This is a serious head scratcher. According to my trust Standard American Encyclopedia of American cars, Ford sold 461k Fairmonts in MY 1978. And the 1965 Mustang? Well more than that. Even subtracting 122k early 1965 MY Mustangs (“1964½”) from the overall total of 681k still leaves 559k, well ahead of the Fairmont. And the 1970 Maverick topped that with 579k.
Am I missing something?
And why is the 1896 Quadracycle and a 1924 Model T up there? The Quad was never produced or sold, and the 1924 T was hardly a “new car”.
And where’s the 1960 Falcon? Its 436k sales represented a higher share of the smaller market back then.
Update: There’s simply no way to brush this off by trying to read something into the title and text that’s not there, like a loophole that gets them off this hook. The word “ever”, in both the title and the first sentence makes that all-too clear.
The ad is simply inaccurate. Not the first, I’m sure, but it’s pretty bald-faced.
Back then if I was in the market for a ‘basic but new’ car, a 302 two door with 4-spd manual would have been compelling.
The Zephyr wagon my Dad bought new in copper with orange vinyl weave interior that utterly seared 7 year old thighs in summer was not real thrilling with its straight six…..
It is accurate everyone. They just forgot to include a couple of words, so the misunderstanding is actually just a typo. What it should say is:
‘The best-selling new car ever introduced on a Thursday afternoon at 4pm’
Hope that clarifies.
Like you, I think this ad is just plain wrong.
However MY sales are not the same as MY production. As the ad is worded, Fairmont sales during the 1978 MY could include cars produced as MY 1979 models so long as the sale occurred in MY 1978. Delivery is not a requirement to record a sale. Likewise MY 1965 Mustangs or MY 1970 Mavericks may not have had all production sold during the model year.
I’m really reaching with this explanation, but it was the best I could come up with.
In the end, it is advertising. Claims like this may be wrong, but such puffery is of a nature unlikely to attract FTC attention. No harm no foul?
As a salesman myself, I certainly would never try to exaggerate the popularity of my product. Opps – that lightening strike was uncomfortably close!
My thought is that they knew the claim was false, but since the actual best selling new nameplates were Ford products, they figure no one would have a claim against them besides themselves, and they certainly aren’t going to file it.
For the record, I’ve always liked Fairmonts despite their being terminally boring. It’s funny that the car “designed for a changing world” was such an old-fashioned, conservative vehicle.
It’s funny that the car “designed for a changing world” was such an old-fashioned, conservative vehicle.
OHC four and four speed stick standard. Strut front suspension.Multi-link coil spring rear suspension. Exceptionally light but strong and roomy body structure. A lot like the Volvo 760/740 that came out a several years later.
Other than not having FWD, it was quite modern and advanced, actually, especially so for an American car. In 1978/1979, it was the most advanced American car other than the Omni-Horizon.
The fact that the Fox body was so relatively advanced for the time is what allowed that platform to stay relevant for so long.
Paul, I know the point of today’s column is the sales claim, but you noted exactly what I admired about the car when it arrived–it didn’t feel like the 60s-70s cars I’d driven in. I’d be temped to give one a home if a fair “survivor” appeared…
My grandfather owned a ’79 or ’80 model and I remember it looking nothing like the other cars of the early 80s. It was an interesting ride whenever we went apple picking. I liked the taillights.
It would be cool to have a Zephyr — if for no other reason than… I mean… how many automobiles besides the FoMoCo cars called Zephyr had both a Z and a Y in their names (and no other “full time” vowels besides one little “e”)? 😉
I – in full disclosure – like the styling/design aesthetic of the Fairmount/Zephyr. I probably shouldn’t admit that just anywhere 🙂 but it looks crisp and uncluttered to me. Crisp and uncluttered has drifted in and out of fashion over the decades. The modern (2021) massmarket look, by and large, isn’t what I’d call “uncluttered”. 🙂
Agreed on the nice clean design. Especially compared to the LTD version with the aero front clip.
You have to read the sentence like a lawyer.
It means: “More Fairmonts were sold than any other new 1978 nameplate in the year 1978 ever.”
New nameplates in other years are excluded from the contest.
“The Best Selling New Car Ever Introduced” rather negates that.
