In a short 18 months or so, I had gone from piloting a land yacht (’66 Fury III) to having a blast in a go kart (’83 Colt) to needing another car after the Colt had been totaled by the insurance company of the guy in the black Tempo. This one, as if it had been chosen by Baby Bear, was Juuuust Right. My normal car-buying method had been to amble around randomly and wait for something to find me. This may have been the only time in my life I set out to look for one particular model of used car – and found it.
But one of these? Really? Actually yes. Understand that I had hated these cars when they were new. I saw it as a bloated Fairmont. An ugly bloated Fairmont. And one that was a stupid and particularly transparent attempt to fool people into buying a size down but thinking they were still getting everything they wanted from a traditional big American car. And in its production life (1983-1985-ish) it had seemed hopelessly outclassed by more modern offerings from GM and Chrysler. When my mother had told me she was looking at a new LTD in 1985, I was terrified that it might be one of these, but it turned out she meant a Crown Vic. Crisis averted.
But then I made a trip to Fort Wayne and visited my friend Dan He gave me a ride in his new-to-him car – the sedan version of one of these, but with Ford badges. Outside, it was an unattractive car in an unattractive two-tone brown and I had no idea why he might have chosen it. Inside, however, it was quite nice. His father (and my old car mentor) Howard had found it as a fresh trade-in at a local dealer and I picked up a bit of intelligence about the used car market – these things could be had for a song. Once the Taurus had been introduced, the value on the FairTD and Fairquis dropped like stones in the sea. Which gave me a fresh perspective. I loves me an automotive bargain, and now I saw the Fox-body LTD/Marquis as something like day-old bagels at the deli for half the price of the fresh ones. So, naturally, these were the first thing to mind when I suddenly found myself in need of a car.
In 1992 the way to buy a used car was to pick up one of those free weekly publications full of grainy black and white photos and the classified ads that accompanied them – I think my local version was called “Wheels And Deals”. I got my copy and started looking. I found a few examples, then had one of those lightbulb moments – these had come as a wagon! This was good news because the wagon was the only one of these things that I had actually found attractive. Probably because they looked most like the original Fairmont from which they had been rendered – and say what you will about the Fairmont wagon, it was not a bad looking little car.
If a guy wanted to look for Cutlass Cieras or Pontiac Grand Ams (this was Indianapolis, remember) you got page after page of choices. The FoxTquis had never been a huge seller, so the selection was more limited. I think I found two wagons, but one of them really stood out: An ad for a 1986 Marquis Wagon at a local L-M dealer. Marianne and I drove there early one September evening and found the lot almost empty. A salesman explained that they had taken a lot of inventory to an area mall where a group of east-side Indianapolis car dealers was having a big tent sale.
It was getting dark by the time we finally got there, and there were both cars and tents everywhere. My old serendipity method of car buying almost scuttled Mission Marquis, though. One dealer had a nice original 1963 Dodge 330 4 door sedan there. A beige car with a slant 6 and a three-speed. Hot Damn, I thought. Marianne was less pleased, but was a good sport. We took it for a drive through the mall parking lot, and it drove the way it should. True, I would be going back to no air conditioning, but retrofits for vintage cars were starting to become a thing. Someone had redone the upholstery in a non-stock color and pattern, which removed it from my “holy shit I cannot live without this car” list.
The dealer had priced the Dodge in the range between crazy and criminally insane. I offered an amount I thought was fair for the car. I had (a little) insurance money in my pocket and was ready to buy a car. “It’s a classic” was his reply. Yes, a beige six cylinder ’63 Dodge sedan. A classic. Absolutely. “That nobody wants, so good luck with it” was my reply. I think I added that I was really interested, but not for stupid money. I have always wondered how life would have gone had that dealer been the least bit reasonable, but we will never know. I have also wondered what they eventually got for that car. I’ll bet it was right around what I was offering (if they were lucky).
My Dodge fever having abated, we resumed our trek and found the Marquis Wagon just as business was wrapping up for the evening. It looked legit, so we planned to go back the following day, which was a Saturday. The first head scratcher was that it was a 1986 model. I had not realized that there was such a thing, and had assumed that the ad was a misprint. But it turns out that the Taurus/Sable was just a touch late at introduction and these remained in production through the end of 1985 or January of ’86 as the new design filled the sales channels. The only difference I ever saw between an ’85 and my ’86 was the center high mount brake light fastened to the roof above the top of the tailgate. I later learned that this 1986 Marquis Wagon was one of 4,461 built for that short model year – my ’64 Imperial Crown Coupe was a high-production model by comparison.
We must discuss the name: Marquis Wagon. Mercury had no catchy name for it, it was just the Marquis Wagon, in which the “W” was capitalized. This always confused me. The big panther-body Grand Marquis station wagon retained the Colony Park name from before. Wasn’t there some smaller kind of park this one could have been named after? But maybe Marquis Wagon was better than Mercury Municipal Park. But I digress.
This Wagon was a high-trim version and was loaded with extras. Power windows, locks and seats. Air, stereo, cruise, Autolamp and almost everything else a guy could want. The only problems? OK, other than it being a Fox-body Marquis. It was a five year old car with 106k on the odometer, so it was high miles for its age. But that did not bother me as much as the other issue: the seats. This car had the “Twin Comfort Lounge seating”. Each of the chocolate brown front seats had an assembly that combined an armrest and a narrow console tray on the inboard side. On this car, someone had removed the armrests/console trays and replaced them with pieces of plywood that were covered with padding and beige upholstery fabric of a style suitable for a family room sofa from around 1979. The salesman said something about how the prior owner traveled with pets and this allowed the little darlings better access up front when roaming. Grumble. But if the price was right I would be OK. The last problem was the leather covering on the steering wheel – the prior owner must have had the most acidic skin chemistry ever, because the leather covering was in terrible shape.
