(first posted 8/23/2015) Some regard the 1978-83 Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr as dull and boring, but to me I see these Fox sedans and wagons as being one of the cleanest and neatest designs of their time. Our Editor-in-Chief has described the Fairmont/Zephyr as being “that very rare honest car“, and this absolutely applies to the styling as well. Strip away the bright mouldings and the vinyl roof – the latter of which fortunately has been omitted from this example – and you have a simple, three-box shape with minimalist detailing. No it doesn’t look particularly racy or athletic, but it is neat. Of course, these are just my two cents.
The more gingerbread that was added, the more the purity of the design was diluted. The early Fairmont front was perfect, while the quad light set up of Fairmont Futuras and Zephyrs is a bit too blocky. I feel a similar thing happened with the full-size Caddy of the time: 1977-79 models had crisp front detailing, but 1980+ models weren’t as elegant.
If I have one complaint about this design, it’s that the wheels are a little too inset, as though the body is too big for the track. And the Fairmont Futura and Zephyr Z-7 coupes are considerably less clean and a bit oddly proportioned compared to the two-door sedan.
Other than the Fairmont/Zephyr and the Mustang, though, early 1980s Ford design sure could have used some magic. The first Panther LTD/Crown Victoria is something that has been critiqued here before, and I don’t regard it as a thing of beauty, either. Mercury’s adaptation had better detailing but of course the proportions remained the same.
The ’81 Granada/Cougar was more harmonious than the ’79 Panthers, and was almost as clean a design as the Fairmont, but suffered from delusions of Town Car grandeur with its semi-bladed front fenders and tall grille.
As for the ’83 LTD/Marquis, I think it’s a wonderful design but I feel as though the design might look better on a slightly larger chassis, particularly with a longer wheelbase and wider track.
I think the Fairmont was one of those rare, clean designs, devoid of stylistic flourishes like unnecessary feature lines or over-the-top coke bottle contours or any other faddish design element. What are your thoughts? Do you love it or hate it? Did you think the ’81 Granada and ’83 LTD were an improvement?
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1981 Mercury Cougar – The Only Two-Door Sedan Cougar
Curbside Capsule: 1983-86 Mercury Marquis – The Zephyr Goes Aero
I am a fan of the design, but the execution was iffy sometimes…88hp auto combination was awful. Ford’s equivalent of a slant six would have probably been OK…if there is such a thing.
Speaking of slant-six, a ’70-’71 Valiant sedan is my interpretation of the best example of a three-box design with minimalist detailing. The Fairmont/Zephyr gets taken out of the running thanks to the too-busy, thin C-pillar design where they just had to squeeze in an extra, sliver DLO window, and the gargantuan taillights, which were so de rigeuer at the time. Not to mention that those big-ass taillights resulted in a greater liftover height to get into the trunk. The Valiant sedan didn’t have that problem since the taillights were much smaller and in a much more practical location along the sides, meaning a lower liftover height just over the low rear bumper.
I agree 100%. Much cleaner looking like this.
That changes the look of the car much more that I expected, gene. Not bad at all. Just needs slimmer taillights.
The whitewalls don’t work with those alloy wheels. I do like those wheels on the early Fox body Mustangs however.
in 1978 whitewalls were still in vogue in the late 1970’s and a ‘luxury’ extra on most new cars. Keeping them ‘white’ was prestigious display of wealth or at least ‘class’ as they yellowed or grayed out with age.
The Falcon inline-six was offered. I don’t know what the horsepower rating was, but I know that’s why my grandmothers’ Fairmont had.
You do not want the 200ci six. It was a miserable power plant. These Foxes were available with the 2.8 Cologne V6 which was just about perfect.
I don’t recall the Köln ever being offered in the Fairmont, though it was in the Fox Mustang at first until supply problems displaced it in favor of, again, the blah Falcon Six. The Fox Granada introduced the larger, Canadian Essex V6, allegedly a copy of Buick’s V6.
You’re right.. The 2.8 wasn’t available. My mistake.
If only your Ford had picked up our crossflow head for the six – but then that would have embarrassed the 302.
Yeah mate o mine had an XC with 200 crossflow manual it went ok and good on fuel rusty as though.
Actually, the 2.8L V-6 was never offered on the Fairmonts or Zephyrs (or ’81-’82 Cougars or Granadas). Engine choices were the 2.3L I-4, 3.3L I-6, and 4.2L or 5.0L V-8 (depending upon the year). The German V-6 was offered on early Fox-bodied Capris and Mustangs, though. The Essex V-6 was offered on the Cougar and Granada.
My grandparents had an ’81 Zephyr wagon with the I-6. A competent grocery getter that could haul a surprising amount of stuff. It was no barn burner, though! It was, as I believe Motor Trend said at the time, a poor man’s Volvo.
And, they replaced the ’81 with an ’86 Marquis wagon. It had the V-6 and I have to say, was a great handling car for a wagon. The interior had been really upgraded (earlier T-Bird dash, etc.) and was very nice.
What are you, nuts? The Ford straight six, especially these later issues with the extra main bearings were a tank of an engine. Could not kill them and plenty of torque. This is why Ford/Mercury used them in so many models for so many years and there are many still out there on the roads. Where DO you get your information?
I’ll take the 2.3 with manual, in a wagon.
I agree, the Fairmont was the cleanest Fox sedan, and also way better than anything Ford did before in its class. Nice, big greenhouse [who needs a backup camera?]. It was also very agile compared to other Ford products, that too was exceptional. It & the Taurus showed what Ford could do when they got serious.
The LTD derivative’s wheelbase was identical, little wonder it seemed large on its “feet.” It was my late father-in-law’s last car.
I’ve always found the Ford Fairmont/Mercury Zephyr to be the best looking cars of the late 70s. I was too young to drive at the time, much less get a driver’s license, but I still liked how conservative they looked next to what the Japanese cars were offering at the time. They may have been more reliable, and better built, but they weren’t as interesting or as attractive for the most part as American cars.
I think because of the conservative styling, and more conservative Chrysler K-cars, Detroit automakers were never interested in making something like that again.
My Dad had a 79 Zephyr wagon. It was a very simple “no frills” car. No pretensions…just basic transportation. One strange thing was that the horn button was on the steering wheel stalk. It was a no nonsense rather boring conveyance but was extremely reliable always getting us where we needed to go.
I personally have always had a thing for the 83-86 LTD/Marquis. I find them very attractive, especially the V8 powered 85-86 LTD LX known by some as the “four door Mustang”
I drove an ’80 Fairmont for a month (Four w/auto) while on a project assignment. I never got used to the horn being on the stalk. Too many times I found myself banging on the steering wheel hub to no avail.
Had an ’81 Zephyr. Many’s the times I needed to honk the horn but had my turn signals flash and windshield wipers going instead.
jerseyfred, I’m currently chasing down parts to restore my Marquis LTS, the LTD LX’s extremely rare sister. Only 134 built, maybe 10 left.
I’d be very interested in reading about that one. I never knew about the LTS.
I will be starting a build thread on the Four-Eyed Pride forum (for fans of ’79-’86 Mustang, Capri, and the non Mustang/Capri Foxes) sometime soon.
Horn button on the steering wheel stalk? How very French of them.
