Between 1964 and 1966, Ford was so busy selling Mustangs that they scarcely seemed to notice that they were falling behind in other segments of the performance market. In 1966, Ford finally got around to installing a big-block 390 engine in the midsize Fairlane, but Car Life found the automatic Fairlane GTA didn’t earn its racy stripes.
Introduced for the 1966 model year, Ford’s Fairlane GT and GTA (the “A” stood for “Automatic”) followed the standard mid-’60s muscle car formula: Take one off-the-shelf intermediate in two-door hardtop or convertible form; install an engine in the 400 cu. in. class; stiffen up the suspension; and add the usual cosmetic details, including chrome engine dress-up, GT stripes, a blackout grille, and moderately tacky simulated hood louvers. The brochure asserted that it would “twist the tail of any tiger,” with obvious reference to Pontiac’s contemporary “GTO Tiger” advertising theme.
However, the editors of Car Life were not persuaded:
Had Ford produced the first, rather than the final, Supercar (by present definition), there would have been less cause for disappointment. But the GTA must be judged in the light of 1966, not 1963, and the timing identifies the problem: The GTA adequately matches the first GTO, but the 2-year headstart puts Pontiac farther down this particular dragstrip. When Pontiac started tweaking Tigers, Ford was busy breeding a Mustang. The wisdom of Ford’s course of action is perhaps the more enduring from a corporate balance sheet viewpoint, so this ultimate appearance of something seeming to protect that flank may be all that is required. But it does point up the difficulty, not often overcome, in simply catching up.
The GTA’s problem is, quite simply, not enough power. It just isn’t competitive in output, which is the primary justification for the cars in its category. The test car was unhampered by any smog-limiting Thermactor—a point which will be touched upon later—and still it wouldn’t go. As a high-performance strip-scorcher, this one had an inadequate torch.
The 390 cu. in. (6,381 cc) FE-series V-8 was found in countless Ford vehicles of this era, but in 1966, the 335 gross horsepower S-code version was exclusive to the Fairlane GT/GTA and the related Mercury Cyclone GT, sporting a slightly warmer camshaft — 270° duration, 40° overlap, 0.4809-inch lift — and a Holley four-barrel carburetor.
On paper, the S-code 390 was a close match for the 389 cu. in. (6,372 cc) engine that was standard on the Pontiac GTO, which rated the same 335 gross horsepower and slightly more torque (431 lb-ft to 427 lb-ft). In the real world, Car Life found the Ford engine a big disappointment:
Ford’s 390-cu. in. engine is enough known to need no elucidation. Tuned for 300 bhp, it has been the mainstay of the Thunderbird for several years, an environment where its docile delivery of torque was most esteemed. High rev capabilities have been neither needed nor desired in that service, although such are basic in a GTA context, and this is the engine’s Achilles heel. However you want to say it, it chokes up, flattens out, falls off so badly beyond 4400 rpm that real storming stripsmanship is out of the question. The contrast between GTO and GTA, moreover, is immediately apparent to the senses. Whereas the former thunders away from the line in a ride like that of a runaway steam locomotive, the latter is hard-pressed to exhibit any brutality, much less sufficient force.
Their GTA test car’s lackluster 3.6-second 0 to 30 mph and 8.6-second 0 to 60 times bore out the lack of muscle. The data panel alleges a best quarter-mile time of 15.4 seconds at 87 mph, but I suspect a typographical error: The trap speed is plausible, but given the 16.7-second 0 to 90 mph time they recorded, I’m 90 percent sure the ET was actually 16.4 seconds. Which meant the GTA was not actually a Supercar, at least by Car Life‘s contemporary definition.
The editors suggested that the S-code Fairlane might be a match for a base GTO, which they admitted Car Life had never tested. Motor Trend had, however, first in February 1965, then in May 1966, and their base engine GTO test cars, both with two-speed automatics and 3.23 axles, would have blown the doors off this Fairlane GTA. (Both those cars managed 0 to 60 mph in 7.5 seconds or less with two aboard.)