When I graduated from college in the spring of ’84, I bought a used ’78 Fairmont Futura. It had a 6 cylinder and a 3 speed manual transmission on the floor. That was the first time I had seen a floor mounted 3 speed manual trans. It also had what seemed like an after-market AC system (or maybe a really cheap factory version) that would not hold Freon for more than a couple months. It was the same blue as the 4 door in the ad above and looked rather sharp. At least until someone came flying into a parking lot I was leaving and plowed into the front drivers side fender. I took the money from the insurance company, bought a fender at a salvage yard, had a friend paint it for and we installed it ourselves. Turns out the fender was from a Mercury Zephyr and had different parking and turn signals lenses and bulb fittings and the cheap trim did not line up anymore. But, hey, it was good enough.
It was a decent enough car and got me through several Minnesota winters before I decided I deserved a better car fitting for a ‘man of my stature’.
Yeah, I just read the first sentence: “In the 1978 model year more Fairmonts were sold than any other new car nameplate ever.”
Sneaky sneaky.
A Futara Coupe with a 4 speed stick and 302 and a rear end ratio in the mid Threes would be quick for the times and hopefully reliable. An acceptable Fox body family hauler!
The headline and the first paragraph of the copy are slightly different.
The body text limits the claim to the 1978 model year, a claim I could believe (what other new nameplates were introduced in 1978 – AMC Concord?).
The headline text doesn’t include that stipulation and is patently false.
The body text limits the claim to the 1978 model year,
No it doesn’t. The word “ever” at the end of the first sentence clearly means “ever”, and not just in 1978. Properly read, it says that the MY 1978 Fairmont sold more than any new car in any previous model year “ever”.
And context is everything: the title of the ad clearly makes a claim that cover all previous model years. The first text sentence (“ever”) supports that claim rather than limiting it.
There was also Dodge and Plymouth who got new nameplates introduced in 1978 with Omni and Horizon.
It’s called selling to the customer, not being 100% honest
Ahh, this calls for a lawyer. 🙂
1) New Car Nameplate
2) Sold in
3) A Model Year
The Mustang was a “new car nameplate” in the 1964 model year, and the Maverick fit that category in the 1969 model year – both cars were introduced in April of the model year before the one it actually counted as part of.
So, using this hyper-technical way of counting, Ford was being truthful.
Also, were there any other “new car nameplates” introduced in 1978? If so, I’ll bet Fairmont outsold them, which makes another interpretation. And certainly, no other “new car name plate ever” (if this would include the 65 Mustang or the 70 Maverick) was sold in 1978.
There are lots of ways to parse this so that it’s true. True statements can often be misleading.
Objection!
“Model Year” is defined by the manufacturer via the VIN, and not by any calendar. All Mustangs starting in April 1965 are legally 1965 MY cars; same goes for Mavericks; they were all 1970 MY cars.
The Model Year starts anytime after Jan 1 of the year preceding the calendar year. Technically and legally, Ford sold 681k 1965 MY Mustangs and 579k 1970 MY Mavericks.
Then I guess we will have to be satisfied with the alternative argument that none of those MY 1965 Mustangs or MY 1970 Mavericks was sold as a “new car nameplate” in MY 1978, so that even a single sale of a 1978 Fairmont would have beat them. 🙂
Which is probably why they mentioned the 1978 model year specifically. Someone mentioned the Eagle, and there was also Chrysler’s L body Omni and Horizon sedan. But we know that there could not have been more than 300k of those sold that year because of the engine constraint.
I have no doubt that there was more than one discussion about this line between FoMoCo attorneys and the ad agency people before this one got approved.
Not buying it. A straight forward reading and interpretation of that sentence is perfectly clear: the 1978 MY Fairmont sold more than any other new car ever. Meaning any previous model year.
“In the 1978 MY…” simply defines the stats of the Fairmont sales. And the “ever” at the end of it clearly and obviously supports the claim in the title.
It’s essential to identify what is being compared to previous new cars. “In the 1978 MY..” does that. But it does not limit this comparison/analysis to just new cars sold in the 1978 MY. That’s simply not logical, nor grammatically correct. How else should or would what’s being compared (1978 MY Fairmont sales) be defined?
I have no doubt that there was more than one discussion about this line between FoMoCo attorneys and the ad agency people before this one got approved.
I doubt it. How could they ever square the title “The Best Selling New Car Ever Introduced”? It’s impossible, no matter how you try to twist the meaning of the first sentence.