I forget what the dealer was asking, I think it was somewhere just under $4k. On a car that had probably stickered between $12-14k when new. But I had looked up prices in a value guide. I calculated the price including options and high miles, then figured the number that was exactly half way between wholesale and retail. That number was $2,650, and that was what I told the man I would pay. “OK, that’s a start, but my manager will never go for that” and he dropped his ask by some microscopic increment. Then I went to work.
My day job involved litigating cases for insurance companies so settlement negotiations were a daily thing. A senior partner had offered many lessons in negotiation that had served him well and have served me well too. One of them was this: “The worst guy to negotiate against is the guy whose final position is a figure at the extreme ragged edge of reasonable.” And he was right on this too. A plainly unreasonable offer or demand can be ignored, and a plainly reasonable one results in a quick agreement. The art is finding the boundary between them. Which is what I did. The other factor that came into the negotiation was this: Unlike almost every car I had ever bought, I was pretty certain that he wanted needed to sell this car more than I needed wanted to buy it. This car had high miles, a goofy front seat thing and the unsightly steering wheel. And most of all it was a Fox body Marquis. How many more people like me was he likely to meet at his tent sale? Exactly.
Marianne and I sat in that tent for probably two hours. Every time the salesman came back from the manager, my reaction was the same: “I have said from the time we sat down that I am going to buy this car for $2650. $2651 and I walk.” Bit by bit the price came down and finally, after I asked for my drivers license back and started to get up he went back to his manager one last time and came back. “$2700. That’s absolutely it, man – I can’t go any lower. If that’s not good enough then I guess that’s it.” So I did what good plaintiff’s lawyers have done to me for years and years – when I make a final offer they respond with an amount just a teeny bit higher and make me eat my words when my client says OK. I bought the car that day – for $2675.
The deal wasn’t over, because the salesman informed me that I could finance it through Lincoln-Mercury credit at a low interest rate that allowed me to buy the car for a monthly payment of something like $57. They made a little money on the financing and I now had a car for the monthly cost of a date night with Marianne.
Once I cleaned the rest of the cat hair out of it, I came to love that car. I didn’t love the teeny tiny gas tank (unique to the wagons) that gave me a range of 175-225 miles on a tank of gas with the 3.8 V6, an engine that never met a gallon of gas it didn’t like. The 3.8 wasn’t powerful but it had a decent amount of grunt. And the best thing of all was the C5 three speed automatic. At first I was disappointed that the AOD (Automatic Overdrive Transmission) was the one option that was missing on this car, but after some later experience with one, I didn’t realize how good I had it. The C5’s shift characteristics really worked well with the engine, just the way a good American automatic had always worked.
I had a couple of issues. This was the car that made me learn the Ford EEC IV system when the “Engine” light blinked on one day. I checked a manual out from the Public Library, then counted needle swings on my dwell meter to discern the code being thrown. I replaced the EGR valve and the light was extinguished. I also had to remove the headliner panel after the fabric released from the fiberboard and began to hang down into my personal space. I actually did that job twice – the second time after I learned that there was a difference between the expensive 3M spray glue designed for automotive applications and the cheap stuff Marianne found at a fabric store.
I had two fixes that involved transmission fluid. The first was when a leak developed where the transmission lines attach to the radiator. All of the cars of my prior experience made that connection with a flare nut and a wrench, but Ford had gone to a system that involved plastic clips. A prior owner had decided that blue Permatex globbed around the fitting in sufficient amounts was a substitute. It was not. I took the car to a nearby Ford dealer to get those clips replaced, which was lowest repair bill I ever got from a dealer – I think it was somewhere around $20.
The other fix (one I was particularly proud of) was when I noticed that I was losing transmission fluid but could not find evidence of a leak. It took me awhile to discover a sticky reddish residue in the air cleaner housing. It turned out that a diaphragm in the transmission’s vacuum modulator had ruptured, and engine vacuum was sucking Dextron/Mercon into the combustion chambers as an unintended fuel additive. A new vacuum modulator bolted to the transmission case solved that problem and made the car run better too. I also diagnosed the cause of a recurring dead battery when I looked outside at the car one night (which I parked at the curb in front of the house) and saw a soft glow coming from under the hood – a bad mercury switch (or was it a Mercury switch?) – which explained why there had been no bulb in the socket for the underhood light when I bought the car. Some people may have replaced the switch, I just removed the bulb.
Interestingly, I never replaced either the missing armrest assemblies or the steering wheel. Ten years earlier, I would have been combing the junkyards for trim parts to return my car to factory condition – there were surely several of the sedans with brown interiors in the yards. But in an amazing display of discipline and personal growth I simply ignored the car’s interior shortcomings.
Again, I had found a car that I preferred driving over the Accord. Was it because Fords had always reminded me of my father? Maybe there was some of that. But beyond that, it was comfortable, quiet and relatively luxurious. It also had a really pleasant drivetrain (which I had come to define as anything that was not a 4 cylinder/automatic). It was great on the highway (other than the silly-short range from the small gas tank), and was useful around town with lots of room in back when the seat was folded. The Marquis Wagon didn’t feel at all like the Fairmonts I had driven, but felt very substantial and quiet.
