault of these cars. The frugal types most likely to buy these cars would have been the first to put off a new-car purchase under those conditions.
All of these bad economic conditions did not stand in the way of very strong sales of the Citation and the K car. The Citation sold about 800k for 1980 (albeit a long model year) and another 400k+ in 1981, which was the year Chrysler (the almost out of business company that had been building horrible cars for close to a decade) sold about 150K K cars. 250K Fox body Fords was relatively weak even given the economic and energy headwinds of the time.
In 1979, big (or relatively big cars) were selling very well, gas was quite low, and the economy strong. In 1981, all that had changed and so folks switched to smaller cars with better fuel economy.
One can’t look at any segment of the market in isolation in relation to macro events affecting the market. Those Citation sales were coming right out of the hides of big cars, whose sales tumbled very badly that year.
Major turmoil shakes buyers out of their complacency. A hatchback Citation suddenly looked very appealing compared to a big brougham coupe (say like a TBird). Three years later, not so much so, once again.
’81+ Escort, in my opinion took Fairmont sales from economy buyer, due to oil shocks and being a new car. At same time, Ford was pushing Fox Granada and working on the Tempo and Taurus.
So, while the Fairmont model faded, the Fox platform was a success.
I agree with everything you say – I just think that the Fairmont underperformed in its segment by 1981, almost certainly due to its being a RWD car.
I think that the bias for FWD in the early 80s had some real world correlation with fuel mileage. I found a source for 1982 EPA fuel mileage ratings. Comparing Base 4cyl/3 speed auto combined numbers for the competitors, they were:
Citation and Aries – both 25 mpg.
Cutlass Ciera – 25 mpg
Fairmont – 21 mpg.
The Fairmont was a very efficient car in the landscape of 1978. It was not by 1981-82, thus the significant fall off in sales.
Had a couple of these back in 1979 in our Treasury Dept. fleet. 302 V-8’s with the HD suspension. I initially scoffed at these as current day Ford Falcons until I drove one. Compared to the lumbering LTD’s and Dodge St. Regis’ in the rest of the fleet, these handled like Porsche 911’s. Fairly firm precise steering, tossible in the turns and generally light on its feet. As quick off the line as the big LTD 460’s, although the 460 still had it in top end grunt.
Minuses were the horn button on the turn signal signal stalk and a quite spartan interior with vinyl bench seats. But an under appreciated car at the time that with a few deft option choices could be a pleasure to drive.
I remember being favorably impressed by these as a teen when they were first introduced. I especially like the wagon version. The really Spartan interiors of the base model Fairmont (which seemed to be most Fairmonts) were this car’s greatest shortcoming relative to the competition. However, if I remember correctly, most Chevy Citations, which debuted roughly 18 months after the Fairmont/Zephyr twins, were equally austere and featured even more hard plastic and chintzy upholstery. Of course, GM offered plush interiors in sister X-cars such as the the Buick Skylark, which outshone the most upscale FoMoCo offerings, so they managed to better cover both ends of the compact market.
I always liked the looks of these; I mentally sort them into the more purely square-edged two- and four-door sedans, and the sleeker “basket-handle” Futura/Z7 coupes and wagons (which echoed that sweep in their rear quarter windows).
Speaking of rear quarter windows, I never knew the side vents were functional (as pointed out in the sidebar). AFAIK if you got them on a four-door you still got roll-down rear windows as well, so I don’t know if they were only functional on the 2-door.
The functional rear side vents were also optional in the 4 door sedans, where they would entirely replace the window in the sail panel. This seemed to be a rare option though – I saw them in buff books more often than on the road it seemed. Still, along with the optional front swinging vent windows, and rear door windows that rolled down (cough, cough GM A/G body), the Fairmont offered lots of fresh-air choices.
Yes, I actually owned a ’79 Fairmont 4-door with the rear vent panels and they were indeed a functional piece. It was the only one of these cars that I have ever seen in person with this option, too. The car itself was a 3.3L six with an automatic, two tone paint job, a burnt orange color on the top 2/3 of the car with the remaining 1/3 on the bottom in dark red, quite the combo!
