So many pristine originals or restored classics were the lust objects of their day–the most expensive, the fastest, or the most wildly styled. Such cars make our collective minds go all mushy when we see them; thankfully, an abundance of them have been restored. So it’s always great when someone lavishes such love on an everyday sedan like this Ford Fairmont, as spotted on the Curbside Classic Cohort over on Flickr and photographed by Foden Alpha.
Ford didn’t mess much with the Fairmont’s styling or trim over its 1978-83 run. However, it seems Ford did delete the hood ornament after 1980, so I’m semi-arbitrarily dating this car to that year.
We’ve dealt with the Fairmont a time or two before here at Curbside Classic. Once, we called it an honest car and the savior of the Ford Motor Company (CC here). Indeed, we all know the good things the Fairmont’s Fox platform spawned, most notably many, many years of Mustangs. From such dowdy beginnings came some great automobiles. Let’s face it, the Fairmont was never going to win any styling contests. Even the basket-handle Fairmont Futura (CC here) improved the looks only so much.
This Fairmont lives in British Columbia. It wears collector plates, which means somebody really, really cares about this car. I’m all for it: We need one of every workaday sedan saved for posterity. But now we have our one somnolently styled Fairmont; and that will do.
I like the mustang 5.0 wheels on this and is it just me, or is the styling of the Fairmont getting BETTER with age?
I hated these when I was a kid. I guess the box-on-wheels look must have struck me as bland, but then again I had a poster of a red Lambo Countach on my bedroom wall, so even BMWs would have seemed bland by comparison. Interestingly, I have also grown to like the simplicity of the Fairmont’s design. Maybe it’s because I’m getting so tired of the swoopy plastic look of today’s cars. Or maybe it’s just 80’s nostalgia…
Honest styling is just refreshing. Even today’s economy sedans are overwrought to the point of being fussy. Maybe I’d LIKE to see the raw structure of something. Maybe bumper, fender, grille, roof, mirror don’t HAVE to be blended together and can remain separate! When every part on a car is merged into a cohesive whole…it just becomes a blob.
I’m with you. I’d love to drive something like this. The things that used to blend in with the background now stick out like a sore thumb…
I’d love to have a Fairmont Futura with the auto and 200 inch Six. Just add working A/C and cruise and I’d be a happy camper!
I had an 1982 Mercury Zephyr Z7 (Mercury’s version of the Futura), “tricked out” with the automatic and 200ci six you mention. I did love the styling of that car, but GOD was it slow! Underpowered is an understatement.
Having said that, it was a great car for my needs. I taught my wife to drive in that car. I’ve decided that the Z7 and the Futura were the last great looking Fords. For me, there’s just something about the lines the works. And that “something” just doesn’t carry over to the sedans. The sedans are just boring.
A buddy of mine had a 4-cyl, 4-speed ’78 Zephyr coupe and it was awful. Terrible acceleration, massively vague steering, the thing just felt wobbly on the road. That car is a large part of what makes me not particularly fond of the Fairmont and its Zephyr twin.
Was it old by then? My father bought the exact same thing (4 cyl; 4 spd), and I didn’t think it was all that bad. Sure, it wasn’t exactly fast, but what was in 1978? Its performance was similar to a Volvo of the time. As was its handling; the rack and pinion steering (un-assisted) was also about on par with a Volvo, if not better. And the light and bare-bones Fox-chassis certainly handled well enough.
While hardly inspiring or exciting, I found it rather refreshing that one of the Big Three could build a Volvo, and with more room inside to boot. I preferred it to driving the typical wallowing underpowered Broughams of the time. It was actually quite tossable in the twisties.
This was in 1985, so it had some years on it but wasn’t truly old yet. But the thought of tossing my buddy’s Zephyr on a winding road — man, there’s no way I would want to do that. It was as though you turned the wheel, and after a half sec the car said, “Oh! You wanted me to turn!” and then it did, and sometimes a little more than you meant, so you sawed the wheel back a little bit in the other direction…gaaah!