I’m afraid I must concur with the Counsel from Indiana, though I give no approbation to the moral imperative underlying the propositions in favor of his client, Ford. (Neither do I insinuate that his morality approves of such distasteful dividing of hairs: he may well not, but he would be failing in his job if he did anything other than prosecute the case to his clients benefit to the best of its legal extent).
Another observation has to be made. It seems that the NHTSA did not legally require the VIN to have its modern form, identifying a legal MY, until 1981. This alone would possibly protect Ford in 1978, as what it defines as a model year appears to be its own business. Further, the definition of model year to this day has a great margin for adjustment. A car may be released as early as, say, January of the calendar year 2016 until as late as December 2017 of the actual calendar year, all VIN titled the model year 2017.
There may, of course, be relevant consumer protection legislation that caveats against conduct that is misleading or deceptive, but that is another issue, and in any event, the claim that a car is the “best-selling” does not necessarily infer any quality about the car that it may or may not have other than popularity. Popularity is not equivalent to excellence, something our current world demonstrates in daily and copious amounts.
Just because the NHTSA clarified legal issues regarding VINs in 1981, for emission reasons does not negate the fact that all American cars had to have a legal model year as part of its manufacturer’s plate going waayyy back. For licensing, titling, taxing, and numerous other good reasons, all cars had a legal MY, which could start as early as Jan 1 of the preceding year. There’s no fudging that. It’s not like in Australia, with the odd XGA and that.
Furthermore, here’s this from Wikipedia:
In 1954, at the request of the US government, US car manufacturers and the Automobile Manufacturers Association were involved in the creation of the new, standardized vehicle identification numbering system named the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) with an agreed upon digit sequence and concealed chassis markings of this VIN.
Every 1965 Mustang is legally a 1965 Mustang; that cannot be changed. That’s the choice Ford made; they could have called them 1964’s, but they chose not to.
The same applies the 1970 Maverick, which also started in the spring of 1969.
And as I’ve said way too many times, even if you subtract the “early production” 1965 Mustang sales (122k) from the total (681) you still end up with 100k more than the ’78 Fairmont. And the 1970 Mavericks sales were also significantly greater than the ’78 Fairmont’s.
How familiar are you with American manufacturer’s plates and what they mean legally?
I think it hinges on 3) Model Year and its definition.
Before 1971 the current definition of model year did not exist. Safety and emissions standards where based on the date of mfg. I’ve looked but can not find the IH pickup ad where they note that since the gov’t was forcing them they would now have model years.
The key wording in the current law is that a model year MUST contain a Jan 1st but can not contain two Jan 1st. I’m guessing this was done to avoid confusing consumers in regards to what standards a vehicle must meet.
Two Fords highlight the loophole the current definition was designed to close.
1970 Falcon, In the fall of 1969 Ford started producing Falcons that were sold as 1970 even though there were zero changes from the 1969 version. Production stopped before Jan 1st 1970 since it would not be legal to produce a car w/o a locking steering column. Under the current definition they could not have sold it as a 1970, but they could have continued making 1969 vehicles until Dec 31st.
1970 Maverick they also played the locking steering column game with only those produced after Aug having it.
So my bet is that Ford would claim that until the federal law defining models years was on the books they had their own definition, presumably Aug-Sep XX-1 to July-Aug XX.
So they would have probably claimed that even though early Mustangs and Mavericks were sold as 1965 or 1970 the early ones were produced/sold in Ford’s 1964 or 1969 model years.
Mustangs produced before July 31st 1964 do have a number of difference vs the ones produced after that date. The change from Generator to Alternator is the best known but there are a number of other changes as well.
(Note Ford pulled a 1970 Falcon with the Crown Victoria in that cars produced in September 2011 were badged as 2012 MY vehicles, but since they were not for sale in the US it did not matter than production stopped before Jan 1st 2012.)
You can prattle on about this as long as you want, but the very simple fact is that all Mustangs from April 1964 on ARE 1965 MY cars, by Ford’s own identification system, and legally recognized as such.
Same with the Maverick.