These were good cars. They signaled a fresh new start for Ford. It signaled an end to the Lee Iacocca brougham age in many ways, and finally, their appearance signaled an end to style over substance.
I had a 1981 Futura and drove it for an year throughout Colorado. So it was put through steep mountain driving, sharp mountain roads, interstate highways and many unpaved national forest roads. It did very well.
The entire car seemed light and lit. Lots of windows, low beltline, low dash, low steering wheel. You felt very exposed. However, there were very few extras. It was a very simple car that simply worked very well.
It was replaced with a GM X Citation, which was a 180 in every way over the Fox body. After a year of excruciating horrors with the Citation, the lease ended. From there I moved into another Fox body vehicle – a 1982 Cougar sedan. This was a Fairmont that focused on luxuries and options and it was everything good the Fairmont did well, plus even more. The Cougar was excellent.
So, although the Fairmont was plain, it was in many ways a simple base car upon which Ford used as the beginning of higher line cars for the next five years or more. The lose sales after its inaugural year debut reflect the many other flavors available at Ford, Lincoln and Mercury of the Fairmont. It also reflects, as mentioned earlier, a severe economic recession at the heart of Ford Country – the Midwest – which evolved into a Rust Belt during the years this car was sold.
The Fairmont was a saving grace for Ford in 1978, and it was more than a mirage or one hit wonder. It signaled a new level of American auto manufacturing, and a good one at that.
“It signaled an end to the Lee Iacocca brougham age in many ways, and finally, their appearance signaled an end to style over substance.”
Your overall point is a good one. However, we must note that Iacocca was running Ford all through the development of this car. He was not fired until most of the way through the Fairmont’s first year of production.
My father traded in his ’68 Dart 2-door stripper for a 4 cyl 4 speed 2-door stripper Zephyr. Very dorky. But I drove it a few times, and it was a big improvement over the Dart. The manual steering was light, crisp and responsive. The 2.3 four was of course not exactly exciting, but teamed up with the slick-shifting four speed on the floor made it reasonably doable. The Zephyr could be tossed about quite enjoyably on the winding back roads of hilly northern Balto. County.
He kept it for quite a while, and replaced it with an early Taurus. That was a rather quantum change in every way.
I really liked these when they came out. I still do. It’s a shame they were replaced by the Tempo. I browse thru Craigslist now and then for a Zephyr Z-7 or Futura.
I’d seen the troubles my parents had when they went through both oil embargoes and the smaller size, twice as efficient engines, and more honest styling seemed like the best response to them. I didn’t see the point of using a 4,500 pound 12 mpg bechromed barge to go get groceries or take me to school – especially when we lived 20 miles from town. A Fairmont with the turbo 4 and a 4 speed would be a unicorn nowdays, wouldn’t it?
My college roommate Bruce had a Fairmont with a 302. It scooted alone nicely.
The Car and Driver review by Don Sherman and the Counterpoint by Patrick Bedard are laughable. “Today’s Fairmont was predicted by a 1975 Volvo”, Don? “Best American sedan I’ve driven”, Pat? Seriously? And those guys are two of my favorite writers.
I drove quite a few of these back in the day and the Fairmont is a classic example of Ford taking a good concept and failing to deliver on execution. I’ll grant that against what the American competition was offering in 1978, it seemed revolutionary. And, once they came to market, GM’s X-bodies and the Chrysler K-Cars made the Fairmont look pretty good, but ultimately, all Ford did was make a light, cheap car, without any of the virtues that were converting Americans to imports at the time.
Who did deliver? Honda, with the 1982 Accord.
Ford builds a Volvo??? Over the top much? I sure wasn’t thinking along those lines in 1978 but I had already been exposed to many a Honda and Toyota in Southern California to be taken in by that. Guess locality affects perspective.