A word about that house which has appeared in several COAL photos. I bought it as a bachelor in 1987, lived there as a married guy starting in 1990 and then with a kid by early 1992. I had not wanted to move – I loved our house and our neighborhood. It was the kind of place with summer block parties and where everyone knew each other. The problem was that it was a 2 bedroom, 1000 square foot house (albeit with a full basement) in a neighborhood of 2 bedroom, 1000 square foot houses. It also had a total of two not-large closets in the entire place. I always maintained that it was a perfect size for our little family of three. Marianne, however, considered it a perfect size for me before we got married. When we learned that we were expecting Cavanaugh #4, a change in address was going to be necessary. On a really, really hot day in June of 1993, we moved to a larger home, with much help from the Marquis. Actually, the little wagon proved far more useful for the purpose than my F-100 had been during my previous move. And, with its ice-cold air conditioning, the Mercury was a lot more comfortable than the old pickup too.
Cavanaugh #4 was expected to arrive in early 1994 and I looked forward to using the Marquis to bring him home from the hospital. It just seemed to me that if I had a station wagon with wood trim along its flanks, it was wrong not to use it for that purpose. In fact, I looked forward to squeezing several more years out of the little beige wagon, and saw it as the perfect complement to our Accord as we eased into life with two little ones. But about July of 1993 serendipity hit again and my next “Yes or No” car decision was put before me. I said “Yes” to the subject of a future COAL and needed to find a new home for the Marquis.
There was a law clerk working at my office who had been lamenting how the cheap “kid car” his family maintained had rusted to the point it was no longer safe. “I think I can solve your problem” was what I told him, and indeed I did. The guy’s father came and looked the Marquis over and bought it from me in a far easier transaction than when I had bought it. In the small-world department, the guy’s dad was an attorney for the life insurance company where Marianne had worked before we got married. Marianne had become famous there as the girl who guaranteed her spot in a first come-first served employee buyout by parking herself in a chair at quitting time about 16 hours before the 8:00 am start for accepting applications. She was the first of about a dozen who camped in that hallway for the night, and he laughed about finally getting to meet her. The buyer was someone I knew, so I shared all known issues and priced it fairly. It was another car I missed because, while I “traded up”, I never liked the way my next car felt or drove as well as I liked this one.
The only problem with the wagon from the day I bought it until now was what to call it. “An ’86 Marquis Wagon” was never enough. Because everyone who has ever heard that description presumed that I was referring to the big Panther-body Colony Park. So I eventually learned that I had to follow up with “No, not that Marquis, the smaller one – Like a Fairmont.” It is something I still have to do.
This is a chapter I had been looking forward to reading. Your fondness for this Mercury isn’t hard to decipher.
Other than fuel capacity, this Mercury was the best of several worlds – inexpensive, reliable, big enough, able to haul plenty…
My high-school algebra teacher and his wife (the school speech therapist) had a Marquis sedan of this vintage. I rode in it several times (their son was in my class – yes, small school). I really liked it despite the white exterior. It also had a 3.8 with a C5 and they got some unreal number of miles out of it and it was still going when I graduated in 1990.
This was a better choice than that ’63 Dodge.
I have decided that Ford’s Fox platform might have been the most versatile ever. It made a good basic economy stripper (Fairmont), a good Mustang, a good luxury coupe (Thunderbird and Mark VII) and even a good semi-luxury station wagon. It was another car I bought for purely practical reasons and quite unexpectedly came to love. I have concluded that this was the ultimate Fox body with more than 2 doors.
I definitely would have to agree with you on the Fox Platform. Ford got a lot of money out of it, and had some decent differentiation between some of the cars. Sure, the LTD/Marquis were clearly Fairmont based, but you couldn’t say the same for the Aero TBird/Cougar, the Mark VII, the Continenetal, and the later Mustangs.
I have been enjoying your COALs.
I had the Ford version of this wagon.
Had to describe it the same as you,
“No the small LTD, like a Fairmont.”
I think these really are kind of underrated, as our other car at the time was a Mercury Zephyr and the LTD (the small one, like a Fairmont😀) was a much nicer driving and riding car.
“No the small LTD, like a Fairmont.”
I know – isn’t that annoying? And yes, it is hard to describe how differently these feel from a Fairmont. The older version felt light and thin, while these felt thick and substantial. Ford must have put a lot more effort into this transition than I had given them credit for back when these were new.
But I still find the sedan versions ugly.
I can totally relate to the identity-crisis car thing. My first car was a 1982 Pontiac J2000 that I bought in 1986. Pontiac couldn’t decide what to call their J body; it went through four names in four consecutive years. I had lots of conversation snippets like:
Someone else: “Where’s your car?”
Me: “Over there” (pointing to it)
Someone else: “the Sunbird?”
Me: “Yeah – well, sort of”
Everybody thought it was a Sunbird, except those who thought it was a Cavalier. I stopped correcting those people after the first few months of ownership.
I replaced that car with a new 1989 Mercury Tracer. The few people who’ve heard of a Mercury Tracer usually know only the 1981 and later version, the one that’s like a Ford Escort. Mine was the older one that was like a Mazda 323. Eventually even I started calling it a Mazda 323 because otherwise I got the wrong parts from the chain store auto parts desk, the wrong key blank at the hardware store, etc. if I identified my car as a Mercury.
