I’ve long agreed with the theory that if one spends enough time in Southern California, eventually an example of any vehicle ever made anywhere will cross one’s path. The week after Christmas I was able to cross another one off the list. I was cruising north from Oceanside when something shiny in a very period color attracted my attention and sure enough as I got closer I recognized it as basically a Fairmont Futura Ranchero, which obviously never existed in that form, but did in the Ford-commissioned and Ford-sold Durango.
I believe this is likely an original-owner vehicle, mainly due to various factors such as the elderly owner, bumper stickers on the bumper and numerous other stickers on the rear window, the original blue plate commercial plates and the non-factory hubcaps. And the fact that despite these items everything looked in excellent condition and very well taken care of, i.e. not things you’d generally find on a restored or recently resold vehicle to a collector/enthusiast.
Ford commissioned National Coach Products of Gardena, CA to convert a number of Ford Fairmont Futuras in the early 1980s to a sort of Ranchero successor by sending them completed cars and then having them rework the aft portion including a filler piece at the end and converting the tail panel to a tailgate. The taillights actually fold down with the panel resulting in a warning label regarding not driving with the tailgate lowered.
For an unknown reason, they were all powered by the 200ci I-6 along with the three-speed automatic, but a number have been re-engined since, not difficult to do in any Fox-body vehicle. Exact production numbers are unknown beyond that it’s generally agreed that the production period was between 1979 and 1982, around 100 were created as 1981 models and supposedly another 100-250 in other years but the total figure of 212 total is bandied about in various places, generally with a disclaimer though.
This two-tone example has the bedside rails, and was in excellent condition overall, I’m calling it a 1981 as that’s what the California Smog Check Database lists it as when. Interestingly it seems to fail the emissions check on average three times before finally passing and has been following this pattern for many years so clearly the owner is devoted to it.
The above promotional ad for the Durango from National Coach Products clearly shows the small filler panel between the rear fender and the tailgate. Removing the rear window and roof portion, trunk lid, reworking the fender tops and then producing the bed out of fiberglass makes this an obvious product to compete with the downsized El Camino that really makes one wonder if Ford originally considered it for in-house production given that the Futura body style was sort of an oddball already compared to the rest of the Fairmont line.
Related Reading:
Great catch; never seen one in the wild. But then you live in Colorado, so it only makes sense. 🙂
This was in Southern California last week!
Never knew about these conversions. Nice to see this one on the road as intended and kept up well. Not all that bad looking except for the extra thick tailgate. Neighbor has a Dodge Challenger conversion, as well as a Mk4 Jetta conversion. Too far on his lot to get decent pictures, should go over and ask permission to post to CC. Picture is from internet.
“Interestingly it seems to fail the emissions check on average three times before finally passing.”
The tailpipe emissions standards in 1981 were tight enough that the carburetor and ignition system needed to be in perfect tune to pass, and most manufacturers added computer control with an O2 sensor to meet the standard.
The Ford straight six used a “Butter churn” single barrel carburetor to feed six cylinders, and fed the cylinders through a 2 foot long log style manifold. Not a good formula to deliver exact amounts of fuel and air. In addition, ’81 was the first year Ford added a feedback carb, so I’m not surprised this car struggles at the test center.
Ford dropped the 200 six in ’84, and I’d guess high mileage emissions performance entered into the decision. The EPA requires manufacturers to measure the performance of their emissions control devices at high mileage to assure continued compliance, and the tech on this engine must have performed poorly.
Anyone know why Ford only used the 200 and not the 250? I’m guessing that must have been emissions-related. I wonder how the good old Aussie cross flow head with Weber carb setup would have compared emissions-wise. It was developed to get the 200/250 to pass our 1976 emissions standards.
I’m going to guess it was due to the early eighties having some of the historically highest gas prices, and fuel mileage was everything back then. Still, maybe the take rate for the 200 was much lower than expected, so Ford figured the style of the Durango would be enough.
Wouldn’t the tail lights from a station wagon have worked much better on hiss? Less fussy tailgate, for sure. Of course, that would involve chopping up two cars to produce one of these.
If Ford had went factory production with the Durango, it likely would have been how they’d do it. I mean, off the top of my head, I can’t think of any manufacturer that incorporated any lighting system into the tailgate of a vehicle so equipped, be it pickup truck or station wagon.
It’s a shame, too, because that’s actually pretty cool, certainly better than the FWD ’82-’84 Dodge Rampage/Plymouth Scamp. Maybe Ford heard about the Mopars ahead of their release and decided to dip their toe in the water with the Durango, and found a cheap way to do it.
Vauxhall Insignia estate (and its brothers from Opel,Holden and Buick, obs) has the taillights on the tailgate, and smaller marker lights on the door jamb for when the hatch is open.