One of Ford’s better ideas from the period. Styling wise very clean, roomy and comfortable with excellent four corner visibility. I knew someone who had a couple of them with the 200 six automatic. Good cars but they weren’t much more powerful than the 2.3 four.
Ford was hindered by its lack of a decent midrange engine at that time like the /6 or Buick V6. The Falcon Six seemed hardly changed since its original, which was mediocre to begin with; only the Aussies improved it. Our Fairmont had the 302, which was thirsty but fun even with 133hp.
So they got the Essex V6. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing though.
The original Essex 2.5 V6 was not great it arrived in the 66 UK MK4 Zephyr and was gone from our market in 67 replaced by the Zodiac/Capri 3.0L Essex, Did they get better? they must have if it was still in production in the 80s. Those alloy rims on the Fairmont are shared with UK MK4/5 Ford Cortinas.
Confusingly, there are 2 Essex V6s: British & Canadian. The Brit one you’re thinking of was a 60° in the 2.5-3L range which was never used in Dearborn Fords; the Canadian-built, a 90° 3.8, came out later in the early ’80s, for use in N. Am. cars. It was allegedly a copy of Buick’s & was the same displacement.
As far as I know, the only European pushrod V6s Dearborn ever used were German.
Ford of Europe started rationalizing around the Cologne V-6 around 1979–1980, although Ford South Africa kept using the 3-liter Essex into the ’80s; I assume they were building it locally.
I like these cars better than those Chrysler FWD K-Cars and other platform offshoots of this same boring looking cars. I have to say that the 1981-82 Granada/Cougar Wagon looks like the Fairmont/Zephyr versions. The sedans compared to the Fairmont/Zephyr sedans looked very different. The 1983-85 Fox based LTD/Marquis 4 Door Sedans do really looked identical with the Fairmont/Zephyr 4 Door Sedans and even Wagons. The Fox based LTD/Marquis (which replaced the Fox based Granada/Cougar) were replaced by the Taurus/Sable by 1986 while the Fairmont/Zephyr were replaced by the Tempo/Topaz in 1984.
The rags at the time referred to the Fairmont as an American Volvo. You can see it in the upright greenhouse and simple lines.
These were pretty invisible in their time, but they sure look good today.
The Marquis version of this platform really ticked me off. Much like the Pontiac G5 featured here today: yet another whoring out of a brand just to have something for the dealers to sell in the segment.
It’s no wonder both Pontiac and Mercury are gone.
I agree, and I’d bet a dollar that Ford at least had a look at the Volvo 244/245 when they drew up the Fairmont/Zephyr.
I agree… this is a great design. These impressed me back in the day because they seemed to be roomy enough for comfortable adult seating in the back seat. One of the few cars that did back then, at least that I would consider purchasing.
I like. These were the perfect reinterpretation of the 1960 Falcon.
Yup – I was going to make that exact same comment. Right down to the straight-6 engine!
Childhood friends had one that I worked on for them. Its PCV valve lots its guts into the valve cover, and none of the local auto repair shops could figure out why it didn’t run right! I yanked out the PCV valve (as that was a common tune-up item to clean and/or repair back then) and was very surprised to find that it didn’t rattle.
I, too, liked the early Fairmont best of the series. However, the wagon is barely mentioned here. I loved it at first sight and still do. Exactly what a station wagon should be. Simple, straightforward, easy to load and see out of, and a decent driver – far better handling than anything Ford had built in years. I had the use, for a few months of a ’79 wagon with buckets, 200 six, and a 4-speed OD. I craved that car, but, by the time I could afford to buy one, that combo was no longer offered. They were available in colors, too – inside and out. But then, they all were then.
My parents bought an ’82 Granada wagon, but it was a gilded lily with sponges for suspension. Just not the same as the ’79.
Agree; the Fairmont wagon had outstanding design, as I also say for the ’81 Escort wagon.
I wondered whether the Fox Granada reverted to Ford’s watered-down suspension; now I know. Did they regress to overboosted power steering as well?
Yes. Miserably overboosted on the Granada.
This. With the look of real wood and roof rack. Nice color too.
They are a very clean design indeed. I definitely see a Volvo resemblance in the Fairmont/Zephyr. However, the LTD offshoot always looked tippy to me. Were the overhangs really that much longer?
I’ll vote for the early cars as well. A clean design that – incredibly – you could see all 4 corners of the car. You didn’t need a back up camera, proximity warning, or even a right side mirror in one of these. At work we had a (1980?) Zephyr former rental car as a pool car, and I loved driving it. As newer cars came on line, nobody wanted to drive this simple, clean sedan so I could get it anytime I needed. Until it was replaced by a new 1989 Cavalier. Ugh. We had a couple of 1982 Fairmonts in our fleet that were purchased new, but they were not as nicely equipped as the former rental Zephyr.
The worst thing I can say about these was that insane “push the turn signal stalk” to activate the horn.
The stalk horn was Ford’s solution to anticipated mandatory airbags, premature as it turned out. I assume a conventional horn-button with airbag wasn’t feasible at the time, or too costly.
This was not the 1st time car designers were out of phase with regulators; the overbuilt Pacer was another example.
Ford used the same column switch gear all over the world on everything reguardless of market preference.
That idea predates air bags, Australian Falcons were inflicted with this ill conceived PITA in 1973. And English Fords before that.
My 83 Ranger 4×4, another killer rig like the Fairmont, uses lots of parts from the Fox parts bins, mostly in the interior. It took me 6 months to figure that goofy horn switch. I swapped it out when I added a factory intermittent wiper system.. required here in Oregon…By then the horn was back on the wheel . And I removed the horn altogether. My middle finger is just as effective…
I wish Ford and other automakers had simple straightforward designs like this today. All the new Fords are overstyled and most have below average interior space.
And you can’t see out of them like you can with the Zephyr.
Of the three, my favorite has always been the Marquis/LTD. They always seemed fresh and dynamic compared to The General’s competition: The competent but conservative A-bodies and the baroque G-body sedans.
That said, I now have a greater appreciation for the unadulterated minimalism of the original Fairmont & Zephyr’s design. They were well and truly ‘honest’ cars.
I think this was a hugely significant car … and very attractive in most non-Granada variants, though I like the wagons best, and I’m not too fond of the 2 doors. Clean styling, roomy packaging, rack and pinion steering, standard 4 cylinder engine; there was a lot here that was very innovative for 1978, and (design-wise) perhaps the pinnacle of the RWD midsize American car before the Chrysler 300 25 years later. . Although I prefer the early styling, I remember a rental LTD with V8 that had effortless power (by the standards of the time) and very good handling on upstate New York back roads. And being the progenitor of the long-lived Fox platform also warrants a page in the CC Hall of Fame for these cars.
Has anyone here ever seen a Fairmont/Zephyr with the optional vent slats where the C-pillar window would normally go? They were functional vents and cars so equipped had an inside control on the C-pillar that let air in at that location. I’ve seen these in brochures and car mags that reviewed them when they were new, but never in person.
