(first posted 2/17/2011) Let’s face it, honesty is not necessarily the best policy in the car business (or any business, including Wall Street, politics, food processing, and…). GM proved that in the late twenties when they invented planned obsolescence and put the painfully honest Model T out of business. The art of (self) deception has played itself out colorfully over the decades, whether it was fins, horsepower, Broughams, SUVs, The Ultimate Driving Machine for the congested commute, or just endless easy credit. But there’s something about an economic crisis that jolts humans out of their addict’s stupor to reconsider what’s real and what’s not. It never lasts very long, but a few refreshingly honest cars have resulted, none more so than the 1978 Fairmont. Perhaps we should call it the Cold Turkeymobile.
Actually, we could call it so many things, and I struggled with a whole slew of headlines for this CC: The Car That Saved Ford; Ford Builds The Most Widely Adapted Platform Ever; The 1960 Falcon Reincarnated; The New Valiant; Ford Builds A Volvo 240; The Most European American Car Ever; The Most Significant Car Of The Seventies…I could probably keep going for a while. But in the end, the Fairmont’s remarkably blunt honesty is what strikes me most, especially when we consider the times when it appeared.
The mid-late seventies was when the deception game was being played with high stakes: I’ll see your Grand Heritage Elite Bill Blass Custom Mark XXX ReVile with my Classic Supreme Brougham Superb deSade. And Ford’s chips were pretty much all in. Even the semi-compact Granada was born trying to look like a Benz:
And it wasn’t just in terms of appearance and pretentious names either: let’s face it, Ford in the seventies was in a very serious slump, and it showed, even below the skin. It’s a crass generalization, but Ford quality, handling, engine driveability, and a few other aspects were, on average, the bottom of the Big Three barrel. Why?
Leadership, or the lack of it. A very young Henry Ford II did a superb job of turning around a sinking ship right after the war. And through the sixties, Ford managed to put up a hell of a fight with GM. But Hank was getting tired of it all, understandably. The burden was huge, and he had sacrificed his youth for the sake of the family business. And as is not uncommon, he wanted to find a bit of fun and distraction before it was too late. The car business requires constant attention, and Henry’s jet setting and ever younger women resulted in…ill-handling poorly built barges. Of course Henry had his lieutenants, (Lee Iacocca, mostly) but ultimately the fish stinks from the head. And Iacocca was the master of deception.
So how do we explain the Fairmont, which so eschewed everything that the rest of the Ford family of fine cars embraced? Economic crisis. The 1974-1974 energy crisis was the biggest jolt to America’s sense of confidence and optimism since the Depression. There had been other classic recessions, like the nasty one in 1958, but those were seen for what they were: a painful but brief adjustment of the domestic economic supply and demand machine.
But the Energy Crisis was caused by an externality: OPEC’s oil embargo. Now that was a recession of a different color indeed, and not the last. Suddenly the great Brougham Deception looked like it was built on a shaky foundation: endless cheap oil. Time to get real. And so Ford did, proving that they were perfectly capable of it, when the motivation was there.
The Fox platform that underpins the Fairmont can be called utterly pragmatic as well as genius. Unlike GM, Ford was not about to bet the Ford farm on FWD, yet. Let’s not forget that GM’s X-Body program (Citation CC here) was started about the same time as the Fox-Body, but GM’s ambitious effort to re-invent the American car was delayed by its variety of issues that were never properly licked anyway. Ford took the cheap and easy way out, and what a winning gamble that was.
They didn’t have to look very far for what they needed either: Ford of Europe was building perfectly capable RWD cars that handled, steered and braked as good or better than its competition. Ford had been down this road before too: the 1971 Pinto borrowed heavily from the Ford Cortina, except of course for its ridiculous cramped and bulgy body. Unlike GM’s perpetual hubris which convinced itself that it knew better than Opel how to build a small car (Vega), Ford was always more ready to look across the ocean.