Surely “Best American car I’ve driven” was not much more than what other journalists were saying. I think even Consumer Reports was impressed with its roadholding. Credit where it’s due.
I would say the Fairmont’s main weakness vs. its domestic competitors was its weak midrange engine, compared to the Buick V6 and Chrysler /6, which were always better than Ford’s lame sixes. Not until Ford copied Buick with the Essex was this remedied.
I agree about the Ford 6. A friend owned a ’78 Fairmont 2 door with the six and the three speed auto in the 1980s. In 1987 we took it on a road trip, and I did most of the driving. It was glacially slow. At the time I had an X-Car Skylark with the 2.8 V-6, and it was a much better drive!
“without any of the virtues ?”
Better steering and fuel economy. Space utilization. ’82 Accord is tiny compared to what the model become, by the way.
Seems like most just complain about the styling and image. Saying stuff like “old ladies drove them” and “they were mostly beige or white”. But then look at today, black, white, and grey vehicles.
The Fox platform did get used for “car guy” products. But ultimately, car companies are not in the ‘entertainment industry’ and don’t “owe” enthusiasts.
“were converting Americans to imports at the time.”
Ultimately, what “converted” buyers was making their cars bigger and softer, or “more American”. i.e. 1997 Camry, with beige being most popular color. And the “modern Delta 88″, the 1998 full size Accord.
VW, with ‘German Engineering” sales cratered in the 80s and 90s. So much that they nearly pulled out of the US in ’93.
And can go on about how Ford/GM haven’t built a “Camry fighter”, but today, they don’t need to, with trucks and Utilities dominating the market.
And the proof that Ford really didn’t get it, as noted by MarcKyle64 above—they didn’t bring us a better Gen2 Fairmont, they replaced it with the Tempo.
Those two guys next to the blue Fairmont certainly are not Fairmont buyers in my mind. Out my way they would probably be looking at BMW right about that time.
More likely would have a Mustang or Celica.
I wonder which one’s from out of town and is putting that Zephyr from Hertz on the expense account?
An American Camcordia. Pity Ford lost the plot.
Through various permutations, the Fairmont and its derivatives terminated at the 1986 Taurus. Ford got the plot very right.
I’m glad someone posted these vintage reviews. I said in another thread how ‘car guys’ like to rip on the Fairmont, but mostly for its looks and power. But platform was long lasting as the Fox Mustang.
Also, the Taurus was another replacement for the Fox based LTD/Marquis, not just the Tempo. But in long run, the 90’s Explorer was their ‘new family car’
I owned a Fox-body Lincoln Continental that was a fantastic beater…the air ride even worked. Traded a set of Snap On wrenches for it…the previous owner had taken the dash apart to change the heater core and gave up. I fixed it, put the dash back together and drove it for about a year. Nice tidy size, nice seats, 302 AOD combination was bulletproof (but never shifted quite as smoothly as a THM).
FoMoCo did a lot with the Fox structure…
“Over time, Ford would pay the price for such a boring design … sales drop”
1979-82 was an era of overall sales declines, it was one of the worst recessions ever. Also, Ford brought out Fox based Granada in 1981, and the newer Escort took some sales.
Make it sound as if the Fox design was a flop, but Ford sure got some use from it.
I had forgotten the heaps of praise that the magazines dished out over the Fairmont/Zephyr. It didn’t tale long for all of it to seem like small beer. However, I suppose that after are they’re comparing the Fox to the utter stinker that was the Maverick…
Another outstanding post – thank you!
My only observation is that I’ve seen these cars classified both as compacts (as were their Maverick & Granada predecessors) and also as midsizers. These always seemed more like midsize cars to me – way more “Malibu” than “Nova” or “Citation”.
With that said, and speaking of aesthetics, there’s really no comparison between the 2-door versions of the ’78 Fairmont (/ Zephyr) and ’78 Malibu. The Malibu coupe is a knockout, while the Fairmont seems to lack “youthful appeal” as the first article referenced.