Car Life grumbled:
Ford engineers could learn something from their counterparts at Pontiac in relation to engine breathing. Particularly in valve train design are Pontiacs seldom afflicted with lethargy. Hydraulic lifters as a matter of course work at 6000 rpm. The standard 389 GTO engine’s camshaft is only remotely warmer (273/289 duration, 54° overlap) than the GTA, but the 3×2 ’shaft is substantially thawed out (288/302 and 63°). The differences in valve sizes (1.92 in. intakes, 1.65 exhausts) also say something about Pontiac’s approach to manifold and head design.
Any GTA buyer, of course, has recourse to the various and well-known means used by hot rodders to polish a rough diamond. Ford Parts Div. has marketed, in the past, a 3 x 2 manifold for this engine and the larger speed shops have had reworked cylinder heads and exhaust headers. By fitting drag slicks, good headers, and a 3.50:1 or higher axle, e.t.s in the 14s—possibly the high 13s—should be within reach of a good driver.
I think in this case calling the S-code 390 “a rough diamond” was being awfully generous. As the editors had noted earlier, this was 1966, not 1963, and having to delve into dealer parts counter or aftermarket DIY just to get competitive street performance was really missing the point of this whole genre. Also, there was plenty of speed equipment for the GTO as well, and the chances of a hopped-up 390 staying ahead of a hopped-up Pontiac 389 seem low.
Car Life thought performance would also be improved by ordering a Fairlane GT with the four-speed manual, having been none too impressed by the GTA’s “Sport Shift” (C6) Cruise-O-Matic, which was supposed to allow fully manual shifting if desired. CL remarked:
It is an admirable, if overdue, feature to manually control an automatic’s gear selection by placing the shifter at the desired detent. Borg-Warner automatics and those from Chrysler, of course, have been capable of this for some years now. The Ford attempt, however, has two distressing characteristics: A prolonged pause during gear changing, either up or down, and all-but-unusable action in downshifting into low. In the latter case, a downshift from second to low results in free-wheeling until road speed drops below 25 mph, when the shift occurs with a suddenness not unlike going into reverse.
Aside from the infirmities of the powertrain, the CL editors thought the Fairlane GTA might be a tad overbuilt:
Many miles in various new Fairlanes indicate that the new body shell is a tight, solid structure quite capable of rough usage. The altered torque box arrangement at both toeboard corners does exactly what Ford’s computers said it would: Reduce the noise and vibration in the passenger compartment. An unmistakable impression that the car is carved from a block of steel rather than bent into shape from sheet metal is achieved. The other side of that coin, however, is a heavier-than-desirable, for its size, vehicle.
I checked the 1966 Fairlane AMA specs, and the 3,500 lb curb weight Car Life listed in the data panel was off by about 80 lb as equipped. However, a curb weight of 3,580 lb was still a bit lighter than a 1966 GTO. At 206.4 inches overall, GTO was 8.4 inches longer than the Fairlane, but they were very similar in wheelbase and width — which are more closely correlated than length with vehicle weight — so it’s not surprising that they weighed roughly the same.
The caption of the top left photo reads, “WHEELSPIN POSES something of a problem on acceleration runs. [Firestone] Super Sport tires are good, but drag slicks would be a vital improvement.” The caption of the top right photo wrongly implies that the styled steel wheels were part of the GT/GTA dress-up package; they were an extra-cost option.
Like Road & Track, Car Life was based in Los Angeles, so most of their 1966 and later test cars were subject to California’s exhaust emissions standards. Ford initially met these requirements with the Thermactor system, which used an engine-driven pump to inject fresh air into the exhaust stream, reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions (while increasing oxides of nitrogen). However:
No sign of the dreaded Thermactor exhaust emission control device was visible on our fully licensed test model, giving our test drivers some pause. Didn’t California state law require all 1966 cars to be so equipped? Checking with Ford’s legal department revealed that there were loopholes, indeed, large enough to drive thundering herds of GTAs through. Among exemptions to the “all inclusive” law, it seems, are cars which can be called “high performance.” The GTA, though it might not fit an enthusiast’s definition of the term, qualifies because it is equipped with, among other things, a 4-barrel carburetor. Yet, the Galaxie 7-Litre tested last month doesn’t qualify as such, for some unexplainable reason. It begins to look as if California’s much vaunted anti-smog law may be honored only in the breach.