I’m not implying that the Fox was directly based on Ford’s European platforms (UK Granada above), but the basic front suspension architecture (struts, rack and pinion steering), size and overall architecture bear a decided similarity. Now we’re thinking semi-globally. Although frankly, the UK Granada looks even better. Well, that’s at least one area where Dearborn did tend to inject their own little brand of hubris…
The point is, Detroit had never built a car quite like the Fairmont: light but strong, conventional RWD for maximum engine/transmission flexibility, crisp steering, and utterly unpretentious. Amazing what a recession can do to clear the mind of distractions.
To go back to one of the alternate headlines, yes, the Fairmont can also be seen as a legitimate successor to the 1960 Falcon, which was also a remarkably clean and pragmatic car. And it came on the heels of the 1958 recession. And it was a huge success, until America’s car buyers drifted off…in more seductive directions.
Not the Maverick (above), I mean, but bigger and better things, like personal luxury coupes. Which meant that when Ford had no choice but to build a Falcon successor in 1970, its solution was to make the Maverick a cramped but ever-so-stylish new body on the tired old 1960 Falcon platform. It did the trick, for those that were so inclined, easily seduced or didn’t yet trust imports. Expedient, but hardly honest.
To appreciate the stark honesty of the Fairmont, one has to really get in, look around, and take it for a drive, because the outside just doesn’t take very long to absorb the full picture: boxy, with superb visibility. Or to borrow that other headline: very Volvo-esque indeed. Yes, that interior is as honest as it gets, for mid-seventies Detroit. This one is the lowest trim level, but still, that dash looks like it could have been borrowed from the English Granada, more or less.
And how about that driving experience? Well, my ever so thrifty father had a Mercury Zephyr version, a red two-door, with Ford’s long-lived Lima 2.3 OHC four and a four speed stick on the floor. That required bucket seats, which my father would never have thought to get otherwise. I drove it a few times on visits home, and it was so un-American that the House Committee on Un-American Activities should have had it on their black list.
There simply was nothing like it this side of a Volvo or…dare I mention more vaunted European brands? To drive a roomy American low-trim sedan yet with decent bucket seats, accurate and light manual steering, utterly devoid of the heavy-engine induced terminal understeer, a slick stick on the floor, decent brakes, and a willingness to be tossed about like a bowl of fresh baby greens. Don’t get me wrong: the basic car lacked the tire size and a a firmer suspension setting to make this a true sports sedan, not to mention some more beans from the 86 hp (go ahead and laugh) four.
But one didn’t dread taking it out for a brisk spin in the back roads, and it just hung in there so willingly and well-balanced, even when pushed to its relatively modest limits, unlike the wallowing Fords of the time. A revelation indeed; Detroit could actually build what somehow seemed so utterly elusive for so long, at least since the Corvair: a true European-type sedan without any European trade-offs, starting with the price.
The Fairmont wagon takes the Volvo comparisons to even greater heights; I’m hard pressed to think of another wagon that comes as close. And so under-appreciated, at least in what its potential could have been if Ford had taken a more Volvo-like approach in cultivating the Fairmont.
No, that couldn’t have happened. Despite a huge first year smash sales success of 461k units, the Fairmont was soon overshadowed by the need to get away from stark honesty again. In 1981, the Granada became a tarted up Fairmont, and the seemingly endless variations on the theme of Fox began. Some of them were more appetizing than others, and thankfully they all sat on those athletic Fox legs, which were hard conceal, no matter what stand-up grille and bustle-back burden was placed on them.
Of course, the Mustang took the Fox’ athletic abilities in another direction, one that seemed to never end and amaze. Long legs, the Fox had.
Getting back to a few salient details of the Fairmont: probably not that many came equipped like my Dad’s; this one, caught at a retirement home, more likely has the old Falcon 200 CID (3.3 L) six which somehow was rated at 85 hp, one less than the 2.3 L four. And this from the company that so prided itself on its racing prowess. Ford somehow always managed to have the lowest hp/displacement ratings in the seventies.