I like the Fairmont/Zephyr and Granada/Cougar more than the pyramid-shaped LTD/Marquis. But I do like the latter car’s ’80-82 T-bird dash. My favorite of the group though is the Broughamed-out Cougar LS sedan, which used the loose-pillow seats from the top of the line T-Bird/XR7 which weren’t available on the Granada. The dash on these was mostly the same as the Zephyr’s (and Mustang’s) but substituted silver, square gauges.
The cleanness of the Zephyr was spoiled a bit by the two front fender vents that are barely visable in the top picture. I liked the clean-fendered Fairmont better.
Yes. My brother had them in his Zephyr, which I noted in my comments below. I eventually ended up owning three Mercury Capris, and was disappointed to find out that the “vents” in the back of those cars were non-functional.
Yes, I briefly owned a ’79 Fairmont four door sedan that was equipped with these functional vents behind the rear doors. It was an interesting option given the car was pretty spartan otherwise. It was powered by the 3.3L six and automatic and had an interesting two tone paint job, a light orange over a dark red/maroon bottom.
It was a short lived ride, I drove it a bit, however I was more interested in harvesting parts for the ’80 Mustang coupe I was working on at the time.
I always thought the 83 LTD was what the Fairmont should have been out of the gate, at least in styling.
I think that one thing that is pretty clear from eighties design is that the versions stretched slightly a few years later look far better. The room inside and clear sightlines were retained and a slightly higher price was achieved. Examples
Fairmont-LTD
Reliant-Caravelle
Electra- 91Park Avenue
86 Eldo-88 Eldo
Skylark-Century
86 Camry-87 Camry
I could not stand these when they were new, I just thought they were so drab. Looking back now I have changed my mind, the design is very good in a minimalist sort of way. Similar to my feelings about the box Chevy Caprice, at the time not a fan, now I look at them sort of longingly…
We had a couple of the LTD’s in our family in the mate 80’s / early 90’s, at the time I was not really cognizant of the lineage as I wasn’t thrilled with those either. Although spending a fair amount of time in both my Dad’s as well as my Brother’s I don’t think I actually ever actually drove either…
Are the doors or any other body parts actually interchangeable with the Fairmont?
AFAICT, the passenger cabin (not counting the C-pillars on sedans) is completely identical between Fairmont/Zephyr, Granada/Cougar and LTD/Marquis sedans and wagons. The doors and all interior parts are (probably) a bolt-in affair.
The LTD/Marquis had a completely different dashboard originally used in the ’80-’82 T-bird and Cougar XR7. Its use here makes me wonder if that dash would be an easy swap in a ’79-’86 Mustang or Capri, since those used the same dash as the Fairmont/Zephyr and Granada/Cougar, given that the LTD/Marquis obviously retained the Fairmont greenhouse yet the dash appeared to be an easy swap there.
Actuall the LTD/Marquis greenhouse is completely different, it has more slope to both the windshield and the back glass. Found that out while looking for doors for my Marquis LTS.
I knew the LTD back glass was more sloped than the Fairmont back glass (and less sloped than the Fox Granada), but assumed the front door and windshield were shared amongst all three. Never assume!
I’d still like to know if the Fairmont/Granada/Mustang dash can be easily swapped out for a 80-82 T-Bird/83-86 LTD dash.
I owned an ’82 Futura sedan and an ’86 LTD wagon (there was an ’86 LTD and an ’86 Taurus, they overlapped), my father owned two different Fairmonts and an 81 Granada, also an ’84 LTD sedan. Yes, the styling was clean. Yes, they were reasonably comfortable and handled reasonably well. They were roomy, with good visibility. But there were a few downsides as well. Ford attempted to make these cars as light for their size as humanly possible. The doors appeared to be like an inch thick, everything was plastic that could be plastic, except the window winders, which, like the Pinto before it, broke so often, they began selling after-market winders in part’s stores. The upholstery was gaudy, but durable. But my father, unfortunately, insisted all of his early Fox’s be equipped with the thrashy Pinto Four (2.3 liter). Dangerously slow with very little mileage improvement. The Six was slightly better, with even less mpg’s. And, the 302 was slow for a V8 and this kept Fairmonts from dominating police sales, over the popular Novas. The trunk appeared large, until it was obvious that it was several inches more shallow than average, with a tall lift-over height. The LTD/Marquis, however corrected most of the Fairmont’s shortcomings, although moving it up-market a few notches in price. If the Fox/LTD/Marquis had been introduced in 1978, it would be much more fondly remembered today. My sense of it at the time, in 1978, was that Ford was trying to produce a less expensive Volvo 240, I recall that being discussed, even, at the time. Personally, I think they failed, but they made a whole truck load of money off all the variations of the Fox.
+1 Ronco. Having spent a fair amount of time in various Fox body cars, I would agree with your assessment.
My mom had a ’79 Fairmont in a red wagon back in ’85. I was ten and I enjoyed sitting in the back looking at cars behind us and reading comics. I remember it as a good car and she had it til she replaced it with an ’86 Dodge Omni in ’89.
It took some doing but I finally got my father to switch from Fords to Mercurys. He traded a late 60s LTD for a 75 Comet, then a 79 Zephyr, followed by a 84 (small) Marquis. I doubt he realized the Zephyr and Marquis were the same basic car.
I feel the “original” Fairmont is/was TOO plain, especially compared to the same year Malibu. In the years between 1979 and 1985 the price of these cars rose substantially. But the Marquis was in many respects a nicer car.
2 points: this car looks like a Volvo, but was inspired by the Audi Fox.
The horn button on the stalk….NO, it did not anticipate airbag placement/regulations. Anyone who believes that has not driven an older European car. Ford first put the horn button on the stalk in the U.S. on the 1976 Fiesta. You put the horn button there so that when driving through narrow European streets at night one finger can flash the high/low beams quickly and simultaneously sound the horn to warn unseen oncoming traffic at intersections without lighting or stop signs.
Since the Fairmont was inspired by a European sedan, they put the horn on the stalk in Fairmonts. Obviously, most Americans don’t know a practical design when they see one as Ford eventually discontinued the stalk mounted horn button….at least in the U.S.
I have trouble believing your argument re stalk horn. Dearborn has long been very conservative about changing driver controls, e.g. their headlight switch, and at the time they were not particularly mindful of Europe otherwise except in small-car drivelines. Why would they arbitrarily foist a control change on all new late-’70s domestic models, just because They Do That In Europe? The ’81 Escort had very little in common with its European cousin, an example of how strong Dearborn’s NIH was.
I think the answer was in Washington. At the time, journalists stated that airbags were the reason for the change, though I’m prepared for a credible refutation.
Well Neil,
All I can say is that Ford was slower than Chrysler in adopting airbags with many car lines getting them as standard in 1988-1990. That’s 15 years after the Fiesta appeared, and 10-12 years after the Fairmont – Zephyr appeared. The only Fox-platform cars still in production would have had a few generations to “get ready” for airbags by 1988.
II’ve driven 4 or 5 Escorts over the years but don’t remember if they had this unusual horn button on the stalk feature.
+1 on stalk horn origins. My ’74 Cortina had this, and it was a ’70 design. For the first year or so I kept bashing the steering wheel boss when I wanted the horn.
It also had a little trick with the (dash-mounted) light switch that allowed you to park at night with only the park lights on the driver’s side showing. Not sure if that was European-inspired or faulty wiring!