MY statistics (along with calendar year stats) have been kept going way back. They are critical and well documented statistics in the industry, and they’ve always been based on the manufacturer’s self identification, via the car’s manufacture/VIN plate. No one can just arbitrarily declare a given set of cars to be in a different MY when they are legally identified as such. Your guess that Ford had their own MY definition that goes against the cars’ legal VIN MY is absurd. These are public companies and the statistics they give out to investors and others need to conform to established industry norms and standards.
Every industry publication (Wards, etc.) or other source that has compiled automotive statistics conform to these standards, which is why they always cite the 1965 MY Mustang with 681k units. Going right back to 1965.
And as I clearly pointed out, if you subtract the early 122k 1965 Mustangs (built prior to 9/64) you still get 559k 1965 Mustangs built after that date.That’s almost 100k more than the ’78 Fairmont. There goes your WAG theory.
Why are you and so many other commenters determined to find a loophole, when logic clearly shows there is none. It’s just a BS ad, like so many others. Can you tell the difference between a Ford Granada and a $20,000 Mercedes?
Or is it just another half-baked effort to try to prove me wrong, which is a popular pastime of yours.
Reading comprehension sucks…and some folks are just butt wipes.
“Why are you and so many other commenters determined to find a loophole, when logic clearly shows there is none”
Because that is what people do on forums. It could be about baseball players, it could be about the best guitar solo, or it can and is about cars. Second best thing after nit picking is to drive the head honcho crazy. Logic? You must be kidding. I think a scrum would be just perfect right now.
I don’t believe that the legal departments of Ford and the ad agency either,
A) didn’t review the ad prior to it clearing it for publication,
B) they reviewed it and didn’t ask for proof of how it was defined or calculated, before authorizing publication, or
C) knew they didn’t have some (however convoluted) proof and didn’t care if they got fined.
.
It is not like the “Can you tell the difference between a Granada and a Mercedes?” Which would be considered puffery since it concerns opinions.
I know your blood runs blue, but I got news for you, Ford has monkeyed with facts a number of times. Inflated EPA numbers on the C-Max. And more recently a related but wider issue with emissions certifications, resulting in a federal criminal investigation. Going back deeper into history undoubtedly turns up other issues.
As to this ad, I cannot explain it, other than what it clearly purports to claim, a claim that is all-too obviously incorrect, given that several of their own cars sold better in their first MY.
Shall I put in a claim with the FTC? Or has the statue of limitations run out?
I’m wondering about the procedure if someone wanted to challenge what is blatantly fraudulant advertising. I suppose litigation would be involved, but to what end?
I suspect the reason it’s very rare is that going the legal route falls into the category of ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’, at least in the sense when no safety issues are involved.
IOW, let’s say GM decided to sue Ford over this ad. They might win the battle, but Ford would win the war in all the free media attention they’d garner. After all, while the Fairmont might not actually have sold as many as Ford claimed, they still sold a whole lot of them, and that’s what people would take notice of.
That sort of number fudging goes for both sides.
For ’57 when Ford gave Chevrolet a spanking, all of a sudden Chevrolet wanted to emphasize calendar year production.
In the late ’80s it was about mixing car and truck figures to be able to claim a lead.
Again I say, claims of “firsts” etc. need to be taken with a grain of salt. IE the recent “first” tilting cab.
JP I rest my case…
Ford Fairmont still looks great, 43 years later.
The Quadricycle and 1924 Model T are probably in the ad because they were available from the Ford museum, along with the others.
My first new car was a 1978 2-door Fairmont I ordered in January 1978. I decided on the 2-door because the 4-door came from Ontario, while the 2-door came from New Jersey and I would get it quicker. Naturally the NJ plant had a strike and I didn’t get my new wheels until April. I also killed my first (of many) deer with that car.
Any mention of Fairmont brings to mind the only one I ever had a direct encounter with as
a passenger. It was during my freshman year in high school in 1989, and was owned by
a girl who had just gotten her license. If I remember correctly it had been given to her by
her grandmother and was like new, red on red vinyl. In Maryland it was quite rare to see
any older vehicle without copious amounts of rust. She did a kind of car pool for her
friends who were either too young to drive or just didn’t have access to a car. The route
to pick up said group was entirely illogical and generally involved fairly long waits at
various houses. That red vinyl seat is still very clear in my mind, and if I close my
eyes the feel of the cold winter air and the smell of old car and Marlboro lights are right
there. Not long after she wrecked it one night, in what I recall hearing about as being a
fairly spectacular fashion. Seeing the car after the fact, sitting at the fire station, it was
surprising that the rather large group of teens survived without injury.