As far as the 4-door versions, though, the Fairmont sedan looks way better (than the Malibu 4-door, or the Fairmont 2-door). Plus, you can wind down the windows in the rear passenger doors. *Sold.*
Category Confusion: It does seem that GM’s A-body intermediates were effectively compacts in terms of size, if not weight (having BOF construction). The Chrysler F-body had a longer wheelbase than Ford’s or GM’s, but was considered a compact.
And add to the mix, Chrysler F-body siblings: the M-body LeBaron(later known as Fifth Avenue)/Dodge Diplomat/Plymouth Caravelle (only sold in Canada back then).
GM and Ford weren’t downsizing their line-ups at the same rate, so there was some confusion as to how their models “lined up” with each other.
The downsized Malibu replaced the Colonnade Malibu, which was a true intermediate, and this Fairmont replaced the old Maverick, which was a compact. The 1978 Malibu and Fairmont came out roughly the same size, but initially occupied different price segments.
In 1978, the Chevrolet equivalent to the Fairmont would have been the Nova. Which, halfway through the 1979 model year, was replaced by the smaller, front-wheel-drive Citation.
The 1981 Granada, which was based on the Fox platform, was the Malibu’s competitor.
There was initially a $630 price difference between the Fairmont and Malibu, which, adjusted for inflation, is about $2,600 today.
I could draw the lines between the earlier cars and their successors within their respective lineups, but I guess what I was saying I that across each corporation’s respective size classifications (i.e. compact, midsize), dimensions didn’t seem to align across makes – to the untrained eye, anyway.
Good points, though!
You’re right, there is no comparison: the Fox platform was a new, advanced design, with vastly-superior space utilization, suspension, stiffness, handling, and weight. The G-body was just another car from GM, with the typical wet-noodle structure, excessive poundage, athsmatic engines (267 V8, anyone? 200ci V6?), poor space utilization, bad front-end geometry (a GM hallmark from the early 60’s), and unforgivable design gaffes like fixed rear windows in 4-doors.
I’ll take a base Zephyr coupe in blue with a 4-cylinder, 4-speed, and no options except A/C and AM/FM.
I’ve been lurking on this site for some time. Great insights into autos and interesting articles.
I had one of these, 198? Ford Fairmont, 4 door sedan, 200 cu in six, with auto. In fact it was the same color as the one shown in the sales literature, we called it “big red”. I would put this car up there with some of the best I’ve owned. It served me very well over the years I owned it.
I bought this car used with 50,000 miles and paid $1500 for it. We used it as the family car for a couple of years and then my daughter took it off to school. After a year at school, she brought it home and I used it for a commuter for a couple of years. I sold it with 150,000 miles for $500. In those 100,000 miles I only replaced the tires and brakes and vacuum modulator on the transmission. I seem to recall it got reasonable gas mileage, low 20’s or so. That would work out to be $.01 depreciation per mile and minimal maintenance.
The car did exactly what it was designed to do, provide good reliable transportation. I had two X bodies (Citation and Phoenix) before the Fairmont and they were reliability nightmares, I was always fixing something on them. Maybe that’s why I have good feelings for the Fairmont. I also had a Volvo 145, I would compare the Fairmont pretty favorably to the Volvo, not flashy but got the job done.
I came thisclose to bringing home a brand new Fairmont V8 wagon. For some reason, which escapes me now, I wound up with a 78 Pontiac Bonneville sedan with the (completely gutless) 301.
I would have picked the Bonneville over any Fairmont even with the 302 so it must have been nicer overall.
100millionth
and again
When they were introduced as 1983 models, I thought the Dodge 600 (and Chrysler E-Class) carried on the ‘spirit’ of the original Fairmont/Zephyr. Promoted as a European flavoured sport sedan, but ultimately remembered as boxy and bland.
Ironic as it seems, the more fluid styling of the Maverick (as well as many 70s exterior designs in general) seems to have aged far better than the Fairmont/Zephyr. Like the K-Cars, the boxy design seems especially harsh (and a dated product of that era) as aerodynamics became so important in exterior design.