I had that car for a reeealy long time, because it was stone reliable and cost almost nothing to run or insure, but when a rear wheel literally started to fall off (the strut attachment rusted in two), it was finally time for a new car, and I bought a 2007 Volkswagen Rabbit. Unlike the J2000, people have heard of a VW Rabbit, but only the Mk1 (’75-84) version forgetting (if they ever knew) that VW briefly reverted to calling the Golf a Rabbit in the U.S. and Canada for the Mk5 version, before (again) reverting to calling it a Golf for the Mk6. I sometimes call it a Golf too just so people won’t think I drive a 40 year old jalopy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that….
Yes, it’s funny how some car names get traction with the general public and others do not. I feel sorry for people who bought a Mercury Mountaineer, only because the whole world only knows about the Ford Explorer version.
My older brother had a Mountaineer and yep, he usually called it an Explorer.
Really, the only time Mercury seemed to get any traction is when Ford spent the money to adequately differentiate their cars from the Ford they were based on, like the original Cougar and Sable.
I can feel this nomenclature pain in a way few others could, having owned both a 1982 Dodge Challenger AND a 1982 Dodge Charger (2.2). Not only does any reference to either of these cause confusion, once the precise model is made clear the other party generally responds with scorn and disdain. Yes, I must agree that neither of these cars were really “worthy” of their names, but they were what they were regardless.
It sounds like your Marquis wagon was a good one. As much as the early Fox bodies get praise today for being a vast improvement over the leviathan Fords that preceded it, they often weren’t great cars. The fact is that Ford quality control on this all new design in the late 1970s was not that great. And quite frankly they were a little on the spartan side. By the time these baby LTD/Marquis came out, Ford had made a number of improvements to the Fox cars. So while they may have been anachronistic and somewhat less desirable, I’d argue these later versions were better cars overall. Your story on Marquis just confirms my thoughts.
We had a 3 fox wagons in our family. They were a great size, compact on the outside, relatively spacious on the inside. Unfortunately in our case, 2 of the 3 were terrible cars, with my Mom and Dad’s ’79 Fairmont holding the title of the worst car ever in our family. It too bad, because it even had the desirable 302, although that engine caused many of the reliability issues with that car (and even shorter range than your Marquis). The other bad example was an ’82 Cougar, which I noted was a vast improvement in luxury and interior trim over our spartan Fairmont and also better than the fancier ’80 Mercury Zehpyr Villager (which was the third wagon and only decent one). Undoubtedly you Marquis must have been even nicer yet and it certainly sounds like it was more reliable than any Fox wagon we owned.
I have heard more than one story about the early Fairmonts (and Mustangs) not being all that they should have been. I think that as far as the sedan/wagon versions of this platform, they reached their peak development in these 83-86 cars. But that shouldn’t be surprising, because that seemed to be the American Way by then – introduce a flawed car or a car with inconsistent assembly quality, then after enough years and units, have the kinks worked out.
The 3.8 was really well matched with the car. I always kind of wished that the 5.0 LX version had been more widely offered – I don’t think it ever found itself in a wagon. But all in all, this one was surprisingly satisfying on many levels.
I have spent many mental cycles thinking of creating a what if LTD LX 5.0 wagon.
My all time first car at age 16 is a similar story: 81 Cougar sedan with a half-padded roof and an anemic inline 6.
So yes, check the box it is a Fairmont in disguise.
And yes again, check the box that further explanation was/is always required (no not the cool Cougar, the small weak one – like the Fairmont).
That 200 cid/3.3L six was never a powerhouse, but the late versions like in your Cougar were really gutless.
And it is nice to know that I had lots of company in needing to use the “like a Fairmont” descriptor. 🙂
I liked these cars only after living with one. Geez, they were unimaginative dweebmobiles, but perfect in important ways. Ford was floundering and produced these Fox sedans, I swear out of desperation. Real hail Mary passes into the US market. No one was fooled. They were Fairmonts with lots of “big car” gewgaws on them. However, Ford got these right. They actually sold a lot of the Ford versions. Mercury versions-WHY? Mercury buyers saw these as Ford Fairmonts, so they didn’t succeed as Mercurys. You ride is very rare.
I got stuck with the previous version – the Fox Cougar sedan. Aunt Bee’s car – a fleet ride among the broken down, but still new, GM X cars and even newer J cars. Knowing how much I couldn’t depend on those – happenstance landed me the fancy Fox.
These were really nice cars. Boring as hell – but a really good car. Like you, I’d get another.
I have wondered how these might have been received if the sedans had not been so unattractive. The greenhouse area was a mess with so many glass panes, pillars and frames, but then that was a Ford problem in general in the 80s.
Between body style, trim, color and equipment I don’t think I have ever come across a Fox LTD/Marquis that was a better all-around combination than this one.
Having driven an LTD version once as a rental, I can concur that it felt significantly different from my father’s Zephyr, which had the 2.3 four, four speed stick and manual steering. But given the spartan and lover of light, basic cars that I am, I rather preferred his Zephyr. It was like comparing a Volvo to an…LTD. But the LTD was so much plusher and quieter.
It occurred to me after writing this that you and I explored the opposite poles of the larger Fox body cars, between your Turbo Coupe and this. What’s amazing was how the same platform did such a credible job at both.
The TC encompassed some of the best (and worst) of both of them. 🙂
I drove a friend’s 4 cylinder 4 speed Zephyr, and it was really enjoyable for a mid-size domestic in the Seventies. But I also once had a 302 Fairmont LTD as a rental and it was very nice, albeit in a different way. Perhaps the best American sedan I remember renting.