I’ve seen that outboard taillight on when parked trick from other makes, so it wasn’t a glitch. Streets in Europe are so narrow that I guess it helps navigating them at night through all the closely parked vehicles.
As to the ‘real’ reason Ford put the horn on the turn signal stalk, I’m going with the same answer for just about all of the silly things Detroit does anything: money. I strongly suspect that a few pennies were saved by moving the horn mechanism from the steering wheel to the stalk. All the airbag/that’s how they do it in Europe talk were just excuses. The real reason was simply that it was cheaper to do it that way. Ford saw an opportunity, and they seized it.
And the part was already tooled, had been used on rest-of-the-world Fords for ages so the bugs were already worked out – that had to appeal to the financial types!
UK wiring loom was used on export CKD packs some Kiwi Cortinas had that others didnt NZ exported wiring looms to Aussie your car cant have got one.
My ’78 Fiesta had the stalk horn and once you got used to it worked very well. By contrast my ’86 Ranger had a conventional steering wheel pad actuated horn and it was very hard to find the right place to press it in a hurry. I fondly remember the old horn rings … now those worked well. Before the die casting broke and left a sharp spear to impale you.
When I was a young child in the late 1970s, our Mk III Cortina had the park lights on one side only trick too. I think you turned the instrument dimmer switch to activate them. In more recent years, I remember reading in the handbook for one of our family cars (Cortina? Sierra? Renault?) that if you removed the key from the ignition, turned the parklights on and then moved the indicator stalk to either the left or the right position, this would activate just the parklights on the corresponding side. Very clever!
Your car must have been a UK CKD pack not the Australian derived model we had a lot of those cars with night lights the local looms began to replace them.
And before Ford, I drove a few Euro-market Fiats that had the horn button on the stalk. It’s amazing how practical this feature is late at night driving through the narrow streets of Catania, Sicily.
But not very practical on an American highway. I had a Renault Alliance with a stalk-mounted horn and I was forever fumbling trying to find it when I needed it.
Count me as a fan of these too. As a kid in the 90’s they always lurked in the background as another boring 80’s car but they’ve really grown on me. Like others, I prefer the early Fairmonts/Zephyrs, especially the wagon. I’d be cool to build a sleeper with a 2.3 turbo, T5 and manual steering, instead of the usual V8 route.
Having just perused Wikipedia, I came cross the Durango, which I didn’t know about. Too bad they didn’t build more of these as a replacement to the previous monstrous Ranchero. A little weird, but a much cleaner design. I can’t see how they would of made a functional tailgate out of the Futura rear though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Durango
The 83 LTD was just right in my eyes. The Fairmont/Zephyr were honest cars but just a bit too bland for my tastes.
Always loved minimalist, understated styling in a car, and I always thought all of these models pictured were great looking cars. Wish we could get back to that instead of the tacky, garish, overly busy, in-your-face styling prevalent today.
I have great memories about a Fairmont Futura (1983,I think) which me and a friend borrowed from his aunt in Oregon and used for a roadtrip along the west-coast back in 1984. We were both 18, had our licenses for about six months, amd it was our first time in the USA. Being from The Netherlands, that litterally was a big thing. The car was extreme large in our eyes, extreme comfortable, and very American. We loved it, and put some 10.000 miles on it in a month time…..going all the way down from Eugene to Los Angeles and back, with a lot of stops all over the place. Great memories!
Anton’s smoke screen.
I am a fan of these cars. Clean, simple styling, but yet with enough details to be more interesting than the K-cars – character lines on the lower bodysides and subtle fender flares around the wheelwells, plus those wonderfully modern aerodynamic side view mirrors. BIL had one of these, an ’81 model. It was a stripper with the 200 straight six and vinyl interior, but was still fairly comfy and very roomy. The six wasn’t much more powerful than the Pinto four, but was a lot smoother.
These cars could be quite nice looking when tastefully optioned, and the higher-end cloth interiors were really quite lovely.
The gas mileage benefit of the 2.3 four weren’t that great.
2.3 18 city 22 highway
3.8 (is that the straight six?) 17 city 23 highway
5.0 15 city 22 highway
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=1984&year2=1984&make=Ford&model=LTD&srchtyp=ymm
3.8 must be the Essex V6, introduced in the Fox Granada. The V8 figures seem about right; ours was often used in-town.
They’re saying 33/22 on the 2.3 on this ad. (was from a National Geographic mag )
The EPA mileage regimen was changed in 2008 (and I think was altered a couple of times before that) to make it more realistic. They came up with some formula for adjusting older numbers to the current scale; I believe the numbers on fueleconomy.gov are all the adjusted figures, even for older cars released with the old numbers on the window sticker.
Ford Australia tried a 4 cylinder Cortina engine in their Falcon as a economy measure it used more fuel than the 6 so the idea was dropped before it hit production.
I had a ’79 Fairmont wagon that was quite suitable for my family at the time. Very sharp looking with red interior & silver exterior. Had carburetor problems I couldn’t resolve so I traded it. Remember some wise*** writer describing it as having the aerodynamics of a brick!
I quite like these, especially the wagon. A 5.0 powered example would be nice, and later fox mustang parts would bolt right in. This particular example looks really great. I think would be perfectly cast as a movie/TV prop car.
There’s a gang of Fairmonts in the bicycle-chase scene in the film E.T.
My sister had one in the late 1980s. I opened the bonnet & was suprised to see the
old 200 six, buried under any air cleaner the size of a man hole cover.
I guess I was expecting an upgraded six, much as Ford did here in Australia.
Black with red bench interior . Power steer, A/C & an AM radio were the only options I remember.
I bought a new 1980 Futura in 79…….had absolutely no options.
Drove it for 9 years, 100k and beat the living crap out of it.
Gave it regular oil and filter changes- spent “0” dollars on repairs.
At the end of 9 years, it was pretty much used up- but it was an awesome beater/commuter car for the whole time I owned it.
1978 firemont 2 dr sedan. 250 ci six, warmed over dual intake head, dual exhaust, zero deck pistons, warmed over aod, 3.50 traction lok, 14×7 stock car wheels and 245/60 blackwalls and a rear sway bar. oh, and no chrome! fun to drive and lots of remarks. and imagine the surprise from the punks in their early eighties smogged out mustang gt’s.
Sounds AWESOME! Great car, man, hope you still have it.
A good, honest car. I am struck about how similar the 1986 Camry is in profile.
My brother bought one of these new in 1978. His was the two door version of the ES trim level (pictured below). He had to order his because all of the ones that were on the lot were the of the regular four door variety and very few people wanted the ES version, much less the two door model.
He bought his with a mind to economy and fun. He’d driven the German Capris and liked them, many of the specs lined up between the two cars so naturally he thought: Capri Sedan. Wrong.
Let’s get this much out of the way, the Zephyr was a nice car. It was very roomy for a RWD compact car of the time, it had as much room as my father’s Montego. The ES version had some nice touches, as the vents in the rear side windows actually worked. I was somewhat disappointed when I got my 1980 Capri that the side vents were only a stylistic device.