And in 1978 I bought a new ’78 Buick Turbo Regal Sport Coupe. I coulda had a roomier car with a V8!
Seriously… that Buick was the worst car I’ve ever owned.
GN, thanks for sharing these great old articles all the time. As someone who spent a lot of time around these Fox body fords, it was great to re-read these old articles. In hindsight, C/D was a little over zealous about the new 1980 GM X-cars, and perhaps they were for these cars as well. There is no doubt that the Fox platform was a huge step forward for Ford, and the space efficiency and design aspects of this cars are light years ahead of something like the Granada released just a few years prior. However, from my experience with these early Fox Fords, I can say they were far from perfectly executed. It was great that Ford was able to finally make a small car that used an entirely new platform, but these cars will never be “great” in my books. I can look beyond the anemic drivetrains, and the boring styling (I thought my dad’s old ’79 Fairmont wagon was rather handsome). The problem was it still stuck with 1970’s Ford build quality, and driveability and reliability of the drivetrains were far from the top of the heap. While no doubt some of these cars were decent and reliable machines, many were riddled with driveability issues, and serious quality control problems.
I think the Fairmont was a significant and very important car in Ford’s history. That said, its significance was the dawning of a new age for Ford and the introduction of the largely successful Fox platform. I just don’t think the original version of the fox as a Fairmont was that spectacular. It took time for Ford to evolve the Fox cars into a more refined and better all-round machine. This was much like the original 1979 Panther platform. While it was a vast improvement over the previous generation, it wasn’t really a home run. Ford continually tweaked and improved that platform, eventually really coming into its own with the 1992 redesign. Alternatively, look at the Fox Thunderbirds? The 1980-82 cars share the same platform as the 1983 cars. It was the entire package on the ‘83s that made them much better cars.
On a personal note, I have mentioned several times before that we had a ’79 Fairmont wagon as a family car. It was hands down the worst car anyone in my family has ever owned. That Fairmont was replaced by a GM b-body wagon that was better than the Fairmont in every metric, other than parking. My Aunt and Uncle who had their 1980 Zephyr wagon at the same time, and it proved to be a relatively reliable car. That said, it was a car that really inspired no passion whatsoever, and it certainly isn’t a car that incites any interesting memories amongst the family. It was truly an appliance car.
I would never have considered one of these with anything other than a 302. When it was dropped after ’79 my interest waned.
It would be fun to find a clean one with the V8 and handling package and drop in a good old 5 quart HO, and some suspension mods. What a sleeper!
We had 4 cylinder 4 speed Fairmonts as pools cars. We had two to three packed in the car with luggage with no issues. Same creme color as per the above photo. Also, it had the best A/C considering the heat and humidity in Louisiana. Ice COLD all the time!!
Compared to the ’74 Comet my Dad drove, the Fairmont was a substantial step up the ladder.
As alluded to above, Ford played the Lido card and got multiple permutations off the FOX platform. It sure got its money’s worth from the frame.
I had a 1979 dark blue sedan with 200 six/auto and a punishingly uncomfortable bench seat. It single handedly soured my experience of Ford for many years and other than decent steering and handling was a pile when it reached 60K miles. Everything from the stupid horn placement to a failed rear end to an engine that leaked constantly to fragile wafer thin door glass to horrendous amounts of road noise on the highway and a dash that vibrated and rattled comically bad at 55 the Fairmont was a constant reminder that better cars did exist. An underhood fire from a leaky and mostly failed power steering pump was the last straw and the guy who bought it from me for a modest 100 bucks soon crashed it thereafter.
So a few thoughts, as a GenXer I had a few friends whose parents had these and I rode in them as a child:
(1) growing up in a middle class suburb outside of Atlanta in the 1980s, my friends’ parents usually had one car from the 1970s (typically a land yacht Chevy, Ford or Pontiac that had been bought new and which was presumably paid off) then one new car from the 1980s (usually a compact or midsized Japanese or American sedan that was used as a commuter car)
(2) when riding in the fairmonts, I remember the interior seeming very spartan — in hindsight it was more like a car from the 60s than a car from the 70s or 80s .