Certain Audi and Citroen models do something similar
A few 1940’s ish wagons had hinged taillights that swung down when the tailgate was dropped, so that they would be visible when the gate was open. However, this is why all 1973-83 GM intermediate RWD wagons, and all El Caminos from 1973 to the end of the model run, have taillights in the bumper. The 1973-77 Colonnade wagon liftgate, the drop down tailgate of its 1978-83 successor, and the tailgates of both generations of El Caminos, all span the full width of the vehicle, making bumper mounted lights the easiest way to have lights that can be seen with the gate down.
They wouldn’t have needed to cut up two cars, Ford just would have included the quarters, lights ect as part of the package since these were done when new with all new parts.
Here is an example of a Cadillac Commercial Chassis. https://images.app.goo.gl/UdH6N2kTPxYSkgRP8 those boxes strapped to the frame are quarters, door skins, lights ect.
Cars that went for 3rd party sunroofs and convertible conversions frequently left the factory with some parts missing and others that would have to be removed to do the work or had to be modified thrown in the back.
Ideally that package also would have included a longer wheelbase.
How freakin’ cool is that! Never heard of/never seen before. If I’m not mistaken, those same two colours were on my folks’ ’80 Stinkoln Clown Car.
This could (and should) have got National Coach Products and Ford in fairly deep trouble for rendering required safety equipment inoperative and for selling noncompliant vehicles, respectively. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard № 108 requires (and always has) that the stop, tail, turn signal, and side marker lights as well as the side reflex reflectors be mounted on a fixed part of the body unless the lamps/reflectors meet the performance/visibility requirements with the movable body component they’re on in any position it’s capable of reaching, or there’s a second set of lights on a fixed part of the body active when the movable body part is out of its home/closed position. A “don’t drive with the gate open” label doesn’t cut it.
I agree, Daniel, and the same could be said (although perhaps on a state – and not federal – level) for license plate visibility. Tailgate down = LEO can’t see the plate = illegal.
Some early station wagons with drop-down tailgates, and later the Subaru Baja, actually mounted license plates on hinges so they would be visible with the tailgate down.
Regarding the license plate, IH Scout II’s had their licensee plate on the tail gate, so the license plate mount and light are on a spring loaded pivoting bracket. So if you want to drive with it down, which I have done a few times you just grab the bottom of the plate and flip it into the correct position.
Wow — never knew that those vehicles had license plates on hinges for that purpose.
As for the Durango, I understand the safety concerns, and like Dabro mentions above, this could have been avoided by using wagon parts… but to me, those tail lights make this such a neat vehicle. Safety be darned, I like it.
And Jim, this has got to be the Find of the Year, and it’s only January 3!
“And Jim, this has got to be the Find of the Year, and it’s only January 3!”
Haha, the gauntlet’s been thrown, suckers! Let’s see what y’all got…It’s even a leap year so I’m spotting you an extra day…Game on!
I have a message from the future.
2020 will be an interesting year for many reasons.
The original 1959 ElCamino and its station wagon brethren had split taillights and a hinged license plate holder. Note the “handle” with Chevy emblem above the license plate. I remember this from our Brookwood wagon.
At some point after 1990 the Feds did start officially requiring the brake lights to be on a non-moving panel.
Where did you see or hear that this requirement took effect after 1990?
I see a lot of sense in this, and I’m a bit surprised Ford didn’t run with it.
The first American utes had to be cheap/simple to design and produce. They were a fairly simple modification to an existing body style – the 2-door station wagon (and panel delivery.
By the mid-60s, both Ford (Falcon) and Chevy (Chevelle) had given up on the 2-door wagon, and both the Ranchero and El Camino had unique bodies.
But the Futura and its Z-7 twin were already using unique bodes (different from the coupe/sedan/wagon variants), which would have rendered the redesign into a ute both cost-effective and extend the viability of that unique coupe body style.
Of course, the ute was rendered effectively moot with the introduction of the S-10/Ranger (yes, there were Japanese mini-trucks before them, but lots of folks only wanted ‘murrican trucks). And by the time Ford could have brought the Durango in-house, the Ranger was already in the pipeline.
I guess I’m really not surprised Ford didn’t run with this.
Yeah, like the minivan killing the station wagon, the small pickup was the death-knell for the car/truck crossover El Camino and Ranchero.
Interestingly, with the current death of any regular cab small pickups, there might be an opening for the return of the car-based pickup today, especially a version from FCA based upon the RWD Charger platform.
I keep seeing rumors of a small *FWD* pickup, based on the next-gen Ford Transit Connect. Since that is/was based on the Focus, maybe we can call it a car-based pickup?
It wouldn’t be that hard nor require all that many more unique parts to make a Transit Connect or Nissan NV pickup.