A V8 was also available; the 302 (4.9 L) in 130-139 hp versions, and later the very forgettable 255 version with a remarkable 119 hp rating. Why bother, especially when it only burdened the front end more? The 86 hp four and the stick was the way to row oneself to the shore of modest pleasures. I almost forgot; the turbo version of the 2.3 four was available in 1979 and 1980 only, but that was the rather nasty blow-through-carburetor version that made a bad name for itself. And they were mighty rare in the Fairmont. Now the electronically-controlled EFI turbo from the 1983 T-Bird Turbo Coupe would have been a different story indeed.
Although the Fairmont’s day in the honest glare of sunshine was rather brief, its greatest claim to fame is that it bailed out Ford. In 1979, Ford had a very near brush with bankruptcy, and the Fox body sedans allowed it struggle through the second energy crisis/recession of 1981 just long enough for it to be replaced by the Taurus, another brilliant Ford forged in the depths of crisis. It seems that’s what it usually takes, for Ford as well as the rest of us.
Related reading:
Always interesting to read about the “Malaise Era”, because in exactly that timeframe both Ford and Opel (GM) were at their peak of success and popularity in Europe. Really, everybody drove Fords and Opels back then. Poor folks, rich folks, young folks, old folks and “The Fast and the Furious”.
The model range of both brands was h-u-g-e, from stripper economy boxes with tiny engines to big (from a European point of view) sedans with a bit of Broughamness, like a Ford Granada Ghia with a V6 and an automatic. Both brands also offered a wide range of sporty and fast models.
Quality was good, rust proofing for that era was good, all models were well-built (the German cars, don’t know about the English ones) and the price was always right.
Really, what could possibly go wrong when you bought a new Opel or Ford in the second half of the seventies or early eighties ? Always a wise decision, never a gamble.
If a Ford Granada is good enough for our Royal Family then it’s certainly good enough for the common people.
Source: http://www.autoblog.nl/de-autos-van-het-nederlandse-koninklijk-huis
Do the still have the ’72 Ford LTD convertible in the Royal Garage? They still did when my copy of Koninklijk Autorijden was published in 2001. The had quite the collection of cars over the years, from the early Spykers to an Austin Sheerline parade pheaton to a stretch Lincoln Town Car in the late 70’s.
Strangely, the never seemed to own a Hudson, even though the Royal Family owned a chunk of stock in the company.
The 302 was the only way to go in these.
Great write-up! That and the comments bring back memories.
In 1980, after considering the following–Citation,Fairmont, Malibu, LeMans, my dad ordered a Fairmont. 4 Cyl, 4sp, P/S, P/B, Exterior Accent Group (wagon featured has nicer Exterior DECOR group), turbine wheel covers (like featured wagon–they looked like real alloys!). I think we paid $5300 total with tax–we ordered it the last day of the $300 rebate–MSRP was either $5300 or $5600, I wish we had saved/kept the sticker! Salesman promised car in 6 weeks–I think it was more like 9 or 10.
I inherited the car when it was 5 yrs old and 66k miles, and put another 14k on it, before selling it for $1100 in 1987 and buying my 1st new car (a VW GTI).
I thought it was a good car. Great visibility, decent acceleration, fairly economical (19-33 mpg, about 22 in suburbs, 29-32 on trips), good ride and handling, easy-shifting manual trans. The engine had a nice hum at low to medium rpm, and the car was quiet for a 4-cylinder as long as you didn’t wind it out.
It had many little nits. Interior looked cheap–we should have spent $70 on the Interior Accent or Decor Group for the nicer buckets and door panels. Resting my hand on the A-pillar, you could feel the door frame flex as you drove it. The paint job was bad horrible–I asked if we could have some touch up paint! The “f’ hood emblem was tacky and crooked, the clutch had to be replaced at 30 or 40k, the trunk was big but shallow, it lacked a tach, the engine was thrashy over ? rpm (4,000 I estimate). During its time in our family, the electronic ignition module had to be replaced at 4 years (engine died on highway), at 5 years the power steering pump leaked and was replace, and at an oil change a month before I sold it, I found the front wheel would not turn (brake piston had seized and needed replace). Not a perfect car, but not a lemon by any means, by the standards of the 70s/80s. Perhaps even by today’s standards (except for driveability).