I don’t have experience driving ’70s full-sized cars from the big three; I learned to drive in my dad’s Renault Alliance and have owned modern compact and mid-sized cars since, so that’s my frame of reference.
Oh. One more thing. I drove one of the Fairmont-based LTD wagons several times when I drove for a courier service. It handled fine, and I think it had a six so it had passable power. Maybe my buddy’s Zephyr needed work?
The Fairmont-based LTD came with the new for 1983 Essex V6, which I believe put out something like 110-120 hp. That might not sound like much, but I think the old 200 straight 6 in the Fairmont was rated at 88 hp or so.
My grandparents had a 78 Fairmont…two tone maroon and orange…4 cylinder, automatic…horrible car. The car would lose speed climbing the Grand Island Bridge, north of Buffalo…downshift to second but not gain speed, just get noisier. Transmission died with 60,000 miles
Is the 4 banger where Ford Australia got the idea of a 4 cylinder Falcon the idea failed it was a fuel economy thought but the 4 used way more gas than a 4.1 6. Quite different for me these alternative universe Fords
My older brother had a 1978 Zephyr ESS (the sport package), with the base 2.3L 4 banger and four speed man trans. The car had all of the acceleration of a wiffle ball. There was something wrong with the car’s emissions controls (my guess), but he was never able to sort it out while under factory warranty. My speculation is that the local dealer just didn’t care and never really tried to figure out why the car ran so poorly. My brother just accepted it, and kept on driving the car, but a lot of people did in the mid-late 70’s.
He kept it until 1984 or 85, when he got an AMC Eagle Sedan. While that thing was no rocket ship, it was leagues faster than the ESS. Other than the powertrain, the Zephyr was a neat car. I’ve only ever seen one or two others like it (that I could positively identify as an ESS model) in the intervening 35 years.
Not bad looking for a very basic 3 box design. The colors suit it too. It looks so clean that its like you stepped into a rip in the space time continum and suddenly its 1981.
Isn’t the finest Fairmont anywhere a bit like saying the finest McDonalds hamburger, anywhere?
Perhaps, but then again, sometimes McDonalds hits the spot. The Fairmont filled a need for basic no frills transportation – American made – during that era at a specific price point. If you want a Carl’s Jr. or a Steak N Shake steak burger, you pay more.
Well there you go. Give me McDonalds over Red Lobster any day. These Fairmonts have always been my favorite Fox Body. I think some Mustang GT drivetrain would be so nice in one of these, preferably the 2-door sedan (not the basket-handle coupe).
This is a very nice green though & I’d take this sedan over a brown or beige coupe or any flavor Malibu car of this era for that matter. Very cool car.
People tend to compare the Fairmont to the downsized GM intermediates, as they debuted at the same time in the fall of 1977. But they were not initially direct competitors.
The Fairmont originally competed with the rear-wheel-drive GM X-bodies, which, of course were phased out in favor of the new, front-wheel-drive versions within about 18 months of the Fairmont’s debut.
The GM X-cars made the Fairmont obsolete…until reports of serious quality and reliability problems made many people wish they had bought the “obsolete” Fairmont.
GM’s downsized intermediates appeared at the same time as the Fairmont, and were about the same size, but were priced higher. The Fairmont’s rear windows still rolled down, unlike those of the GM intermediates, but the GM cars could be equipped with more luxurious interiors (particularly the Oldsmobile and Buick versions), and weren’t available with a four-cylinder engine.
The Fox-platform cars that competed directly with the GM intermediates were the 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7, which were aimed at the personal luxury coupe market, and the 1981 Granada and Cougar, which were aimed at the intermediate sedan market.
“the GM cars … weren’t available with a four-cylinder engine.”
Despite being available with many engines that were barely more powerful than a four cylinder 😉
These were before my time and I always automatically assumed they were Ford’s equivalent of the A/G-body cars… interesting. Later on when the Fox-based LTD/Marquis came out were they still more-or-less competing with the Celebrity/Ciera/etc. or were they positioned against the RWD cars at that point?