But… He ordered his with the 2.3 and 4 speed (like the Capri he’d driven) and an AM/FM cassette stereo. That’s it. The car was pretty well equipped from the factory with bucket seats, sway bars, power steering and brakes too. But the idea was to stay away from all of the weight adding, power sapping accessories that could break down. In the Capri, that 2.3/4 speed combo was a good package.
However, the 2.3 was still using the ancient form of emissions controls (maybe it was EEC-1?) and the car ran terribly from day one. Many, many repeated attempts by the dealer(s) to fix it left the issues unresolved. Somewhere around 1980, he gave up trying to get it fixed and just lived with it. It seems I should have taken a lesson WRT to my 1980 Capri, but I was young and not smart…
He kept the car six years, by then rust had really started to accelerate and it would no longer pass Pennsylvania inspections. It was a neat car (when it ran well) and quite unusual. I rarely if ever saw another Zephyr ES, but few people were buying performance Mercurys in the late 1970’s anyway.
Usually when USDM cars are featured on CC, I gaze wistfully at the photos while reading the accompanying article, wondering what the cars look like in real life. In this case, I actually know! Someone here in my small New Zealand town has a green ’78 Zephyr that’s been in New Zealand since at least 1983. I’ve no idea what engine’s in it – it’s registered as 4097cc, which I assumed was a 6-cylinder, but the sounds like a V8. Photo taken September 2013; more pics of it in the Cohort:
4097 cubic centimeters is 250 cubic inches. There was an American Ford straight six with that displacement, from the same family of engines as the 200. That’s one possibility, although the 250 was never actually available in the Fairmont and Zephyr, so if this car has this engine, it has to have been transplanted from somewhere else. The 250 was produced from 1969 to 1980, and is reasonably common in North America, having been used in the 1969-73 Mustang, 1969-74 intermediates (Fairlane/Torino), Maverick, and first-generation Granada, as well as the Mercury equivalents of most of those cars.
A Google search reveals that Ford of Australia also had a 250 cubic inch straight six. How similar it is to the American 250 is unclear to me.
Maybe someone yanked the emission-choked US 200 six and bolted in an Aussie Falcon six.
Wasn’t there a small 250-ish version of the Windsor V8 about then? Might that be it?
That V8 had 255 ci. I’m guessing it had an Australian 250 swapped in.
That’s my theory too – the Aussie 250ci was 4098cc. It sounds remarkably like a 302 now, so I suspect whatever 6 was in it is now gone!
If I were going to do a Fox engine swap, why stop with a 250 (even an Aussie one) when there’re plenty of room between those struts for a V8? A tuned 302 would really energize that car, for even the Malaise original could spin the rear wheels under some conditions.
Just the same, I doubt the Fairmont would stand up to hard OZ driving given its limited suspension travel & same market brief as McNamara’s Falcon.
Why stop with a 250, Neil asks. Indeed. These days the darling of the Ford engine swappers seems to be the late lamented Barra Turbo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Barra_engine
Could be a 250 2V with split header the one mentioned above sounds similar.
There used to be a battered pale yellow Mercury in Maraenui Napier I too have actually seen the US effort and still prefer the Australian car.
I agree with everybody else that stated they thought the Fairmont/Zephyr was a good honest car with a clean design. I like the later versions with the 4 headlight design the most. That being said, I will be honest and say the coupe versions did nothing for me back in the day and still don’t in 2015.
Anybody remember the Ford Durango coupe utility which was built in a partnership with Ford and National Coach Builders?
I do agree with Ford putting the Fairmont/Zephyr out to pasture at the end of 1983 and replacing it with the Tempo/Topaz. It was a good idea then and now(then because Ford sold a Butt-Ton of them in 1984(400,000 Tempos alone) and now because when you look back now, you will see that the Tempo/Topaz and the T-Bird/Cougar helped to usher in aerodynamic cars.(I am guessing that if the 1984 Tempo and 1983 T-Bird had bombed then the Taurus might not have come out)
As for the midsize 83-86 LTD/Marquis, I find nothing wrong with the rear overhang. The Overhang of the LTD/Marquis is similar to the rear overhang of the 1978-80 Malibu sedan.
I have always liked the 83-86 LTD/Marquis and would not mind owning one. I think they are better then the G-Body sedans in one aspect due to fact that the LTD/Marquis could be had with a fuel injected V6 or V8 by the end of production. With the G Bodies, you got a 3.8l V6 that used a carb and a 5.0 that used a carb.
That and you could roll down the rear windows! The optional pivoting front vent windows were a nice touch too. Order those and the C-pillar louvers, and both front and rear passengers would get their own air vents.
I always found the marketing of the Fairmont vs. Malibu to be odd. Both cars were new in 1978, about the same size and price, offered the same choice of body styles, featured a plain and simple design aesthetic inside and out, and were obvious competitors. Yet Ford marketed the Fairmont/Zephyr as a small, compact car while Chevy considered the Malibu to be an intermediate or mid-sized (although they actually called it “new size” in their adverts). This was understandable, as Ford had two cars in their lineup that were substantially larger – the Torino-based LTD II/Thunderbird and the pre-downsized LTD. Chevy had only one – the downsized B-body Caprice/Impala. Most car magazines and consumer publications seemed to accept those classifcations and compared the Malibu to pre-shrunken midsizers from Ford, Chrysler, and AMC while comparing the Fairmont only to cars other brands called compacts, like the Nova, Volare and Concord. Despite this, the ’78 Fairmont and Malibu were obvious competitors and I have a hard time believing they weren’t frequently cross-shopped by perspective buyers.
If I were choosing between the two in 1978, I think I’d lean toward the Ford product. I like Chevy’s small-block V8 better than the Ford equivalent and I slightly prefer the Malibu’s styling (especially on the 2-door sedans) but the Fairmont wins in most other categories.
You bring up very good points on this. I am wondering if the fact that Ford was selling the Grenada/Monarch at the same time and since the Granada arrived in 1975, it was marketed as a mid size car while the Fairmont was offered as a compact when it arrived in ’78. Perhaps Ford decided they could not have 2 midsize cars in the lineup?
It is utterly baffling. At least in the 70s when GM downsized their lines, they still clearly said, “Ok, a Caprice is a full-size even though it is the same size as the moribund Chevelle. And next year, a Malibu will be our mid-size even though it is roughly the same size as a Nova”
Ford… Well, I don’t quite know what they were doing. The LTD was a full-size, but then they renamed the Torino “LTD II” as though to soften the blow of the LTD’s eventual downsizing. The Fairmont was a compact but… the Granada was a compact when it launched. It makes me want to look at a price list and see how the prices worked out.
The Fairmont would have been more space-efficient but based on what people are telling me, the Fairmont’s interior was pretty basic whereas the Granada was always touted as being very plush.
According to an Edmunds Price Guide from 1978, the base prices on sedans were as follows:
Fairmont: $4,080
Granada: $4,437
LTD II S: $4,854
LTD: $5,366
I believe the original development plan for the Granada was to replace the Maverick, but the Energy Crisis prompted Ford to keep both and bump the Granada upmarket. Perhaps the Fairmont was intended then as another Maverick replacement, once again envisioned to be more basic than Granada. Either way, LTD II was dead in the water, and the Granada was undermined by the Fairmont, leaving Ford with a muddled mess in the mid-size segment.