California’s early emissions standards were tied to the installation of suitable devices certified by the state’s Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, which had fairly broad authority to grant exemptions if suitable devices were not available. (The Legislature had gotten very testy about this, and had recently ordered that most such exemptions end by December 1, 1967.)
However, the AMA specifications for the Fairlane GT and GTA indicate that the S-code engine was supposed to have a Thermactor in California, as were the milder Y- and Z-code versions optional on other Fairlanes. That makes me think that Ford might actually have obtained an exemption on some other basis, such as not having enough Thermactor pumps to go around. Not having this device fitted from from the factory wasn’t great news for a California owner, since at this time, there was the risk that they might eventually be required to retrofit one after the fact.
Although the anemic performance likely crossed the Fairlane GT/GTA off the shopping lists of the enthusiast crowd, Car Life felt it wasn’t entirely without virtue:
If the GTA isn’t an earth-shaking Supercar, then, what can it be? Ironically, it comes closer to being a pretty fair utilitarian family sedan. Its major drawback for less than sporting service is fuel mileage. Even with careful driving, the test car was hard-pressed to return 12 mpg, and this on premium fuel only. [The overall test average was just 9.1 mpg.] An appetite of that nature is hardly one to mollify even a Walter Mitty, regardless of the dream-inspiring throatiness of the exhaust note. Realistic families would have cause to object to the fuel bill.
As family sedans go, performance is quite good. The Fairlane is, in our opinion, ideally sized for today’s traffic conditions. Three youngsters are no problem in back and trunk space is of 2-weeks-with-pay adequacy. Moreover, the GTA comes with a sturdier suspension which improves handling qualities without, we discovered, causing any deterioration in riding softness; at least we could detect no unpleasant harshness.
The GT/GTA suspension was actually quite stiff — the spring rates at the wheel were over 65 percent greater than a 289 Fairlane sedan — so it’s surprising that Car Life didn’t find it unpleasantly harsh. I guess the stoutness of the unit body paid off in that respect.
While the text makes no mention of braking, the data panel reveals a best deceleration rate of 24 ft/sec.² on the first stop from 80 mph, falling to 22.5 ft/sec.² on the second stop, which rated fair by contemporary domestic standards. For 1967, front disc brakes would become standard on the GT and GTA, a commendable upgrade.
CL concluded:
Living with the GTA for several weeks was not all disheartening; the experience made us more than anxious to try again in other Fairlanes with the 289-cu. in. engines. A little better balance, a little more honesty, and who knows? It may be quite an attractive package.
Total Fairlane GT/GTA production in 1966 was 37,342 cars, including 4,327 convertibles. That roughly equaled the combined total of the 1966 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 and Buick Skylark Gran Sport, but it was nowhere near the 96,946 GTOs Pontiac sold that year.
Personally, I like the looks of the Fairlane GT/GTA hardtop, and compared to the GM A-bodies, its shorter overhangs and stiff unit body have some appeal. As a performance car, though, it seemed like it just wasn’t trying very hard — lost, like so many ’60s Fords, in the wasteland between product planning and cost accounting.
The GTA was practical and it was cheap (in 1966, a sticker price of $3,499 with power steering, power brakes, automatic, radio, and styled wheels wasn’t bad at all), but when it came to the mixture of pizzazz and brawn that made cars like the GTO era-defining hits, the big-engine Fairlane just didn’t measure up.