The rear axle was replace under warranty when my dad couldn’t put snow tires because the wheels would not come off the drums…by the time the axle came, winter was mostly over, so we never put snow tires. Driveability–the carb was temperamental–some winters, had superfast idle, one summer when hot it wouldn’t start. Co-worker removed air cleaner cover and held butterfly open with a ruler, lol–but these problems seemed to have evaporated by 1985-86. Car had no rust when I sold it.
It was good honest car that served our family well, and with the 4-cyl and 4 speed was even fun to drive. I remember it fondly
My sister had a black Zephyr back in the late ’80s when she was working in DC.
When I opened the bonnet out of interest,I couldn’t believe Frod were still using that ancient Falcon 6 cylinder engine. But there it was, buried under an aircleaner the size of
a manhole cover.
On the credit side, it was reliable and honest enough transport.
I really I appreciate the models of car displayed and featured by FoMoCo.
Since my boyhood around ’78 & ’79 up along ’80 that myself and my friends admired such cars when we watch those on Tv films.
My high school sweetheart and I had joint custody of a ’79 Fairmont sedan and it was my favorite car of all time. Pukey green with a pukey orange interior, what a plug-ugly little car, the best car I ever had the pleasure of co-owning. Inline six engine, easy to work on, no frills, great gas mileage, decent get-up-and-go, it was the little engine that could. A tendency to burn out starter solenoids, but those were cheap and easy to replace–we kept a few extras in the glove box. During the great Kansas City ice storm of ’02 that little car just kept on truckin’ up ice-covered hills while 4WD SUVs spun their wheels. A small, lightweight RWD car shouldn’t be able to do what that Fairmont did, but she did, and she did. I ended up getting an old Thunderbird while the (then ex-) sweetheart kept the Fairmont, and he drove the poor ol’ gal into the ground. Ended up selling what was left of her to the demolition derby. I miss that car so much. I’d gladly trade anything I’ve owned since to get that Fairmont back.
Anyone got a running Fairmont wagon they’d be interested in trading for a loaded ’05 Honda Odyssey in great condition?
Okay, got rear-ended in the 2005 minivan (yessssssss!) and bought me a stone stock 1979 Ford Fairmont station wagon with only 53K miles on it. Sky blue with fake wood paneling and the inline six. And although it looks like no one’s been here in a while, I just wanted to say to the author of this article, thank you. You helped me remember how much better (and more exciting!) it can be driving an honest car. As silly as it sounds, the Ford Fairmont wagon is my dream car, and I now have the keys to one in my pocket. I admire her long Fox legs and the simplicity of her instrument panel, and the fact that parts are as readily available and inexpensive as they were 10 or 36 years ago. She reminds me of my old Volvo wagon–you mention the similarity–minus the expense and difficulty of maintaining a European import. So thank you. A lot of people think I’m out of my mind doing this, but I rather feel I have come to my senses.
Great! Enjoy your “honest car”.
Great piece! My first car was a 78 fairmont sedan! Oxidized maroon with a straight six and a flowing front end. I took that thing to more Bon fire keggers out in the high deserts of western Colorado than I can count. Ripping around gravel road corners throwing up a rooster tail 40 yds in the rear. This was old school drifting! I sold it to a migrant harvester for $100 and I’ll bet it’s still driving today. This thing is dependable!! Would love to experience those troubleshooting days again. Think it’s broke? Replace it! Plenty of room to work!! Love this car!
I owned a brand new 1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon.
It was hands-down the worst car I have ever owned.
It was pretty loaded, AC/V8/Power Steering/Brakes
Power steering pump failed a little over 2 days after delivery.
I only had the car 2 years so all this stuff happened during this amount of time.