I was in my late teens when these came out, and car-minded then as now. I think the Malibu was obviously a higher-quality product than the Fairmont. If the prices were about the same, I’d have wondered what Ford was smoking. My opinions were colored by having driven a Maverick and perceiving what utter cheap junk it was, and realizing that a Fairmont was obviously a blown-up and squared-off Maverick.
On the other hand, I did admire the clean and functional design of the Fairmont and Futura. I thought, ‘Here is the car the Maverick should have been.’ If I’d wanted a new car & had the buying power, and if the Futura had been substantially cheaper than the Malibu, I might’ve considered it.
We had a Fairmont and a Malibu in the family at the same time in the mid 80’s, both of them ’79 models. Of both of them, the Malibu definitely seemed the higher quality vehicle–but I’m pretty sure it was significantly more expensive as well. Their service bore that out–the Fairmont was sold in ’88 with looming engine troubles, whereas the Malibu stayed with us to become my first car in 1996 and made it to 174k miles before a broken timing chain finally retired it.
Can’t comment on the driving dynamics as I was only 8 years old when the Fairmont left us. I do know Mom hated driving it as the 2.3L/auto combo was horribly slow, or as she’d say, “had no pickup”.
Fairmont was completely unrelated to the Maverick, it was an all-new, much lighter and space-efficient chassis, whereas the ancient Maverick was on a platform that had been around since 1960. And yes, Fairmont was significantly cheaper than Malibu.
Here in the Heat & Humidity center of the country (New Orleans, LA) roll down rear windows were/are a minor consideration as we blast the A/C about 10 months of the year.
I always liked the wagon version, but never owned one. When these were new I was driving a Pinto wagon and I thought the additional room would be nice. The only reason why is that when I was on the hunt for a new used car no acceptable one was available.
Although no one I know has owned a Zephyr wagon, I had a neighbour who had a similar Ford Fairmont wagon.
Clean design indeed; witness this Futara in the modern retro video for Foxes “Body Talk”:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VAerYplzZUE
The car is a prominent fixture within the imagery; the fact that her name is Foxes is mere coincidence.
Well, to anyone living in Israel in the late 70s early 80s the Fairmont was a cop car… Although they did sell to private individuals. The Israeli police had a large fleet of them, most with the straight 6 (enough for most situations on Israeli roads and vehicles back then) with (very) few V8s as well, I believe. During that period the Israeli police was a 100% Ford reserve in so far as road cars were concerned (UK Escorts and Cortinas being the other cars). In service however they were not thought of as highly as were the Cortinas; when the time came to retire them, both the Fairmonts and the Cortinas were replaced by the Sierra. My father was looking for a car around this time and I lament the fact he went for a (sigh) Chevy Citation instead, having considered the Fairmont and rejected it (I cannot remember why). I would have one now, modified to make it the ultimate Q car (all the bits are available and are not expensive). Even the 200 six can be opened up if you are prepared to mess around with the inlet/exhaust/carburation; with its relatively light weight and with a manual 4 or 5 sp manual box it would make a good everyday vehicle.
Ironic, for since Henry Ford I sponsored a notorious pamphlet, “The International Jew” (praised by Hitler), many Jews retaliated by shunning their products.
Well the weird thing was Ford car/truck import into Israel never stopped even during that time and, after the war Ford, made good by never succumbing to Arab pressure and boycotts (there was even an assembly plant in Nazareth); I don’t think there has been a break in import for the last 100 years, and that’s a record of sorts.
Nice article – and I agree, a tasteful and clean design. And I’m glad to see some posters here had good luck with theirs. My experience, with those I ran across, was that they had abysmal build quality. I remember closing the door on one and it rattled for a good 5 minutes.
We had a few of these as patrol cars during my USAF MP active duty time – they were always relegated to the lowest ranking patrolman……..
I really don’t see the virtues of this car. I get the “clean design” at least in the Fairmont 4 door iteration as far as that goes. But that’s where it ends with me. It was a rolling expression of just how cynically Ford regarded the US domestic market at the time.
Outside, the car had a completely anemic looking stance about it; it was under tired with a suspension that had a decided lean towards the rear. The look was uncertain and tentative. The grille was plastic, the door handles flappy and loosely attached and the hubcaps either an awful dog dish poverty-spec or an ABS plastic finned type found on the marginally higher spec models. Rarely was one ever painted in any other color than Coca-Cola brown metallic over baby-shit brown vinyl.
Inside passengers were subjected to a 36 month long master class on just how cheap and cheerless things could be. It had flat, contour-less bench seats, headrests that appeared to be afterthoughts, door cards as flat and featureless as Nebraska that had the smallest armrests Ford could get away with providing protruding from them. The dashboard had thin plastic facings you could punch your thumb through with little effort. The affair was all right angles except for the two round dials that contained the least amount of information possible: speed, fuel and a minimal array of idiot lights covering the essentials.
Not Ford’s best effort by a long shot. A car-by-proxy if I’ve ever seen one. Ford phoned this one in and subjected everyone to it for far too long.
I grant your objections, but remember that the Fairmont, though often compared to Volvos, was really meant to replace the Maverick as a budget compact, & couldn’t upstage the fancier, more profitable Granada (based on the old Falcon platform) & larger models by having quality trim & interior. Not until the Fox Granada came out did they upgrade the interior trim.
Car companies usually maintain a model “caste system,” which tries to avoid creating filial competition that could hurt profits. BL failed to do this, to their hurt.
I tend to agree. Although I’ve always liked the styling of the Maverick and Comet, I also liked its replacement, Fairmont and Zephyr. Its styling was fresh and interesting. I also liked the return of the station wagon, which took a hiatus during the Maverick/Comet production.
I test drove a Fairmont coupe on the second day of availability, equipped with the 200 straight 6, 3 speed automatic transmission and bench seat.
A dull but acceptable appliance was my most charitable thoughts; a pleasant updating of my Grandfather’s 1960 Falcon….at a MUCH higher price.
My 360 V8 Volare seemed so much the better car on the drive home than on the drive to the Ford dealership!
I did like the later Fairmont Futura coupes much better, esp the one a friend of mine had, with the Mustang dashboard full of gauges, 302 V8 engine and fold down armrest bench seat. Ford Falcon/Fairmont history repeating itself……
I had a 1980 Fairmont with the 200 straight six that gave me 3 years of trouble free driving. Had the upgraded interior but still only a AM radio. People always used to be surprised who nice it handled considering how boxy it looked.
Our family had a used 80 Fairmont wagon with the six and automatic. Reliable and just the right size for the city it served us well until we picked up a used Taurus wagon. I’ve considered the Fairmont/Zephry cars as well executed if not somewhat dull depending on trim and options.
My first experience was renting a two door Zephry in Hawaii in 1978. It had a six and auto and was okay but nothing memorable. These days if I could find one in decent condition I might latch onto it. The dull red one on a farm south of here looks like was well cared for but came up for sale on Kijiji too late for me.
I had a neighbour who had a Ford Fairmont wagon when I was a boy. It was similar in styling to the Mercury Zephyr, with the same body appearance. Only the grille and trim was different. I was too young to drive, of course. But I remember riding in it with the neighbour’s family, and actually enjoying it.