GM and Ford were downsizing their line-ups at a different pace in the 1970s and 1980s, so their offerings didn’t line up against each other as neatly as they had done in the 1960s and early 1970s.
I always got the impression that the Fox-based LTD and Marquis were “stopgap measures” that were designed to compete with both GM’s front-wheel-drive A-Bodies (Century/Celebrity/Cutlass Ciera/A6000) and GM’s rear-wheel-drive intermediates until the Taurus and Sable were ready in early 1986. Note that those cars were discontinued once the Taurus and Sable debuted.
At that time, it was common knowledge that GM’s rear-wheel-drive intermediates were going to go away. The question was exactly when, as the GM-10 intermediates were delayed by a variety of factors. The GM-10 cars were supposed to replace both the rear-wheel-drive intermediates and the front-wheel-drive A-bodies.
At any rate, GM kept the old Cutlass Ciera and Century around for many more years because they sold well, although they hurt the brand images of Oldsmobile and Buick in the long run.
The Tempo and Topaz replaced the Fairmont and Zephyr, and competed with the GM X-cars and Plymouth Reliant and Dodge Aries.
I don’t mind a bit seeing the occasional mundane sedan being kept up and cared for. Not too long ago, on one of the dark, rainy afternoons that the Pacific northwest winters deliver in abundance, we met a 1960 or 1961 Falcon sedan just outside the Home Depot store. That was no garage queen.
I like the car with the Mustang wheels. One of these with a massaged 5.0 would be a lot of fun. Is this the only Fairmont still in existence that is not brown, tan or white?
There is a factory black one still tootling around in Hannibal, Missouri, where I am still trying to unload a house. I talked to the owner once and it is a 2.3 with a four-speed wrapped in four doors.
Plus, the Fairmont is special. How many cars can you think of that could be purchased with a four, six, or eight cylinder engine? The only other I can think of, and it’s a pickup, is a Dodge Dakota.
I can think of a few cars that were available with 4,6,8 cylinder engines, and two of them are closely related to the Fairmont: the 79-86 Mustang, the 83-88 Thunderbird, both fox-body cars. Also, the 75-78 Mustang II and the 78-79 Chevy Monza ( and maybe some other H-body cars ) were available with all three engine types.
Mercedes E and C Class. BMW 3 Series. Audi A4. Pontiac Phoenix. VW Passat. Hmmm….This is a good trivia question….
A good trivia question indeed. Just thought of two more — the 82-85 Camaro and Firebird.
MGB/C GT – even though the six cylinder was technically a different model (MGC) it was just as similar to the four cylinder B as the MGB GT V8 was.
The C4 Audi 100 had 4/5/6 cylinder engines, as did the A4 VW Jetta for some years, although I don’t believe it did in the US.
Quite a few AMC’s were available 4/6/8 – Gremlin, Pacer, Hornet/Spirit, Jeep CJ-5/7/8. IH Scout’s for many years too.
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head… but this is also something that I’ve sat around and contemplated in the past!
I don’t believe the Pacer and Hornet ever offered 4 cylinder engines, and the Gremlin, IIRC, never offered all three engines in the same model year — the V8 was discontinued in 76, and the I4 became available in 77. The AMC Spirit did offer 4,6,8 cylinder engines in the 79 model year.
I thought the Pacer had the VW/Audi four at one point too, but I guess that was just the Gremlin.
’64-’70 Chevy II-Nova
The Pacer never had a four-cylinder engine option. Which is a good thing, as the car could barely get out of its own way with the AMC sixes.
The Hornet never offered a four-cylinder engine. I believe that the Concord offered a four-cylinder engine, but it was the engine sourced from GM, not from VW/Audi.
I know the Concord/Spirit/Eagle had the Iron Duke (did they ever get the AMC four?) but earlier than that AMC was putting a VW 2.0l in the Gremlin. I know for sure that this same engine made it’s way into the Jeep DJ (USPS trucks) at one point… so I just figured they threw them in everything for awhile, like AMC did with most engines they had access to.