And yet it hasn’t happened. Nissan doesn’t want to cannibalize their ancient but undoubtedly hugely profitable Frontier and Ford needs every Ranger sale it can get. As soon as someone does it (such as Hyundai) you’ll see more players wanting a piece of the action.
Private buyers wouldn’t touch a new Connect or NV pickup. It would look like a golf cart.
I’ve heard of these and always wanted to see one in the wild – great find! Love the two tone, but kind of a shame about those hubcaps.
It is interesting the entire rear taillight cluster formed the tailgate. Futura coupes (and the Durango) had the rear side marker lights from the standard Fairmont, which weren’t necessary due to the wraparound taillights.
Great find! I have heard about these recently, thanks to the Internet, but was unaware at the time (or forgot). I also spent the week after Christmas in San Diego and found it to be a CC wasteland. Walked about 12 miles in the city, plus biked another 22 miles and saw almost nothing of interest, except for an over-restored VW Type III notchback. The freeway drive through LA and SD Counties was an endless parade of the usual pickups and Asian sedans and crossovers, Tesla’s, Audi’s, BMW’s and Mercedes, plus the first two late model Rolls Royces I have seen in years, several Bentleys and Ferrari/Lamborghini’s. Certainly no Fox pickups!
The grandson of my ’66 Ford Falcon Ranchero.
Outstanding find and photos. I recall, this two tone colour scheme is the exact same as the one used in promotional images published in the major car magazines at the time.
If only Ford had introduced the Durango by 1979, they could have capitalized on the success of the Fairmont. After 1979, the GM X-Cars and later the Chrysler Ks had already eclipsed the aging Fairmont in design efficiency.
Despite the end of the Ranchero, El Camino sales went into the toilet in 1980, like other specialty vehicles. Unlike other specialty vehicles, sales stayed there for the rest of the decade.
Total Ranchero/El Camino/Caballero sales went from 90K in 1979 to 45K in 1980, and down more for 1981, then bottomed out in 1982 at about 25K and stayed there til the end of the run. The Ranger and S10 drove the nails into the coffin, even when the market turned back up for other specialty vehicles.
No reason to think that a factory Fairmont Ranchero would have fared a jot better.
Great find! When I had my Zephyr Z7, I often visualized it as a ute long before I knew there was one.
i have a 79 fairmont futura with factory 302 love every bit of it but the Durango i dont think it is a good fit for a truck has strut suspenssion
The whole point of the US car-trucks was that they weren’t made like trucks. If the suspension isn’t stiff enough to carry real truck loads, it doesn’t have to be strong enough to carry real truck loads.
There’s been a yellow one around Bellingham lately. I want it. Would have to change the color, though.
Great find Jim. The Durango is a model I completely forgot existed, but It looks perfectly at home in the desert-like environs of SoCal.
Also, heading down the 405 past the old San Onofre nuclear plant always brought a smile to my face because of the Naked Gun scene where Frank was feeling down because he missed Jane.
I remember seeing pix of these years ago, but I was under the impression this was strictly an aftermarket conversion, I never knew they were factory sanctioned.
I think FoMoCo missed out on an opportunity here, as even with the advent of domestic based mini pickups, GM still sold a decent amount of Elkos and Caballeros until the very end (’87? ’88?). It makes a very handsome little rig.
Great catch!
It wasn’t factory sanctioned. It was an aftermarket modification, like a sunroof or stripe package. Nothing Ford can do directly to stop it, other than refuse warranty coverage on modified vehicles.
” I recognized it as basically a Fairmont Futura Ranchero, which obviously never existed in that form, but did in the Ford-commissioned and Ford-sold Durango.” (emphasis mine).
The factories used to have suppliers/contractors modify their cars for short runs and specials (think Griffin or American Sunroof Corporation) frequently. It wasn’t like Bob and Fred in Minneapolis somehow cranked out 100 of these in their garage.
IMO if Ford commissioned it, it was sanctioned by Ford.
Ford didn’t commission it. That didn’t happen. It was an independently started project. National Coach imagined a market for a Ranchero replacement at over 7000 US Ford and Mercury dealers, just like independent aftermarket companies made small numbers of convertibles while convertibles were out of production or unavailable (for example, numerous Cadillac convertibles made when the Eldorado went on hiatus).
I had seen these in old promo pictures, but never figured that we would bag one here on CC. Warning to rare and elusive cars everywhere: CC is coming for you!
I will echo geozinger – I am kind of amazed that Ford never added this as an offshoot of the Fairmont line. Using some modified wagon parts could have kept costs down. But then the Ford Motor Company of 1979-81 was only slightly better off financially than the Chrysler Corporation of the same period. They had their plates full trying to get the Escort to market. Remember that they were still selling Pintos in 1980.
Have actually encountered at least three of these over the years.One may have been in Ohio. The other two in other states. But never shot any pictures of them. Am partial to odd, unusual and rare rides, so I always liked these.