Car always rode like it had out of center “Clown wheels” on it, like egg shaped tires, even after tire replacement this issue continued throughout my time with the car.
Heater core started leaking and was spraying coolant and fumes through the AC ducts at me.
Transmission failed at least once, possibly 2 times.
Rear end broke, had to be rebuilt.
Electronic ignition module failed, it would stall at speed requiring you to turn the ignition to off and then restart the car (a neat trick on the freeway)
I also recall the dashboard always vibrated over bumps etc, I had a friend who bought a 79 Fairmont and I noticed they had put all kinds of extra bracing into the dashboard underneath it.
Most of the work was covered under warranty by Bricker Lincoln/Mercury in Hollywood California.
After we got rid of the car I wrote FoMoCo a letter and never heard back from them.
Needless to say I have not purchased any new Fords again since this one.
I’ve had two Fairmonts, a new 1980 4DR with the 4cyl and 4spd (my company car at Keebler at the time, don’t know how I got away with the stick as company policy was automatics only in their lease fleet); and an ’81 4DR with the six and auto that I bought used for $600 in Seattle in 1995. The four-banger performed better but it was temperamental at times, the six was pokey but dependable. I never experienced the stalling problems (in either car) mentioned by other commenters. When we relocated to Florida in 1997 the Fairmont made the trip, loaded with my locksmith tools and hardware. It was leisurely travelling through the hills on I-5 and I-10 until we got into Arizona, then it cruised at 70 all the way here.
People who expected today’s interiors from cars made 35 years ago are being excessively picky, I believe. Come on, it was a Ford – not a Buick or a Packard or a Lincoln. This was Ford’s first serious attempt at shaving weight from a true intermediate-sized car, and for the times I think they did OK. Fit and finish in my cars was good, the interiors were durable if a bit plain but who cares? One didn’t buy a Fairmont for flash. My only annoyance was that damned horn actuator in the turn-signal lever instead of the usual horn ring.
All in all, it was a good car for the money and they held up well, too. The ’81 had 181,000 miles on it when I sold it in 2004. They also were easy enough to work on that I did much of my own work (not that it needed much in the nine years I owned it, biggest job I ever had to do was replace the water pump at 140K miles or so).
My Fairmont/ Zephyrs Were Reliable and fun in a inexpensive way,. The Mont Wagon had a 2.3 l Four and Manual trans. and wouldn’t quit sold it For More than I paid for it. The Zephyr 4 dr. had the six and Was like a cheap Limo. Both a Minimal of Expense and pretty roomy for their Size.
How can u say that ford was at the “bottom of the barrel” in the 70’s when Chrysler went out of business in the 70’s? And again in 08′. All cars were immasculated in the 70’s, blame tougher emission standards and higher fuel prices….aka embargo.
“How can u say that ford was at the “bottom of the barrel” in the 70’s when Chrysler went out of business in the 70’s?”
This old perception just won’t die. Chrysler did *not* go out of business in the 70s. Chrysler might have gone under in 1980 but a combination of new management, some modern designs coming close to release and a Federal Government that was willing to guarantee a line of credit kept the enterprise afloat until things turned around. In the end the company prospered in the 80s and repaid all of the guaranteed loans early, costing the U.S. taxpayer exactly *zero*.