(3) the big deal about FWD in the 80s was that it provided more interior space, making the transition from a full sized car (Chevy Caprice) to a mid sized car (Chevy Celebrity) more feasible – three kids could sit comfortably across the back seat
(4) there is a huge difference between 100 hp, 130hp and 150 hp. When the GM A-bodies came out in the early 80s, performance from compact and midsized cars went from underpowered and dangerous to adequate and safe. Fuel injection and the rise of computers helped as well — most of the cars from the 1970s were still products of mechanical engineering
(5) All the tennis shots in the 70s and 80s were not only intended to attract a youth market (ie baby boomers at this time) — but tennis was also a sign of wealth (it was a more sophisticated sport, think country club. High end neighborhoods during the time were beginning to have swim-tennis. As did nicer apartment complexes. It was all about emulation and aspiration)
(6) The sharp drop off in sales after the first year or two was also due to massive recalls of these cars. The same can be said for the Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare, GM X cars (which GM had at the time boasted would ‘blow the Japanese cars back into the ocean’), and Ford Granada/Mercury Monarchs — all of which were rushed out to meet more stringent EPA air pollution and CAFE fuel economy standards (which were painful at the time but worth it in the long term, as it did reduce pollution substantially and force automakers to innovate)
(7) The Volvo comparison was also one of emulation and not really a fair one. Sure, a Volvo 242/244 would last 2-3X longer as a Fairmont but also cost nearly twice as much. Maintenance, parts and repairs were also substantially more expensive on a European or Japanese make — the Ford, Chrysler or GM equivalent was designed not just for the die hard American car buyer but also as something your average American could afford. A base Volvo was the same price as a well equipped Oldsmobile Delta 88. A utilitarian Mercedes 240D was as much as a Lincoln or Cadillac.
(8) A lot of American buyers at the time really were not ready for the European version of an American car. All three of the big American makes sold captive imports during the 1970s — most notably Ford from its Ford Europe division, GM through a partnership with Isuzu and Chrysler with a partnership with Mitsubishi— and they never really quite caught on. When you look at the American made compacts from the mid 70s well into the 1980s, they were really just smaller versions of the full sized, plush American cars. Think of the X-car Olds Omega or Buick Skylark — they had vinyl tops, pillowy velvet interiors, and a 2.5 liter 4 which was 1/2 of the 5.0 you’d get in a Delta 88 or LeSabre.
(9) Another consideration as well- Baby Boomers were the youngest generation of buyers, and these were people who had grown up in the 1950s. You had older generations of buyers who had previously owned American cars from the 50s, 60s and 70s. The VW Beetle, and sense of social consciousness and rebellion, had sparked different priorities and tastes but that was really more towards that younger generation (which, ultimately, ended up preferring SUVs 20 years later). Of course, it can also be argued that the Fairmont appealed to the greatest generation in the same thrifty sense as the Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant and the Ford Falcon. And, in hindsight, that’s who I remember driving Fairmonts — young families, teachers, older people, working class folks — and they were also common hand-me-downs as first cars to GenXers in high school.
(10) Ultimately, in hindsight I also have much more of an appreciation for these cars — with their RWD and 1960s greenhouse and vent windows. Again, as a kid in the 1980s, they did seem a lot more spartan than the other “old” cars I was used to riding in from the 1970s that had big heavy doors and even with vinyl felt much more plush
(11) Apologies for all the Ford-to-GM analogies, we were a GM family.
(12) In conclusion, I can see how automotive journalists of the time — not yet knowing of the recalls that were to come, that the future of automotive engineering would be impacted by computers, front wheel drive and lowered gas prices — lauded the Fairmont as an American Volvo 240. But, in hindsight, it was just really a late 1970s revival of the Ford Falcon — and there’s nothing wrong with that ….