Speaking of VW, I’ve got another one…
The B5 Passat was available with 4, 5, 6 and 8 cylinder engines. No idea if they were ever all available at the same time or on the same continent even (probably not), but that’s gotta be some kinda record. Plus there were inline, V and W-style engines amongst them – diesel and gas, turbo or naturally aspirated too.
roger628 – good one on the Chevy II. That four was still kicking around in 1970? Wow, wonder if any of them are still being powered by that today.
The Mustang wasn’t available with 4cyl & V6 at the same time was it?
The Holden Torana was available from 1974-78 with a 1.9L 4cyl, two inline 6cyl’s and two V8’s, the largest being 5 litre (308ci).
The Fox-body Mustangs had lots of different engine options early on. Four, Turbo Four, Straight Six, V6, V8 – same thing for all the Fox cars, really.
The color scheme is what made me select this car — it’s just unusual enough. And I don’t remember seeing many of these with a vinyl roof.
A family friend had the Mercury version, a two-door sedan with 200 six and automatic. It was a 1979 model and it struck me as a good, basic car. However, I did think it a slug and that the power steering was lifeless. Still, an honest design and a whole lot better than what replaced it!
These were good cars. I really liked the the Fairmont styling then, as I still do now. Fairmont/Zephyr was a essentially a continuation of 20+ years of proven engineering. My grandfather (Pop) was stuck on Ford sixes. His last car was a ’79 Fairmont Futura, preceded by a ’75 Granada 2dr, preceded by a ’71 Maverick 4dr, preceded by a ’64 Falcon 4dr; before that is before my time, but I’m sure they were 6 cylinder Fords, too. For the sake of full disclosure, he did have a ’72 Datsun pick-up (he regretted it) for a very short time after the Maverick. And my Dad did have a ’71 Comet 4dr, and a ’61 Comet 2dr. Ford compact sixes weren’t bullet-proof, but they were a good value.
It’s a later version of Grasshopper Green…I like the off white Top, Very Classy. I Like the Honesty of the Fairmount Sedan. it is just the basics.
I’d look to see if it has Power Windows, thats one of the first things I look for inside on somewhat fancy looking base models.
By this time, FoMoCo had glammed the Fairmont up with options and accessories it lacked when it was introduced in 77-78. When it was first introduced, power windows, locks and seats were not available. The public did speak out about this, as did a couple of car magazine writers, and Ford righted this wrong. At first it did look rather sparse when next to rival cars from Mopar and GM, Ford overdid the then “euro-look” styling and packaging thing.
Actually, I have driven the early models cars from ’78 and compared to the later ones, like a year later, the early cars handled and rode much better. From what I understand there was quite a bit of backlash from people coming from Land Yachts that the Fairmont was indeed “too European” and lacked the Magic Carpet Ride.
I liked the “European Sport” or whatever it was called (equivalent of ESS on the Pinto) package on the Fairmont/Zephyr with the blacked out grilles and trim, but I have heard that many people hated it and were confused by the lack of fake chrome accents.
The Granada also had ESS versions, but they wisely left lots of chrome accents and plush leather and corduroy bucket seats, at least as an option.
I think my grandfather’s Fairmont was a ’78 because it had the singular headlights. Nice car. He pampered it. Too bad I didn’t snag it before it was sold off a few years ago.
Ok, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but as I researched to write this I found Fairmonts with singles and duals in the early years. Duals signified some sort of uplevel trim.
My understanding is that the duals were used on the Futura models.
I remember these being pretty fine cars. My father-in-law bought a used Hertz 1978 model and it served him very well. It ran great, was comfortable and apparently very economical.
Ironically, he kept it until he got a good look at our 1981 stripper Reliant and he was impressed enough to trade the Ford in on a new not-so-stripped Reliant!
He owned three K-Cars, a loaded 1991 Acclaim then went back to Ford for a 1994 Taurus and Fords until he had to give up his keys…
Yes, I liked the Fairmont a great deal, though I couldn’t afford one.