! am 55yrs old, graduated from high school in 1982, and am the youngest of four Generation-Jones-Baby-Boomers siblings. In 1974 my brother went off to Oklahoma State University in Stillwater in his used Blue 1966 mustang with 6-cylinder, 3spd manual and no options which he wrecked and abandoned, the car was not drivable and needed a new front clip and hood which it never got. dad towed the car home and got it running and reliable and drove it for the next four years. My eldest sister graduated from high school in 1976 and started college at OSU in Stillwater and after a year of driving her back and forth to Stillwater every week my Dad bought her a used Chevy Vega from one of our cousins, the car was a oil burning pain in the neck and eventually needed its engine rebuilt. In 1977 my other sister graduated from high school and started college, both of my sisters carpooled in the Vega. in 1978 my Dad being fed up with the Vega traded the 1966 Mustang in on a red 1978 Fairmount 4 door with !-4 4 cylinder, 4spd manual, and ac. In 1979 with my eldest sisters impending graduation from college my Dad bought a white with tan vinyl, I-4 4 cylinder, and aftermarket add on ac 1979 Fairmount 4 door. Dad gave my eldest sister the red Fairmount and my other sister the white one. both cars were ok transportation but you couldn’t run the ac in either car when driving in the city without risking burning the small 4 cylinder engines up, they were not powerful enough to handle running air conditioning. The white 1979 one had one of Fords first electronic brains which were total junk, if you were not careful the electronic brain would fail all the time, making the engine stop and stranding you wherever you happened to be My sister and I were stranded out in the middle of nowhere a couple of times on our way home from Stillwater in the fall of 1982. Overall the Fairmont was a cheap car that wouldn’t last I don’t know about the 6 cylinder and V8 models but the 4 cylinder engine was a underpowered piece of Junk, Fords early electronic brains were worthless garbage. Also both of the cars had those useless temp Doughnut spare tires and expand jacks. Expando jacks should be banned if they already haven’t because they are a safety and death hazard.
I owned a 78 Futura from 78 until 86. 250 ci six and automatic. My first car with AC. Quality control was poor. A jagged piece of metal inside the door frame scored the window. The emergency brake cables rusted solid and a pivot tore off of the underside. The drive train was very forgiving of poor maintenance. I once drove to a funeral 160 miles away with oil leaking from a pressure sending unit. These was sizzling and a wisp of smoke from the vicinity of the ignition switch. These cars could have been better, if they would have had better quality control.
Boy, this post has been popular for commenting over so many years, the Fairmont sure left an impression on alot of people.
I always felt the crappy 4 and 6 cylider engines were the incentive to make you buy the V8. I owned a 78 Futura was a pretty decent car. My parents owned a 78 4 door just like the one pictured. It had the V8 but must have been a lower level trim model as it did not have any of the chrome trim this one has. Ran for along time until the trans crapped out. Probably from negelected maintenance, and after the trans repair the steering started to act up. Had to warm up the engine for a bit and try to move the steering, it would usually come around after a few minutes, convinced my parents that its time for it to go, drive to the salvage yard and take the check.
A big fan of these here! Extended family & friends owned several in various configurations/trims, so it was nice get the sampling. The cars really did feel lean, taut, and non-bloaty, and the visibility was outstanding. I rode along several times with colleague who owned the 2.3 4cyl and 4-speed, and I would loved to have driven it myself, but it sure left a nice Volvo-y impression (even if down on power my many folks’ standards). If I could find a clean survivor wagon, I’d be tempted to give it a home…
I hate to be thay guy, but these are 1979 Fairmonts. The ’78s have clear front parking/directional lenses with amber bulbs beneath; the ’79s and later use amber lenses with clear bulbs beneath them. There are other minor differences on later models too.
The interior shot shows the famous ‘Fall Out Of Park’ warning decal on the door panel, the ‘fix’ for one of Ford’s biggest recalls ever. Ford’s automatic transmission column shifters were notoriously sloppy, and driverless Fords reversing through parking lots and down driveways happened a little too frequently to go unnoticed. Nonetheless I thought the Fairmont and Zephyr were good cars. In many ways Ford’s answer to the Aspen and Volare and certainly better executed than the Mopar F bodies.
Great discourse on this classic CC, with Paul arguing it had a completely honest appeal to the essential auto buyer, while others are saying “NOOO, it was a huge turd”.
Originally maybe they were decent cars? But people kept the fox stangs and tbird going. Fairmonts (and LTDs and etc) rotted off the road in the mid 1980s and were completely forgotten, except to the extent you could pillage them for a Mustang. I lived in the salt zone and these disappeared quickly, and have never met someone who cared.