As I had mentioned yesterday, these cars were quite revolutionary. Yeah – they looked like Kleenex boxes on wheels, but considering what came before them, and what was sold alongside them in the Ford/Mercury showrooms, these were radical cars – an 180 degree turn from 1977.
I guess I can see how boring the cars were, as I drove around in one for a year, a Fairmont Futura, my first new work car in my first real job. My cohorts considered it a bore, but it wasn’t. It had the 302 V8 engine and rear wheel drive was always the norm at the time. FWD was still something new and untried by most of us in 1978.
Best of all was how these Fox bodies were versatile. By 1985, Ford was producing over a dozen different cars on this Fox body through all three Ford divisions. You like that smaller Continental? Fox body. You like that Aero T-Bird? Fox body. You love those Mustangs and Capris? Fox bodies. Coupes, sporty hatchbacks, wagons, sedans – Foxes came in every style by 1985. Ford got their money’s worth out of the Fox body that first appeared as the Fairmont. Even as the Fairmont lost sales, what made them Fairmonts was selling by a million a year in other forms. Not a bad thing.
Sure, there were permeations of the Fox body that wasn’t so great. Those early turbos weren’t ready for prime time. Those tiny four cylinder versions – yuk.
So I always give two looks at any Fox bodied Ford product. I had three, the Futura sedan, the Mercury Cougar sedan, and the Mustang 5.0 hatchback. I liked them all better than the cars I had between each; a Citation, a Cavalier, a J2000 Sunbird, a Subaru wagon, a Toyota pick up, and a Camaro. So 45 years after they first appeared, I’m still open to another Fox body car. They were solid, easily modified set of cheap wheels.
I’ve read that Hal Sperlich originally proposed that the Fox platform be FWD, with a SWB version to replace Pinto and Cortina and a LWB version to replace Maverick/Comet, but Iacocca and HF II rejected switching to FWD at the time.
This is the 70’s Taurus, a very impressive effort from Ford that seems forgotten now.
My driver’s ed car was a 1979 Zephyr, with 200 six and automatic. Making all of 88 horsepower, it wasn’t going anywhere fast. In contrast, Dad’s 1979 Impala 350 seemed like a rocket ship. In fact, the Impala was a better car in every way. What really got me about the Zephyr was how poor quality the materials were, not that the Impala was much better. At least the Impala felt substantial, which Mercury most certainly did not.
If the first year projection of the Fairmont was 687,000 cars, it was a large miss at 461,000.
I would have thought that a 140 CID engine in one of these would have been seen as underpowered at the time. Perhaps a 6 cylinder would have attracted more sales. A 302 V8 just made no sense at all if they were pushing these as a functional economy car.
Seems as though it was a car trying to be too many things to too many people.
However these did outsell the Aspare/Volpens, so there’s that. By 1978 people had figured out the quality issues on those.
As I remember it Car and Driver later rescinded most of their recommendation, saying Ford changed the dynamics of the car the next year ie softened it up, losing most of their European handling.
A friend in high school bought a 78 Fairmont from Hertz. It was decently equipped with the six, automatic, ac and a stereo. The funny thing about the car that he showed me was that in the very basic models the center hub of the steering wheel was a painted emblem but you could upgrade and get the center piece with a colorful emblem behind clear plastic! While his dad was finishing the paperwork, he traded his cheap center piece with the better one he found in another car!! I’ll never understand why everything was an option back then, but I guess it worked.
The Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr may have replaced the Ford Maverick and Mercury Comet duo after 1977, but in Mexico and Brazil the same Ford Maverick based from the 1970-72 front and rear ends still continued through at least 1979.
I knew Volvo, Volvo was a friend of mine (owned 5), and these were no Volvo.
The ones owned by acquaintances seemed cheap and flimsy in comparison.
And they didn’t ‘t have Volvo safety or durability either. Nice try but no ceegar.
Teenage me would try calling BS if told these things and the ’94 Mustang shared any DNA lol.