Related Reading
Vintage M/T Road Test: 1964 Ford Fairlane 500 Sports Coupe – 289 V8, Four Speed And Good To Go (by Paul N)
Vintage Review: Olds 442, Pontiac GTO, Comet Cyclone GT, Chevelle SS396, Buick Skylark GS, Ford Fairlane GTA – Car and Driver Test Drives Six Super Cars (by GN)
Curbside Capsule: 1966 Ford Fairlane 500 Sedan – A Fresh New Face In The Neighborhood (by Paul N)
CC Capsule: 1966 Ford Fairlane 500 – Jet Age Generic (by Perry Shoar)
Automotive History: The Ford FE Series V8 Engine (by Jason Shafer)
My fraternity brother ran one of these. First thing he did was swap in a 3.90 differential and rear springs. I got the original to replace the failed rear end in my 63 fairlane. One thing about 66 fairlanes was terrible build quality. Failed electrical systems, brake lockup and general fit and finish. My father traded in his 66 wagon before payments were up, first and only time he did that.
A fair assessment on your part. These were nice around town cars however. And yes, if you were a good mechanic they could be made to run better and I feel the styling held up pretty well over time. The 389 Pontiac could be a bearing spinner if you got too aggressive.
I had a 67 Fairlane with the 390 engine. This was a stock 390 no 4bbl cause it was not a GT, it ran fine maybe not as quick to top end as a GTO but it got there. I added a 4bbl manifold with a Holly 650 ,long tube headers and a 9in.locker with 393 gears this combo left them all in my rear view mirrow.
The 1966-67 Fairlane GT/GTA and its sibling the Mercury Comet Cyclone seems to live under the shadows of the Mustang (and a bit later, the Cougar) and the supercars, I mean muscle cars from GM (GTO, 442, Buick GS, Chevelle SS) and Chrysler with the Dodge Coronet 500 and R/T and Plymouth Belvedere/Satellite/GTX with the 383ci, 440ci and Hemi V8s under the hood.
Interesting to note to see that 1966 Chevrolet Chevelle vintage training promo film who compares it to the Ford Fairlane and Pontiac GTO but not against the Coronet and Belvedere.
This car is the reason for the 428 Cobra Jet.
Setting aside the “sporty” Corvair (which a lot of people did) GM *had* to build high-performance A-bodies because they didn’t have a Mustang equivalent. I think you’re right in that Ford felt they didn’t need to build a hi-po intermediate because the Mustang existed.
But that ignored an entire social segment. In 1966 it was quite likely that a man in his early- to mid 20s was a family man with a couple of rapidly-growing kids. He still had a lust for power and speed, but the kiddos wouldn’t fit in the back of a Mustang.
“…the state’s controversial used car smog device program.” Not exactly. There were two retrofit programs, neither of which required HC/CO reduction. The first required closed crankcase ventilation for ’55 and later. The second was a NOx retrofit for ’66 and later, the controversial one.
I liked these Fairlane GT/GTA’s, along with their Mercury Comet Cyclone counterparts, but I believe this article is a fair assessment of how these cars performed compaired to the competition they faced in ’66. Though the 390 was a reliable engine it just wasn’t in the same league performance-wise as the Chevy 396 or Pontiac 389. The situation got even worse in following years for the 390 with the ’67 Pontiac 400 and ’68 Mopar 383 Magnum/Super Commando. Of course the Ford FE 427’s and 428’s were a lot more competitive, and maybe that’s why Ford let the 390 languish. Another issue potentially holding the Fairlane GTA back was the fact the the reliable and robust C6 transmission took more horsepower to operate than competitive transmissions (nearly a 60 h.p. loss by some estimates). It would be very interesting to see how the Fairlane GT compaired to the GTA.
The A in GTA being automatic is the most puzzlingly stupid automotive acronym ever. It’s pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn in a extra letter on GT to say oh you have a GTO? Well we have the GTA!” But why differentiate automatic vs Manual names at all? (Were automatic 442s called 432s? No) And why give the more intriguing sounding name to the car that is most surely less fun to drive or quick?
The missteps are great with these cars. Personally I’m not even all that smitten by the styling, it sits too tall, it looks narrow the chrome trim is too chunky and overapplied and in this package it doesn’t look like much more than a regular Fairlane with a rocker stripe; there’s no grille blackout, and the “hood scoops” are simply tacked onto the normal Fairlane hood.
Obviously it was in a different and fading class of car with a higher price tag but if I was a Ford buyer in 1966 looking for a muscle car I’d be more interested in a 7liter Galaxie than a Fairlane GT/GTA.