Someone forgot the asterisk.
The country or continent is not specified, so that must mean all the XC Fairmonts sold in Australia and New Zealand are included in that equation as well? Oh, wait, but that doesn’t make it a “new car nameplate” anymore!
I myself always found the ad suspect. I remember the original Mustang sold a million copies in it’s first two (and half) years, so I figure Ford had come up with some creative accounting that put the original Mustang at 400k per year (a million divided by 2.5 years), hence the Fairmont was the top “new car nameplate”.
Within 18 months, the new “Chevy Citayyy-tion” would “blow it into the weeds” and set another record. (right?)
The really misleading ad was the 1980 EPA rating of…23 city/ 38 highway (for the standard 4-cyl, 4-speed). 38! (I think EPA was 23/33 during 1978). Even at 15, I questioned how a (not by much), bigger Fairmont could do better than the Pinto with the same drivetrain.
I think Consumer Reports noted the following steady speed mpg, at 40/50/60 mph: 36/33/29. When I owned it, I usually got 29-30 on long trips, and I did hit 33mpg.
TomLU86 I was maybe 9 years old when the Citation came out, and I clearly recall the commercial and the little song!
:^)
And later…………… ‘NEW NISSAN SENTRA! YOUUU NEED THIS CAR!!’
Yesterday, in the comment section of another blog I frequent, someone asked for a citation for someone else’s statistics and got a picture of a Citation. “Worst Car Wednesday” was photoshopped behind it.
My mother-in-law got a Futura coupe, 6 and auto. She “thought” it was a “sports car”………uhhh???
To each their own, and she really did like the car! 🙂
Visually compared to the vast majority of over wrought vehicles now cluttering the roads, her Fairmont Futura in blazing RED is now looking pretty good design wise! DFO
Meh. It’s an ad. Next page!
The past few weeks I’ve been digging into my Car and Driver archive from around this period. It’s been amusing (in passing) to see what kind of pitches they thought we’d respond to back then. Like scantily-clad women advertising radar detectors and paint protection. Of course we’re so much more sophisticated nowadays…..
I have the same shrugging attitude. “Our Fairmont sold so well, all the asterixes fell off.”
Car ads were always bollocks, and still are amongst the most laughably pretentious and misleading stuff to be seen. VW in 2021: “No filter.” Just like their previous diesels, then? Seriously!
Perhaps we’re just more used to it in Oz, what with decades of cars “wholly designed in Australia” by “Australia’s Own”*, which they weren’t and it wasn’t.
*wholly owned by GM, Detroit, all profits repatriated.
Once again, most “first” “best” “most” etc. claims are carefully worded and light on specifics.
Maybe they meant “Best Smelling New Car”?
Perhaps the best selling claim was written by Joe Isuzu.
A very roomy interior, per my recollection. Which was fairly hard to find in those days
Perception helped by the large windows.
Shouldn’t there be a comma after “year” in the first sentence?
I agree that the clean and uncluttered look of the Fairmont sedan was refreshing at the time, and even Today. Though I might prefer a bit of spice with a Futura or Zephyr coupe. I’m not going to mention that every Fox Mustang bit bolts on.
Why didn’t Ford just compare the Fairmont to the Volvo, like they did with the Granada and the Mercedes, and claim that it was just exactly like the Volvo for thousands less? But I guess they figured this lie was better than that one, huh?
For that matter why didn’t Ford just “pony up” and by Vulva?
What…. what?
They did?
lol
You’ll get the best ride you ever had in a Vulva. You won’t even care how it is equipped. It’s just that good!
Haven’t there been any negative consumer reports at all?
Sometimes the friction coefficient varies depending on the state of both the owner and the driver. Skilled operation by the driver can usually improve it tho.
In those days, auto production data from the past wasn’t as readily available as it is today. These days you can usually Google it, but for years I’d also refer to those big Consumer Guide auto encyclopedias.
So, when that ad first came out, few people probably questioned it. Also, as for the Maverick, like the Mustang, it was an early introduction. April 17, 1969. So it benefited from an extra long model year as well. Actually, I think the Maverick might have set some kind of record, depending on the metric you want to use, because that 579K units was all from one body style, the 2-door. The 4-door didn’t come out until the 1971 model year. While the 1965 Mustang still outsold it, it took three body styles: 2-door hardtop, 2-door fastback, and the convertible.