Fox Body Fairmont
I always preferred Avis’ Ford Fairmont to any other vehicle in their fleet, including the Volvos, and was especially happy if it had the 302 V8. After limited experience with older Ford models, I thought maybe Ford was really onto something better for the future with this platform. (In ways noted above, it was!)
The Fairmont style and feeling was a crisp, clean, no-nonsense sedan with great visibility and a firm suspension.
If I recall, the horn button may have been in a weird place (turn signal?) but when Avis “upgraded” their Fords to the Tempo/Topaz twins I was less than excited, so I then started to request upgraded K cars if available.
Any Mercury wagon based on the Fairmont must have been a nice, slightly upgraded Fairmont-like, driver.
3.8 V6
I assume this is the Essex engine that later became notorious for head gasket issues in the Taurus/Sable line. It was rated the same hp as the Vulcan 3.0 (140) but it had gobs more torque at a low rpm. One web site quotes the Essex torque as 215 lb.-ft. @ 2200 rpm.
Essex equipped Taurus and Sable were fun drivers as rentals but not as owned vehicles.
This did teach me what was meant by the phrase “People talk HP but drive torque”.
HP vs Torque
Owners of the “newer” Tacomas know their 3.5 V6 has more HP than the old 4.0 and just about the same torque. But, the 3.5’s torque maxes at 4,600 rpm; the old 4.0 maxes at 4,000 rpm.
Guys like me will never notice that difference, but it does show what car companies are dealing with in engine designs and objectives. Also, I recall reading online about a drag race between the new Tacoma 3.5 (6 speed auto) and the old Tacoma 4.0 (5 speed auto) and the old one won.
I didn’t know about the 3.8’s reputation when I had this one, and I never had an issue with mine. I would imagine that the high miles in a short period might have helped by making for fewer warm up cycles than typical, but that’s just a guess.
I recall reading in a comment here awhile ago that the RWD version of the 3.8 was not as problematic, but I don’t know if that’s true or folklore.
These had a subjective feel like a Fairmont chassis with the heft and quiet of a 70s Gran Torino. Not an unpleasant combination that brought the best of both.
Ford first recalled only the fwd 3.8s around 1998-99 I think and covered only ’94 and ’95 Taurus/Sable/Windstar. Then about a year later the rwd Thunderbird/Cougar was included in the recall. I was a Ford service writer at the time – long time ago that it is – I remember those “programs” fondly because I made a ton of money in commissions from them. Not only that, they expanded the program from replacing the whole long block (that’s an entire pre-assembled engine as opposed to just the engine block and/or separate cylinder heads) to BUYING the vehicle outright for MARKET value (not trade-in) IF you purchased a new Ford. So, if I condemned an engine (they ALL got condemned) the ticket would always be New engine (remanufactured), or refer to sales for a New Car. As an aside this Ford program was concurrent with the Firestone/Explorer tire replacement program. It was a very busy time at the Ford dealership to say the least, but I have to hand it to Ford they bent over backwards to making customers happy. Just an FYI I guess. I really enjoyed your writing style on this article. Thanks for the entertainment!
The little console bins in the center of the front seat were there because of a new law that took effect starting with 1981 models that cracked down on manufacturers calling an obvious 5- or 6-passenger car a four-seater so they wouldn’t have to provide center seatbelts. If you didn’t have a seatbelt in either the front center or rear center positions, you were no longer allowed to have a center seat. Several small-to-midsized Ford and GM models sprouted little consoles or cup holders where the center seat position used to be because of that law. The 1981 T-bird and Cougar XR7 had a big lump in the middle rear position so you couldn’t sit there, with the same console bins in the front seat as the Fox Marquis used.
That is interesting, something I was not aware of. But a middle passenger in the front of one of these would have been miserable – the car was nowhere near big enough for that. Also, Ford’s “Twin Comfort lounge seat” design went back to at least my father’s 70 Mark III – it was always bad for a middle passenger because the split was right down the middle and both seats were almost always adjusted differently (height, tilt, fore/aft) which made for a miserable ride in the center. I think others did a 60-40 split that helped this.
We had a 60/40 seat in our ’77 Bonneville Brougham and it wasn’t much better if you didn’t adjust the passenger side 60% to line up with the driver side. The center passenger had nothing but the folded-up armrest to use as a backrest – not very comfortable since it was only two-thirds the height of the main seatbacks for the outer occupants. The center hump was huge in that car too, so not much footroom. At least it didn’t have a dashboard that went down to the floor as in the Marquis. The center front position was much better in the pre-downsized ’76 B bodies due to a smaller center tunnel as well as much more shoulder room.
I had a friend in grad school who drove an early (1982) Chevy Cavalier, in which the rear seat had a hard plastic bin in the middle of the rear seat to prevent a fifth rider from occupying that spot. Her car was a four-door sedan which was roomy enough to carry five people for a short distance, so she provided a small pillow that fit inside that bin in order to accommodate the occasional fifth passenger.
That’s exactly what I did with my early-’82 Pontiac J2000 sedan – pulled out the console and cut a foam insert with cloth around it to provide a center cushion (although even without the cushion it wasn’t all that bad – it was already carpeted and the surrounding seat cushions were soft). The center rear console had cupholders in the coupe and sedan, but not the hatchback or wagon because those had fold-down seatbacks that would crush or knock over your drinks if you folded them down and forgot to remove the beverage cups first.
That split rear seat with console identified your J-body as an early 1982 model (the Cavalier, J2000, and Cimarron went into production in spring 1981). The split rear seat cushion with console proved unpopular, and was replaced with a full width seat cushion and the required center seatbelt for car made starting in autumn 1981.