The Fairmont/Zephyr was the car I should have bought around 1980. My father-in-law had an ex-Hertz 1978 Fairmont and it was a great car.
Just the right size for a growing family.
I was always amused by the sea of sideglass on those, especially when someone ordered the optional vent windows! A 10-window sedan?
Who would have thought that these “right-sized” compacts of the late 1970s would now be considered mid to large size cars of today. Case in point: Ford Fusion and Ford Taurus.
My parents had a four-door Fairmont – a 79 I think. I drove it a few times, practicing for my driver’s test. It was a nice riding car – but they had a major problem with it that never got fixed.
Whenever it got chilly outside the window would fog up inside. Then when it was cold – the moisture would freeze on the inside!
My parents had it back to the dealer several times – then the regional supervisor took it for a while – nobody could fix it. They traded it in on a beige Datsun/Nissan Stanza hatchback – a rolling potato if there ever was one – and never bought another Ford again.
Was that the windshield? Sounds like an obstruction in the ventilation system, perhaps a smoke test could’ve isolated it. Factory sabotage?
The windshield, the door windows – everything would fog up. And if it was below zero it would freeze – on the inside!
Wait a minute.
William Stopford, when did you take those pictures of the Zephyr?
I recognized that gas station (Irving) immediately. It’s in my hometown of Bennington, Vermont! I was born and raised there, and my father got gas at that very same station where the Zephyr was sitting at. I know the place very well. It’s still an independent service station – in fact, I was just in Bennington this past weekend and drove by it.
Jeez, as soon as I saw the Irving sign I immediately knew where the photo was taken – on the corner of County and North Streets.
Oh wow, it was a while ago now. I went up to the Williamstown Theatre Festival in 2013 so we crossed the border into Vermont and went to the Blue Bird (?) diner. Then we went to an old quarry to go swimming, and also went to some awesome Mexican restaurant that was in a converted house. I wish I could remember what town that was, it was lovely too. Also, the booze was quite cheap!
William,
Actually, that is the Blue Benn Diner, which was recently named the Best Diner in America by Men’s Health Magazine. I stop there every single time I go home without fail.
Bennington is home to a number of great restaurants – you were probably thinking of the Rattlesnake Café on North Street, just a block away from the Irving gas station where you photographed the car. The next time you’re there, go to Madison’s on Main Street. Best steak and burgers in town.
I think the Mexican restaurant was a few towns over, I recall it being quite a distance from the gas station. It was almost two years ago now though so my memory is a little hazy!
Gotta admit, and I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but I was really underwhelmed by Blue Benn. I thought it’d be my fantasy diner and it wasn’t. I didn’t care for what I ordered.
The Fairmont and Zephyr are cars I appreciate now more than I did when they were new. As the article notes, these cars have a clean, functional appearance that has worn well over the years. The entire Fox platform was certainly a breath of fresh air at the time.
In those days, virtually everything was optional, so a Fairmont or Zephyr could be a stripped, barren transportation device or a loaded, nicely trimmed family sedan. I remember riding in a relative’s new 1978 Fairmont sedan. He was very tight with his money, so his new Ford only had an automatic transmission, AM radio and power steering as options. It was definitely barebones transportation.
These cars did not initially compete with the Chevrolet Malibu. There was a $638 price differential between the base prices of the Fairmont and the Malibu, which is the equivalent of roughly $2,500 today, after adjusting for inflation.
GM and Ford were downsizing their line-ups at different paces – and different starting points – in the late 1970s. The Fairmont and Zephyr were designed to replace the Maverick and Comet as sensible, no-nonsense compacts. The Malibu was a downsized intermediate. Later, Ford did upgrade this platform to become a competitor to the GM intermediates. The downsized Thunderbird and Cougar debuted for the 1980 model year, followed by the Ford Granada and Mercury Cougar for the 1981 model year.
The 78-83 Fairmont was a somewhat clean looking sedan if sparsely equipped on the exterior, had better interior space utilization and because it had rack and pinion steering felt a little more spry on the open road. But that is where the love affair ended. The only engine worth anything resembling performance was the 302 V8 and about 1-2% were so equipped. The 200 six was a dog in my car and almost dangerously slow in grandpas 1980 wagon. The doors were so lightweight that one had to be careful opening them up with any wind about. The glass was as thick as a dime(probably to keep weight down) and resulted in loads of wind noise. Road noise was terrible on any example without the deluxe insulation or decor interior group which made it tolerable. The 3 speed automatic was okay but it was tied to a very weak rear end which blew in both my 62K mile 1979 and my grandfathers 1980 with 90K miles. Interiors were mostly trimmed in what can best be described in an unfinished low rent plain look with a flat uncomfortable bench seat, a very minimal amount of gauges and that god forsaken horn on the stalk which was an accident waiting to happen. Finding any example bucket seats was nearly impossible and only the loaded woodie wagons in my area seemed to have the interior decor group with much nicer looking and sitting seats.
The dash vibrated on both of our cars going 55 MPH which was the national speed limited back in the day. This was apparently resolved after 1981 with extra dash support beams. Higher speeds usually brought about loads of noise and lots of wind buffeting around the doors. The trunk was big enough but very very shallow until 1981 when they redesigned the gas tank and lowered the trunk a bit for much needed depth. Tires were usually very small 175/75R14 and these cars were useless in the Winter even with snow tires unless one loaded up sand bags in the trunk killing off what space was available.
The windows also fogged up terrible during the Winter and it took the defroster all it’s worth to keep them visible. The rear window had a useless blower motor but Grand dads wagon at least had the electric defogger that worked much better.
Not the worst car I have driven or owned but far far from the best. Any of my G-body GM’s were a revelation in comparison and neither me, grandpa or my father went back to Ford to this day.
Not making any judgments here, but found this interesting:
http://testdrivejunkie.com/1981-chevrolet-citation-vs-ford-fairmont-comparison-test-drive/
Note: in the intro to this video, the announcer states that these will be the biggest cars available by 1985. Aren’t we glad things turned out the way they did instead?
I’m a bit of a Fox junkie myself 🙂 , owned 9 so far including 3 Fairmonts. Love the simplicity and the ease of modification. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, made for Fox Mustangs up to the New Edge 2004’s will fit a ‘Mont, right down to the Cobra IRS setup!!! And they’re lightweight, too. Easy-peasy to make fast 🙂 .
I’ve always been a Fairmont/Zephyr junkie myself. I don’t know why, as I’ve never owned either one, nor did anyone in my family.
I had the pleasure of turning a clean $300 ’80 2-door Fairmont into a very capable road-circuit and AutoX car. Ran this from ’01-’09. It had a cheap dash, but the chassis was very robust, and factory performance parts readily available (Turbo Coupe and HO Mustang are common platforms) plus a huge aftermarket.
My alum head 5.0, T-5 trans car weighed 2900 lbs! Great cars to hot rod!
This 1980 Ford Fairmont was even considerably lighter than the slightly smaller 2015 Ford Fusion (its spiritual successor) by 423 pounds: 2900 pounds Fairmont and 3323 pounds Ford Fusion.