I like it. Good, honest design. There is a rather plain brown one very similar to the one Paul featured a while back that makes an appearance around here every so often. It’s surprising, because these cars a few and far between up here in the North country…
If there a vote for the CC COTY of 1978, it would be a hard choice to chose between the Fairmont/Zephyr, Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon and the downsized GM intermediates.
Back in the day we had a 78 Fairmont wagon with a 302 V8 and an automatic. It was a basic grocery getter, kid hauler sorta thing. More of an appliance than a car really. reliable, reasonably economical for what it was. I did have occasional flashes of inspiration of tweaking the engine and suspension Mustang style. Still not a bad idea. Be one heckava sleeper.
I almost bit on one of these. A wagon with a six and I needed a commuter car but it had missing smog pieces and still was smog inspection mandatory. The one I think I liked the best was when Car Craft used to do the competition for the best all around street car. It had a 5.0 and loads of mustang parts. What I can’t forget was that it got about 30mpg and kicked butt at the strip. They should still do stuff like that and quit worrying about crate engines.
IMO the Fairmont marked the dawn of something of a golden age for Ford, which lasted up until either the 2g Taurus or SN95 Mustang depending on which way you look at it. I’ve always loved the absolutely beautiful minimalism and simplicity of these cars and one of my oldest and biggest project car wishes has been an early Fairmont 2-door sedan with the turbo/intercooled 2.3 under the hood. Eff a 5.0, anybody can do that – everyone has done it. Ford even did it themselves with the LTD LX which was, admittedly, totally sweet. Granted, Ford did the turbo four in these cars too (check picture below) but it was a total bummer.
My dad had a Fairmont when I was very young, but I was so young that I really don’t remember it at all. Maybe it subconsciously had some kind of effect on me. I think Paul’s Volvo comparison is very accurate… maybe when I win the lotto and build my Fairmont I’ll get some 242GT badges for it. Of course, Americans were never gonna look at this car that way – but it was still a success even as a baby brougham.
As someone with experience with the 2.3L carbed turbo fours, I would run, RUN the hell away from one. Ford cheaped out with the carbs, the head gaskets and a couple of other things I no longer remember any more.
I was in love with the 1979 Mercury Capri RS Turbo I owned, but that POS implementation of a turbo motor ruined it for me. (I later bought another Capri or two, but V8 only!)
Now, the fuel injected motor that was a whole different beast. That motor would be worth having in an old turbo Futura. But I think if I weren’t going for style points, I would channel the ghosts of hot rodders past and stuff the spiritual successor of the 283 Chevy into the spiritual successor of the 32-40 Fords and put an LS series motor into my Fox body.
LS in everything has been done to death too, although it would still be great to own one (in anything). I can appreciate the carbed turbos for how ridiculous and overcomplicated they were and I’d love to have one to play around with – but that’s strictly another lottery winning daydream for me. I would never, ever want to rely on one to actually get me places.
The 302 is the only way to fly in these. Offered in 1978-79 only, replaced for one year by the 255 POS , then no V8s at all.
You could get a 4-speed behind the 302 in those years too, 4th was an overdrive gear. If I was buying an American car in 1978 that would have been it. Only something like 140HP but that was actually decent for the time considering what they weighed.
When the Fairmont morphed into the LTD it regained the 302, on certain models at least.
Only the LX model for retail, although there was a V8 police package too.
I think the Fox-body Granada/Cougar had that dreaded 4.2l V8 during their brief run, too.
The 255 that Roger mentioned is the same as the 4.2, just cubic inches versus metric measurements. I have yet to see any V8/4-speed Fairmonts, although I’ve actually come across a surprising number of V8/4-speed Granadas. Not to say there’s a lot of them, but I’ve seen at least 2 or 3 for sale.
I had an ’84 LTD LX that was my daily driver for a number of years. It had the HO 5.0 engine in it and was basically a 4dr Mustang GT. I did put the turbine wheels and some 60 series tires on it, that changed the handling a great deal. I miss the car at times it was a real Q Ship.