No doubt the Fairmont suffered from the less-than-stellar quality control that was the hallmark of late 1970s Detroit. Plus, it was available with a wide variety of drive trains and trim levels, which affected everything from performance to comfort. Detroit was still operating in the “have it your way” mode in the late 1970s.
I do find it interesting that posters have compared it to the downsized GM A-bodies and even the Chevrolet Impala/Caprice. While the Fairmont was the same size as the GM A-bodies, it was a compact designed to replace the Maverick. The 1978 GM A-bodies replaced the Colonnade intermediates, and were initially priced higher than the Fairmont. They were not direct competitors – at least, not at first. The base price of the Fairmont was about $630 less than that of a Chevrolet Malibu, which translates into $2,600 today. That wasn’t an insignificant amount of money in 1978. Customers didn’t have the option of 0 percent financing or 60-month loans in 1978.
The GM B-bodies were larger and considerably more expensive. One could probably count the number of people who cross-shopped a Fairmont and a Chevrolet Impala/Caprice on both hands, and have fingers left over.
Despite how they were marketed, many people cross-shopped the new Malibu and Fairmont, it was hard not to. The base price differences are largely because the Fairmont was available in a low-volume four-cylinder, three speed manual configuration, with a taxicab-like interior with flat featureless bench seats and metal-capped inner doors painted in the exterior color. Add common options like a 6 or V8, automatic, and the high-volume mid-grade interior trim and the prices become comparable to the Malibu. Interestingly while Chevy didn’t allow rear roll-down windows in Malibus, the Fairmont not only had them standard in sedans and wagons, but also offered two other side window area ventilation options – front swinging vent windows and (in coupes and sedans) functional rear louvers that could be opened for ventilation.
The Malibu came with a three-speed manual as standard equipment, too. Its interior ambiance in standard form wasn’t much better than that of the Fairmont. The base versions of GM’s downsized intermediates weren’t noted for their interior ambiance.
According to the “Owners Report” published in the June 1978 issue of Popular Mechanics, 9 percent of Fairmont owners and 9.5 percent of Zephyr owners chose the standard four-cylinder engine. Given Ford’s need to meet CAFE requirements – which first took effect during the 1978 model year – it had an interest in treating the four-cylinder versions of the Fairmont and Zephyr as more than price leaders. Particularly since their sales would offset the sales of gas-guzzling Lincoln Continentals and Mark Vs, which were still selling at a healthy clip in 1978.
The standard Malibu engine was a 3.3 liter V-6 that offered a whopping 94 horsepower. I seriously doubt that many Malibus went out the door with the base engine and standard interior in 1978, at least to retail buyers.
Given the aim of each car at that time, I’d wager that more Fairmonts went out the door with the base engine and interior trim than Malibus.
After Ford discontinued the LTD II in 1979, the Fairmont was upgraded to better match the Malibu (a Futura version was then offered in sedan and wagon form). This culminated in the introduction of the Fox-based Granada for 1981.
The Fairmont was the first Ford designed with computer CAD-CAM. Unlike other cars made at that time, the Fairmont was a pretty well designed car with better fit, due to computers, than other vehicles.
There were other more attractive cars available in the Fairmont market, but there was something so clean and simple about it that made it stand out. After the Brougham Age, the Fairmont was quite a statement about the future of driving. We were facing lean times and it seemed that the better cars were the cars that were efficient looking, not bloated with faux luxury.
The simple Fairmont couldn’t have been less embellished. Ford was still selling ridiculous padded-Levi jean vinyl trunk decks when this car arrived. The other cars in the Ford showroom swallowed you up in high polyester fashion, deep shag carpeting, endless hoods, faux opulent opera lights, windows and hood ornaments – and the Fairmont was 180 of that. Being a stripped box was quite a fashion statement in 1978.
If you grew up, as I had, during this time – Fords were giant pillowed rides with water-bed-like handling. After almost a decade of seeing every vehicle turned into a vinyl bordello, including the Pinto/Bobcat, it was quite the eye-opener to see the Fairmont.
There were good honest cars, hence the Fox love still bestowed upon them 40 years later.