The center seatbelt law may have had an exception for narrow cars – I don’t recall the ’80s Ford Escort having either three rear seat seatbelts or anything to stop you from sitting there.
I have always liked the wagon versions of the Fox bodies, preferring their clean lines and attractive greenhouse to the tortured shapes and often overwrought details of the sedan and coupe versions of the Fairmont/Granada/LTD. I do remember renting a fully optioned LTD early in my career and marveling how nice and substantial it felt compared to the low line Fairmonts and Granada I had driven as an intern the previous summer. The ride and noise levels in the LTD were much better than on the older cars, which felt cheap and tinny by comparison. Still, I preferred the ride and handling of my 1984 Regal to any of these, as GM just seemed to have started with a better design.
Time and place are everything in life and automobile ownership is no different. It seems like this Marquis was the perfect vehicle for a young family with two kids, being sufficiently roomy and comfortable for four, including two in child safety seats. I can’t believe you didn’t replace that homemade front armrest thingy, though, as that may have been the one worthwhile upgrade to make on a vehicle you otherwise seemed to really like and respect.
I know – I still scratch my head over that armrest thing and how I could live with it. I guess the answer was that I had my hands full with car stuff because this was during the period when I had all 3 hobby cars – the Thunderturd, the Model A and the Imperial. It is easy to overlook an irritant in a cheap daily driver when you have other stuff you care more about.
And I am right there with you on your description of the sedan versions of these.
Hah! I thought the same about the center armrest! Mr. Cavanaugh called it “personal growth” – no way I could abide THAT personal growth haha. Just the cathair alone. Even today, I still go to wrecking yards to find different doodads for this or that car. One of my favorite pastimes although they’ve curbed the behavior quite a bit from when I first discovered it in the early-80s… Really. Funny thing I never owned any fox Ford. The closest I came during that time period was a ’76 Torino wagon, a ’74 Mark IV, a ’74 Cougar, a 74 Colony Park. I think I missed out from the sound of it. BTW, I lived in Stamford, Connecticut in the late ’70s, early ’80s and my only familiarity with that platform vehicle was the local police bought all 5.0 liter Ford Fairmonts and Chevy Malibus as patrol cars. It must have been real spartan times. Once retired they replaced them with standard full-size Impalas and LTDs. I do quite agree with your estimation of the GM v. Ford thing. Night and day certainly with handling characteristics.
1000 square feet .
Slightly less than my house, I live alone now and think it’s too big .
Good looking car, nice to know it served you well .
-Nate
As much as the Taurus threw these into the stone age, these late model Foxes sure make good used cars.
I remember reading in the early 80’s that Ford was planning to discontinue the Panthers because of projected high fuel prices, and the Fox LTD/Marquis were placeholders until Taurus/Sable were ready. Fuel prices came down, and the Panther sales increased and survived. The LTD LX with the 165 hp TBI H.O. 5.0L V8 from the Mustang was somewhat interesting.
I recall reading the same thing – how the Panther cars were scheduled for the ax, but then a reprieve for one more year would be announced. Then another, then another. And suddenly it was 1985 and they were selling like crazy. These downsized LTDs/Marquis got their market cut out from under them.
I think the Fox LTD/Marquis served Ford well as its mid-sized cars those years, and the Fox sedans were almost as roomy as the 1977 LTD II. I especially liked that they used the Thunderbird instrument panel, compared to the austere Fairmont instrument panel also used in the Mustang and the Granada.
I suppose there may be a “flair nut” that exhibits more flair than all the other nuts, but for automotive applications flare refers to the process of flaring a tube to create a flange that seal against the fitting.
And of course neither personal flair and flare nuts have anything to with the flares use in guns.
I actually did not know that – I had assumed that the flaired shape of the tube was the root of the name. A salute for the flair you displayed in the correction. 🙂
My aunt had one of these in her fleet for her courier service business. I got to drive it once, on a long run from home base in Mishawaka, IN, to Sturgis, MI. I was impressed with it. The steering was too light, but otherwise it was a competent wagon. I was impressed with how much stuff I could cram into its wayback. I suffered from its small gas tank — from full, to Sturgis and back had the needle right on E.
I just looked it up, that tank was 16 gallons – I remember thinking that I should theoretically be able to hit 300 miles if I was hypermiling on the highway, but I never came close. The EPA estimates of 17 city and 20 highway were from fantasyland for that car.
Wow that’s awful fuel economy. My Mark vi gets 18 to 25. It reminds me of a Granada 6 I had that got 12 to 15 mpg, far less than my other car a 400 V8 ltd landau that got 16 to low 20s. Ford’s smaller cars were awful and broke down more. I would never own any to that was not a v8
The part of this story I most resonate with is your telling of how you dealt with the dealer under the tent. This is pretty much the story of my car-buying life. And my results have nearly always replicated your experience with the Marquis (the smaller one, like the Fairmont). Although, I have probably grown tired of that choreography as I’ve grown older and am glad to in more recent years have only to buy used cars from individuals, skipping the dealer dance.
Haha, it is good to know that someone else out there appreciates the ability to play the game on the same level as the dealers. But I will admit that not all of my car purchases have found me so willing to walk away.