Growing up, we had a 79 Zephyr wagon that we bought lightly used in 1983. 6-cyl, black exterior on whorehouse red interior with the same slotted wheels as on the bright blue example above. It was a knockout looking car. We sold it around 1991 with 80,000 miles on the clock. I have never once seen another example that looked exactly like it, neither in real life nor in old brochures. Makes me wonder how that particular car came to be. Wish I had pictures. If I could find it again, I would buy it in a heartbeat. It was a great car!
I drove one of these, once, back in the early ’80s. Hated it.
The quality of fit and finish was poor, everything felt cheap, and it was an utter slug. As I recall, it had Ford’s insipid stalk-mounted horn, which I’ve always loathed with the fire of a billion burning suns.
I simply cannot understand the like folks express for this vehicle. To this day I cite it as my primary example of a “non-car.” It simply did nothing well whatsoever, in my experience.
What more can be expected with the Fairmont and Zephyr models since they picked up where the Maverick and Comet left off at least in North America and through 1979 in Brazil. These new back then original Fox Bodied Cars were supposed to be like a no frills compact/mid-sized replacement to the Maverick and Comet while the Granada, Monarch and Versailles were comparatively upscale to those two. The Maverick and Comet were to the Plymouth Valiant/Duster/Dart and AMC Hornet/Concord/Eagle as the Granada, Monarch and Versailles were to GM’s Nova, Ventura/Phoenix, Omega, Apollo/Skylark and Seville and Plymouth Volare’, Dodge Aspen and Chrysler LeBaron. In addition supposedly, the Fairmont and Zephyr were to GM’s Malibu and LeMans and the Dodge Diplomat and in Canada the Plymouth Caravelle.
I had an 82 Fairmont and loved it as my first used car purchase. It had problems due to it being wrecked, but the overall car was great – roomy, and the trunk had been reworked to have more capacity by moving the gas tank and lowering the trunk floor.
I’d buy one of these new if they still made them.
The sedans would look better without the extra window in the C pillar. Surely, someone broughamified it with a padded vinyl roof covering the window, but I’ve never seen one.
What you describe is what the 1981 Granada/Cougar were – broughamified Fairmont/Zephyrs.
We replaced my wife’s 1980 Chevrolet Monza with a Zephyr in 1983 in this beautiful two tone pewter color. I can’t remember which was slower, but I think the 2.5 Iron Duke was a tad bit quicker.
Back to the looks of these cars –
At a time when big bloated sedans that barely fit four comfortably, were common – Ford brought out these two cars, the Fairmont and the Zephyr.
So, in a world filled with tubby Torinos, slovenly Satellites, porky Colonnade intermediates polluting the road, along with even larger full size cars, we end up seeing Ford release cars that look like the boxes other cars came in. It was a visual shock. It was risky, but necessary for Ford to start from scratch with the Fox body cars.
While the Volvo design had been around a decade by that time, no US manufacturer tried to copy it. The Valiant/Dart and the old AMC Rambler American came the closest, but those designs were old and obsolete technically.
The Fairmont/Zephyr didn’t copy the Volvo – the Volvo was better looking, better proportioned and heftier looking, but then, it was a good $4,000 more than either the Fairmont or Zephyr. A bigger trend was the GM full size cars that were a phenomenal sales hit. When those cars arrived, and then the Fairmont/Zephyr in 1978, it was obvious that the 1970s died and were buried, styling wise.
As the purveyor of nasty looking broughamified Torino variations, seeing Ford bring out the Fairmont/Zephyr was quite a visual revolution.
The Fairmont/Zephyr was also touted as being a car with CAB/CAM computer design. Along with the Mustang/Capri, the Fairmont/Zephyr were designed to be light and offer a variety of small engines.
These cars are very important for Ford. They hit the ground being a bigger success than the Panther the following year, and helped support Ford during their near bankruptcy a few years later, at least until the success of the Escort/Lynx. The Fox body was to Ford what the KCar was to Chrysler years later. By the time the Taurus arrived and blew away sales charts, the Fox body dominated Ford/Mercury/Lincoln to an embarrassing degree.
Fortunately for Ford, the Panther gained popularity as the economic recession eased by 1983.
Ford, with the Fairmont/Zephyr/Mustang/Capri was admitting to the auto market that their earlier products were crap. I completely agree with that.
A fine and fitting update of my Grandfather’s 1960 Falcon 4 door; with a much better automatic transmission.
Besides possibly sharing older axles and reducing parts costs, are there any real advantages to having a narrow track on a wide body?
I had a 78 Fairmont Futura. It was all black, black bumper and all stick-on trim and badges were removed. Sharp looking car, got stopped many times by people wanting to know what it was. Alas, the rust worms started to work on it. Oddly the first place was rust thru from the inside of the A pillar.
My dad traded a 1972 Mercury Monterrey 4 door with a 429 4v on a 1978 Mercury Zephyr 4 door with the 302 withe the abominable “variable venturi” carb. The Zephyr handled okay and seemed almost as roomy as the Monterrey. It was reliable enough.
I’m always amazed at how Eastern European, American cars looked in the eighties. I also see some AMC styling in the rear quarter view.
Reminds me of the K car
Other than the extra pane of glass in the C-pillar, I’m not sure what is particularly Volvo-inspired about the Fairmont. Volvo didn’t copy the FIAT 130 Coupe sheer-slab styling used by the Fairmont until the later 760GLE. On the other hand, Ford had been building clean and boxy Tauni, Cortinas, and Granadas in Europe and the UK for years.
The reason for locating the horn on a stalk was to do away with the clock-spring. Back in the ’70s and ’80s, Ford still used parts that were manufactured in first world countries, and a clock spring cost enough on a per-car basis that it was worth gaslighting the customers into doing without. Airbags made the worst manufacturers install clock-springs anyway, and so now horn buttons are where they belong on every car.
That horn button reminds me of the one on my 1960 Renault Dauphine. The Renault also had a little switch on the column so you could choose between single and dual horns. Would like to see something like these built today. RWD, in line 6 – easy to work on. Roomy, not expensive. Too bad, so many of these were painted in that “puque-mist” color, especially base level Fairmonts.
I’ve come to appreciate this clean design. In the day, I was a brougham-ized callow youth, and appreciated dreck such as the Pontiac Grand Ville. Even in an era of brittle plastic, every
interior bit and piece of these seems designed do de-gas, fade and crumble ASAP. The interior bright work was of the quality of a model car bumper. Still, the design offset the Mustang II horror …. somewhat. And a 200ci I6 designed for the 60 Falcon? Oh, my.
I had many Zephyr and Fairmont rentals, and I really really disliked them, both in looks and in driving quality. I think all of them were 4 cylinder cars except the last one, which seemed to have much better power than the others. I thought the design was hideous then and still do. The first one was beige inside and out, the last one was white with a tan interior, I think. I had that first one for 10 days and I drove it over 1200 miles, and the only positive things I can say about it, is it didn’t break down and the A/C worked well. It needed alignment when I picked it up, and needed it more when I gave it back, the potholes were hard to miss.
I guess the main thing I came away with was it strengthened the dislike of Ford products that I already had. I like their present stuff a lot better than ever before, but I have never bought a Ford product. I did think about buying an F150 about 18 years ago but ended up with a Ram 1500, which I was very happy with.