When the Citation came out for 1980, it sold an astounding 811,000 or so units. But again, it was an early introduction: April 1979. And it took three body styles to do it…4-door hatchback, 2-door hatchback, and the 2-door club coupe. I don’t think any single body style beat that 579K the 1970 Maverick moved.
Y’know, that Maverick record, of 579K in its introductory year, with just one body style, might be a record that still stands today. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, I don’t think any one car model has sold much more than 500K (and certainly not its introductory year). Some full-sized pickups can sell that and more, easily in a given model year. But again, it takes several different cab configurations and bed lengths to do it. And sometimes, even entirely different models (Ram/Ram “Classic”, or F-150/F-250/350/et al)
What was the first publication date of the “Best-Selling” claim?
The 1980 Citation outsold them all at over 811k, albeit with three body styles and an elongated first model year.
The four door hatchback alone sold 451k units.
I wonder if the movie Used Cars from 1979 was premised on this ad, the climax involved the challenging of the claim of “we have a mile of cars”. Indeed by the end Grandpa Munster was measuring a fleet of hastily acquired junkers to the inch with a tape measure
The headline make as much sense as “Road Hugging Weight”
Stepping past the weasel-y marketing, I can see a lot to like about the Fairmont… I never thought all that much of them when they were roaming the roads en masse, but now, they strike an attractive pose when interspersed into the ocean of greyscale, angry suppository shaped cars of today. While kind of basic and boxy, there’s a purposeful, pragmatic look about the whole package. I’m on the fence as to whether I’d prefer a Fairmont Futura/Zephyr Z-7 or a 4 door… and whether I’d shoot for high fuel economy or stuff Mustang guts into the thing, but I could definitely see one of these Fords in my future or future past.
There was a lot to like about the Fairmont. I have several fond–and amusing–memories of mine.
However, unlike Car & Driver, or even Consumer Reports, those of us who owned them day in and day out were aware that “this is a cheap car”.
Which is unfortunate, because, for only a few dollars more (and we are talking maybe $100 in 1978 on a $3600 base price car), much of the cheapness could have been exorcised–just by making the Interior Accent Group standard, and making some chrome trim standard.
My family needed a car, and in 1980, the Fairmont worked for us. But my father quickly took to calling it “the tin can”, even though mechanically it turned out to be a pretty decent car.
I have the 1978 Consumer Reports issue featuring a test of two Fairmonts. One was well-optioned, and the other was a barebones four-cylinder with a manual transmission. The magazine liked the Fairmont, but said the difference in equipment levels made it seem as though they had tested two completely different cars.
I have that issue also…somewhere in here.
And I don’t agree with CR’s assessment.
CR tested a BASE 4-cyl, 4-speed, unassisted brakes and steering and a “typical” six cylinder, automatic, power steering, power brakes, and I’m pretty sure it had A/C, the exterior accent group (the six cyl illustration had the trademark full wheel covers with the octagon, the 4 cyl had hub caps).
CR’s biggest peeve on the 4-cylinder was also the most overdone: it had a foot-operated parking brake, which is “unsafe with a manual”. Really?
Having inherited a 4-cyl, 4-speed Fairmont WITH power steering and brakes, that my father ordered new, and having driven my mother’s six cylinder auto Fairmont that was bought as a low-mileage, used car, I found the six had four’s vices (CHEAPNESS, tinny), was quieter (but not really quiet above 50mph), used a lot more gas, and was a lot less entertaining (not revving the THRASHY engine).
Had CR’s 4-cylinder been equipped with power steering and brakes, I think they would agree.
IIRC, CR’s rationale about the parking brake was that a handbrake lever can be manipulated to hold a manual-transmission car on a hill while taking off from a stop, while a foot-petal brake cannot.
As a lifelong manual-transmission driver who’s lived in hilly country (and had to cope with clueless truck drivers riding my tail at stoplights), I’ve got to admit CR had a point.
It is just quite shocking to hear of a large corporation making claims that may be untrue.
To my great glee, VW in Australia just this week lost its final appeal about paying $125million AUD($91millUSD) in penalties for the dieselgate scandal here.
C’est la change.