I factory ordered a new Granada in 1982. As you can see from the window sticker, I was very selective about picking some fairly inexpensive options like a floor shift automatic, “heavy duty” suspension, et al. One of my best choices was an extended range fuel tank. It held 20 gallons and served me well because the 200 inline six also did not deliver very good mileage. And as you note, by that point the 200 was underpowered even for the lightweight Fox body. I was leery of the 3.8L version of the Essex V6 newly available for the Granada that year – and it did not prove to be very reliable according to consumer survey reports I’ve read. I really did need its extra power though and I think it was much improved by the time your car was built. You got a good car and a good deal – glad it worked out.
Interesting window sticker! 213 bucks for the inline 6 though… What was the standard engine?? A four? I might have gone for the 5.0 or the 3.8 because the weight v. power ratio = fun-to-drive factor. I definitely couldn’t live with a four in that vehicle. I remember that time period. It’s when it seemed like car prices doubled in a very short time – and they did.
2.3L I-4 was standard in the Fairmont/Zephyr, Fox Granada/Cougar, and LTD/Marquis all years, and I think did 0-60 in about 16 seconds. I believe 1983 was the only year the 3.3L I-6 was available in the LTD/Marquis.
The standard engine in 81-82 was the 2.3 4 cylinder. In early 82 I inherited a 1981 Granada (pictured) with the 4 cylinder (and no A/C) and traded it in on the 1982 outlined in the window sticker. For 1982 the 5.0 was not an option, only the 3.3 or 3.8.
That 20 gallon tank would have been a very worthwhile option! With as many options as my car had, I was surprised it was not included. But I wonder where it might have gone on the wagon – as I recall there was a nice sized storage area under the rear floor.
If I had been in your position in 1992 (young family + needing a car) I likely would have made the same choice. I’ve shared this story on CC before, but I recall a high school economics assignment in the late 1980s where we needed to simulate a budget, supposing that we had a family of four. This included buying a house, a car, etc. For a car I chose a used Fox-body LTD. (In real life, in a similar situation, I bought a Crown Victoria.)
Anyway, I didn’t find these cars unattractive, and the traditionalist in me loved that these were still available in the mid 1980s. I did drive one once – a quasi-friend of mine in the early 1990s had a 1984-ish Marquis that I got to drove. I liked it.
Also, as the Obsessive-Compulsive car enthusiast that I was at the time, whenever I saw one of these cars, I glanced at the rear to see if it had a third brake light, indicating one of the rare 1986 models. On the rare occasion when I see one these days, I always do the same thing. Old habits die hard.
I had never known about the 86 models up to that point. The only ones I paid attention to on the road from the time I got mine were the wagons – and they were not commonly seen even then.
That bit about the sales guy keeping your driver’s license irks me. I vaguely recall that also, and I don’t think it’s good practice. If the car store wants to sell you a car, why do they feel your license must be kept away from you – a negotiating ploy? Pressure tactic? Ransom of some kind?
I’m glad you got the deal sorted in your favour. That’s a good way to do it too.
200 miles on a tank is rather minimalist. I think even electric cars can get about that or a bit more now.
I could be wrong, but I always thought dealerships keep/copy your license so they can run your credit (and pre-qualify you) while you are out on the test drive – and the results determine how “friendly” they are when you return.
The last time I test-drove a car at a dealership – decades ago – driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers were the same in my state. That, along with everything else I’m sure, has changed in ensuing years.
Perhaps more importantly, they want to ID everyone who goes out for a test drive to deter theft and such.
Test drove the “sister version Ford” of this wagon in late “1986”.Drove so nice, I sure was tempted by the quiet, that new car smell, the arm rest..lol
They had a fair lot of cars crammed on the lot, were quite anxious to do business.
I know they were still calling me two, two and a half weeks later.
I simply realized, I had no need for a wagon; wanted to stay with “fwd”.
I sure liked the “vent windows” on that car though!!
Gotta love that Simulated Woodgrain. 😁 Thanks for another great COAL, JPC.
I actually thought the woodgrain was the crowning touch on mine. Why bother to have a boxy, dorky, obsolete wagon if there is no woodgrain? And I had the fake wire wheelcovers for the win! 🙂
We were given an 85 four door Marquis Brougham with 13k on the then 3 year old odometer. Ford did a recall. When I picked it up I was told it has a serious drivability issue that we can’t track down. It did! New headliner, new AC, new torque converter and then at 17k am engine rebuild.
At 20k, a left turn resulted in a stalled car that wouldn’t restart until the wheel was level. Turned out to be a black electrical box on the lower steering column. I sold it, as is, after all the power locks failed and the two front power windows quit.
Then man bought it from me. At 22,300 miles it overheated (new radiator) and threw a rod. The tow truck driver offered him $100 which was the cost of the tow. Never could understand that car!!
Add me to the “like a Fairmont” camp. When I began dating my wife in 1991, she was driving a well worn 1980 Mercury Zephyr. Selling about a third of the volume each year of the far more popular Fairmont, the Zephyr was already rather forgotten by 1991, and in 2022, it takes a forum like CC to find folks that recall FoMoCo’s second incarnation of the Zephyr name.
Even my wife was a bit fooled. Her first car was a first gen Ford Granada, and it blew up on the way home from college for the holidays. Her father went on a fast and furious search, and turned up a light wind in baby blue sedan form.
My wife thought it sounded kind of sporty, maybe like a Monte Carlo? Her dad took her to the car lot to complete the buy on a car SHE had to pay for. She says her first words were: “It’s a grandma car.” She was not amused.
But classes were starting again, and there was little time or money available to worry about style.
The car was very tired and worn by the time I crossed paths with it some years later, including not inconsiderable accident damage.