Paul, your dad’s car had the same displacement 4 as my ’74 DS Pallas. Except mine was an aging pushrod that would run all day, but wasn’t in any hurry to get up to speed, even with the 5-on-the-tree mine had.
I always sort of liked, but didn’t love these Fairmonts/Zephyrs, but you’ve given me a new appreciation. I wonder which handled better – one of these, or a Volare/Aspen?
Having driven both, the Fairmont handled like a light car with modern steering and the Volare handled like a classic car of the era, and quite nicely.
I purchased a base model used 1978 Fairmont 2 dr 6cyl in the same brown seen above. About 1983 or there about. Paid $2250. plus tax. I thought it drove ok, the gas mileage was not great but it was good transportation for my needs back in those days. I probably put 20,000 miles on it before selling to my cousin after 3 years.
Neither of us had any major problems.
A 1978 Ford Fairmont was my first new car.
There were compromises as I was budget challenged.
The 3.3 engine and a c-3 transmission was chosen.
You needed to add in the following options to make it a decent vehicle.
The midrange seats gave enough padding for short trips, but there was no contouring of the seat so it became uncomfortable on long drives.
The standard tires were c78-14 and I wanted DR70, but I settled for DR78 Firestone tires.
A rear sway bar was added to improve handling.
I added the optional hood ornament, a useless addition so I could figure the end of the hood.
Gas mileage was abysmal, I never got over 20 miles per gallon.
Grocery shopping was difficult because you could not stand up a bag in the trunk.
The car was roomy enough for 6 people even though they had a large transmission bump. They only made it for 5 people which did not make sense.
Brakes in real life faded considerably. Parking brake cables were not shielded and froze.
It was a good concept but it lacked certain features for long term ownership.
It was replaced after 7 years of ownership.
I replaced with a Dodge Lancer ES which was light years ahead in design and execution I had that car for 12 years.
My first new car was a 1980 Ford Fairmont Futura 4 door, 4 on the floor speed transmission. Two tone paint. Beautiful inside and out. Very slow, but fine enough for me. I truly believe this was the only car spec of it’s kind at the time. I think I paid 5 grand for it new. I should have kept it.
My folks gave me their ’78 Fairmont when I got out of the Navy in ’82. The car was a station wagon with the 4 cylinder engine and 4 speed manual. No A/C, power steering, or power brakes. The car had about 104,000 miles on it and the engine was shot because my brother got it stuck on a trail road and beat the crap out of it trying to get out without a tow.
I picked up a junkyard engine and did a swap with a come-along under the proverbial oak tree. I won’t say the car was dead reliable, but the repairs weren’t really excessive given that I put another 190,000 on the car. A few of the more expensive problems came from the junkyard engine having itself been mistreated…I probably got ripped off but was fresh out of the military and didn’t know which salvage yards were reputable. On the other hand, this car was simplicity itself to repair and maintain. The 2.3L engine in a bay meant for I-6s and V-8s meant that everything was easily in reach.
Cruising somewhat above the 55 mph speed limit, I could usually pull about 28-30 mpg and, on a few occasions, managed 32. If the acceleration was unthrilling, the car could manage corners much better than the majority of iron on the roads. I could take the car onto 2 tracks when I went hunting without bottoming out or damaging the underpinnings (something you can’t do without a truck, today). The bumpers were actually something of a marvel … I was whacked a few times, both front and back, and never sustained any significant damage. OK, the deer that went straight through the grille and radiator kind of wiped out the hood, but bumpers were never meant to deal with that.
The economy, simplicity, and utility of that wagon was actually sort of remarkable in retrospect. If I could buy one today with a fuel-injected turbo 4 of comparable weight, I’d be in. Honestly, I don’t need A/C, power doors, windows, backup camera, lane assist, etc., etc., etc. A machine that could take me across the country on road trips, get me into my hunting grounds — and let me sleep in the rear, perform as a daily driver, and still pass fuel pumps without breaking the bank sounds like a good deal.