(Sound of referee’s whistle)
(Cutaway to Judge’s gavel pounding)
lol
Thought I’d try to see how Ford might justify this one.
This directly from the horse’s mouth. 🐴
Namely Ward’s, the industry’s most recognized and respected compiler and publisher of motor vehicle trade data.
Ward’s tallied “64-1/2” Mustang separately, -and I quote- as: “pre-1965 model”
This, found printed in at-the-time industry trade publications, not from regurgitated internet information.
Looks like would-be challengers of the Mustang count had some 13 years until Fairmont to sayeth noth, but apparently didn’t?
It seems it could be sincerely argued that Mustang was introduced and its production first tabulated in the pre-1965 MY; with figures well below any concern for the Fairmont claim.
FWIW, also per Ward’s, all of ’78 Fairmont data was compiled as 1978 MY production, no distinction for early builds.
Looks like Ford could be off the hook, at least as to the Mustang question.
Thank you for finding that, and yes I’d say that would be the justification, from a 3rd party that they would have used if called out on the ad. I’d say there was a good possibility that Ward’s tallied the Maverick in a similar way.
How dense are you? Can you not comprehend the 2nd grade math that even the 559k 1965 Mustangs built after Sept. 1964 is 100k more than the ’78 Fairmont? How many times do I have to repeat it??
I would say Ford was relying on the fine line that “introduction year” for the Mustang was “pre-1965” (whatever that time period might otherwise be known as. lol) thus highest volume for a new nameplate in introduction year would not include ’65 figures.
That’s my take on how the statement could be justified. shrug
Not working for me. That’s just pointing out what the first 12 calendar months production was. That does not include the rest of the 1965 MY Mustangs made after April 1965. What are they? Not 1965 MY Mustangs?
It’s real simple: The April – Sept 1964 Mustangs were either legally 1964 Model year or 1965 Model year cars. Their VIN numbers all start with a “5”. That stands for 1965 MY, in Ford speak.
And you still haven’t addressed the 1970 Maverick.
This has become very tedious. Stop trying so damn hard to prove me and the obvious wrong.
I’m not trying to prove anybody wrong.
It’s nothing to get worked up about.
I was simply trying to get a grip on how Ford felt justified to state the claim. I put in the effort to dig up the old paper and now feel like I’m getting ‘horse’ whipped for it.
Ward’s reported the data the same way as their narrative describes it. With that, I can see how Ford could run with it.
I haven’t looked at the Maverick part of the quandary – maybe later? One horse at a time. lol
Again I say, almost all claims of “first” “best” etc. are carefully crafted because the reality is not so clear.
So, in chronological order,:
White didn’t pioneer the tilting cab.
Technically Ford didn’t fib
Epstein didn’t commit suicide.
lol
Lighten up, all, it’s okay.
Technically Ford didn’t fib
You’ve presented zero evidence to support that claim.
Court dismissed.
Ward’s tallied “64-1/2” Mustang separately, -and I quote- as: “pre-1965 model”
You came up with absolutely nothing new or relevant. Many sources, including the Standard Catalog of American Cars, provide a breakout of the early production 1965 Mustangs, that total number being 122K. It’s a number that’s of interest for a number of reasons, since there were some differences in the 1965 Mustangs starting in Sept. 1964.
The problem is two-fold, in terms of your ref’s whistle: as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, subtracting that 122k from the 681k total leaves 559k 1965 Mustangs built after Sept. 1964, or almost 100k more than the Fairmont’s ’78 MY sales. How many times do I have to repeat that? It’s right at the top of text. How can you be a ref if you don’t even read the text?
The other issue is that even though early production Mustangs are commonly identified as such, they are nevertheless legally 1965 Mustangs as per their VIN, as per Ford’s decision to do so. They could have called them 1964s, but for a number of reasons, they didn’t. Nothing you or Wards or anyone else says changes that.
As to the 1970 Maverick, its 579k MY 1970 sales have never been broken out with “early production” versions. Those are also well ahead of the ’78 Fairmont sales.
Ref? Hello, Ref?
Producing a half million or more cars with all new engineering, no wonder there were problems. The deadly sin occurs when they aren’t found and fixed quickly.
I do recall when this ad first appeared and thinking: “Huhhhhhh-WHATT?”
I was immediately skeptical of the (so called) facts used to support this ad.