One day I cleaned it up, did some basic maintenance on it, and took it for a brief drive. It crossed my mind that it was not a bad little car, much like Linus found Charlie Brown’s Christmas tree to have its charms: “I never thought it was such a bad little tree. It’s not bad at all, really. Maybe it just needs a little love.”
With a little love from Ford, the Fox LTD / Marquis was a nice update of the spartan Fairmont and the gaudy Fox Granada that preceded them. An important stopgap car for a company that was finding its way out of a near enough brush with bankruptcy and back into America’s heart.
That fox body Granada/Cougar of 1980-82 was always a mystery to me. I thought they were decent looking cars and was always amazed that they were such sales duds. But then they were not very compelling when compared with the new X and K cars from GM and Chrysler.
The ’80-’82 Granada/Cougar seemed to me anachronistic from the start, a safe rehash of styling that traced its way to the 1975 Seville.
GM’s updated A bodies for 1980 simply did it better, and their new FWD A bodies for 1982 seemed light years ahead, and proved popular.
The 1983 Fox LTD didn’t sell much better than the 1982 Granada, but from appearance, looked to be of better quality and more contemporary in a showroom with the Mustang, Escort , EXP, and all new Thunderbird. Only the Crown Victoria was still hanging in with traditional looks. Ford showrooms in 1983 were quite transformed from where they were in 1978, and the future was looking brighter for the Blue Oval.
I always thought 81/82 Fox Granada/Cougar was just the Fairmont with a more upright C pillar, rear quarter window covered with metal, and better seats, and square gauges on the instrument panel. The 1978 Fairmont was almost as roomy as an LTD II and instantly made the original Granada outdated. I think the 1980 X cars made the Fairmont instantly outdated. Tempo/Topaz replaced Fairmont/Zephyr, but really were just aerodynamic Escorts with a trunk and a 4 cylinder version of the old Falcon six.
My step sister had the same drama ~ in her second college year she needed a car and was given her grandmother’s pristine low mileage two door and she instead of being grateful to be getting a full ride scholarship including a nice car with A/C and gas card & insurance paid, she whined until she got a fancier car .
-Nate
Great COAL (and series so far), JPC.
I always thought these were handsome looking cars, but had moved on to a different Fox Body at the time, my ’83 Aero Bird.
When my own 1979 Futura Coupe was just about destroyed buy a ’76 Monte Carlo that made a left in front of me, I was suddenly in need of a car.
At 23, (in early ’84) I really wanted a T-Bird, but the reality was that they were out of my price range. When I went to the dealer one night, I spotted the oh-so-rare ’83 Futura Coupe, and knew that they were priced less than a T-Bird, and asked about it. The car was a lot nicer than my ’79 with many more options. It may’ve even had the 302 (My ’79 had the anemic 200 straight 6).
But alas, that Fairmont Futura was already scooped up by another buyer. When the salesman asked what I wanted, I said, “What I want is a T-Bird. What I can afford is likely something else”. He had two very low mileage ’83(s) on his lot, a dove gray (almost white) one, and a metallic red one. Both were very affordable. I chose the dove gray one, as it only had a thousand miles on it. The previous owner had died 3 weeks after he bought it, and his wife couldn’t drive, so she had the dealer come and get it.
I never got to drive one of these Marquis or LTD(s), but that ’83 Fairmont looked like it was screwed together a lot better than my ’79. Perhaps they’d improved I thought.
The T-Bird had that 3.8L V6, with presumably the same transmission as your wagon. The transmission was dependable, but the engine let me down one night with a major coolant system failure. I seriously overheated it. The idiot light never came on, and boom! It was as though my T-Bird was shot down. A friendly person stopped and described it that way as he drove me home. This was at just over 100K. I put a remanufactured engine in it and drove it for another 56K, before it was rear ended… badly. I was starting to have issues with the ‘new’ engine’s thrust bearing, and decided to throw in the towel. I traded it in on a 5.0LX T-Bird with all the trimmings.
I concur with what others have said here that those early Foxes seemed cheap, but that they had improved a lot as time went on. The ’88 T-Bird rivals my 2007 Mustang as my most favorite car ever. I always thought that this was mere perception on my part, as I could afford a better optioned Fox as time went on than the one I bought new at 19.
But then they DID make Lincolns out of this platform, so improvement indeed!
I believe by 1982 and 1983 all Fairmonts were Futuras, and only the 2.3L I-4 and 3.3L I-6 were available. The 255 was available in the Fairmont for 1980 and 1981 only. 1979 was final year for 302 in Fairmont.
I suppose by the time the later Fox Mustangs and my ’88 T-Bird came around, the 302 was back by popular demand. 😉
JP and others may be shocked to learn that some don’t like Di-Noc on station wagons .
Hearsay I know but I swear it’s true .
-Nate
Great job in negotiation on your Fox body Marquis Wagon! I’ve never had the same level of skill over the years, but I understand your method is the one to use. Set your price and stick to it.
BTW, no doubt the wagon was better suited for your purposes than that ’63 Dodge would have been!
As a reader of Car & Driver in the 80s I have to ask, did your Marquis include the de Sade option?
I had a 1994 Mustang with 3.8 v6, got new in Dec. 1993.
By 1995, had overheated, with no idiot light/warning. [As someone posted above.]. Cost $$ to fix, out of warranty. And kept til 1997.
However, per Carfax, the Stang was on the road, with many owners, until near 2012. I am thinking later owners “hot rodded it” and swapped in a 302 and had fun.