My son’s friend’s younger brother had a Fairmont that came from his Dad’s aunt. When he got it he immediately put chrome Mustang Cobra replica wheels on. (Of course they and the wider tires rubbed at full lock without the stops in the rack like they used on the early Mustang GT) I’d always meant to get some shots of it as it was a 60K mile cream puff with just one little ding. Apparently he recently sold it though.
That sounds an awful lot like this particular Fairmont. Came from an aunt, chrome Cobra replica wheels, low mileage…
http://seattle.craigslist.org/skc/cto/3563550960.html
Well, I’m a Ford guy but I have to say this was one of the poorer, cheaper Ford models I have driven. We had these as military police vehicles in the Air Force and everyone hated them – cheap, no power, lots of pieces falling off, etc. In 1978 I entered the Air Force and met two friends; one had a new Futura and one had a new Olds Cutlass – the Cutlass was so much nicer; better built, quieter, and faster.
That being said, kudos to the owner for keeping this one so nice…..
A buddy of mine had a blue Futura coupe in the early ’80’s. He was pretty happy with it until he wrote it off in an accident. After that he got himself an old F-150. Most Fairmonts and Zephyrs I saw back in the day were blue or brown, but a math teacher at our high school had a red Fairmont coupe. It certainly brightened up what was otherwise kind of a bland car.
Back in 1979 during my Treasury Department days we got a few of these in our fleet. What sleepers! 5.0 litre V-8’s with the police package, which included factory Michelin X blackwalls. Quite quick and the power rack and pinion steering was taut, with great road feel. Made the car quite tossable and fun to drive. Could easily outrun the 1976-78 LTD 460-CID boats that made up the bulk of the fleet (don’t ask me how I know). Plenty of visiibility too out of those large windows, unlike the gun slits of today.
Certainly underappreciated during its run, but God had other plans for that Fox platform.
I learned how t drive in my parent’s 78 or 79 (can’t remember) Fairmont – red vinyl top over silver – a pretty ugly combo I thought. 200 cu. in 6 – automatic.
The summer before I got my license my mother would let me drive it to work with her in the passenger seat. We lived at the top of a “Mountain” as we called it and I had to drive down the mountain to get to work. On the trip down I would always drop the trans into a lower gear to slow the car down. Once when shifting back into drive I over shot it and went right into reverse.
Well – the engine immediately died and I thought I would too. As the car was coasting I started it right back up and there was no apparent damage!
Phew!
My grandma bought a 1981 Fairmont 4-door brand new. I always liked the color combo and don’t recall seeing another like it. It was a 2-tone, black on top and silver lower half, separated by a red pinstripe. The interior was red.
My dad bought it from her in 1986. He hated that car. It was reliable and fuel-efficient, but he thought everything about it seemed cheap or lightweight. I think he only owned it for a couple years before selling it to another relative.
It is all about what you are used to. I too thought the Fairmont was cheap and flimsy when it came out in 1978 (and when my father had a Lincoln Town Coupe). At that time, I preferred the Granada. (Yeah, I know.) Years later, after driving an 83 Mitsu/Plymouth Colt, I bought an 86 Fox Marquis wagon. It felt like one of the most solid and substantial cars (for its size) I had ever owned.
While I agree that Fairmont paint & interior looked cheap & flimsy, it is not necessarily a dealbreaker to someone only interested in basic transportation. Better a cracked dash than a cracked block. Plus, there may have been some marketing logic: if Ford upped its game & trimmed the Fairmont more like a Volvo than a Maverick, not only would it have cost more, they may have (in their estimation) drawn too many buyers away from their more profitable baroque models, which is not good business. Good cheap cars are more problematic for their manufacturers than their owners.
And it may have saved a little weight, for all I know.
I really do enjoy seeing those “good, old, cheap cars” restored to their original condition. Problem is that it’s not done yo enough of them.