I’ll admit it: despite how cool this brochure made the 1980 Ford Fairmont seem, the truth is that it was a pretty boring car, at least from the perspective of someone who grew up surrounded by these boxy things. Though I’m likely being unfair, and hanging the car too much on its boxy styling. After all, this was the first Fox-platform car, which would later gain fame on the skid-mark-streaked shores of Mustanglia, as we all know. Anyway, as I was leafing through this brochure I realized something: of the two-door Fairmonts, there’s one that’s exciting and one that’s deeply dull, and I don’t understand what Ford was doing.
The Fairmont was one of those cars, which really don’t exist anymore, that was available in a staggering number of body styles. Just look up there at all the options: a four-door sedan, a two-door sedan, two wagons (one with wood paneling), and the sort of coupé version, the Fairmont Futura.
I know there are differences between a two-door sedan and a coupé, and they both have their place. I just don’t really get, in the Futura family, who the target market was for the two-door sedan? The two-door felt like a cream-colored, short-sleeved button-down shirt that a Safeway night manager might wear, while the Fairmont Futura feels like one of those black sleeveless shirts that’s partially mesh.
I mean, look – here’s the two-door:
Okay, with that subtle two-tone, I have to admit, that does look pretty great, in its crisp, rectilinear way. But those lines are extremely, even shockingly basic. Boring, possibly. A car, as pictured in a dictionary.
But the Fairmont Futura! Look at this:
That amazing B-pillar! The forward rake, acting as a sort of roll bar, defines the look of the car. The novel rear window is pretty exciting, too. It’s the same size as the regular two-door, it’s just dramatically more stylish. So why get the two-door?
Okay, there was a slightly vejazzled version of the two-door, the ES, which likely stood for something like Euro Sport, because this had a black grille, black side rear quarter vents, and a stiffer suspension setup, which is what “Euro” meant to American carmakers: black plastic and a firmer ride.
Even with all the ES-izing, it still wasn’t as exciting as the Futura:
I guess there were some people who just couldn’t hang with the excitement of that weird B-pillar and that novel glass, and had to seek comfort in the predictable, safe lines of the regular two-door?
I’m still amazed cars were once built like this, one basic model, with so many variants. Those were magical times.
the regular 2 door was for the slightly older group that would have bought the base 4 cylinder mustang instead of a GT with the 8 or even the SVO had they still been in their 20’s at the time. Two doors were sold because the acceptance of More door cars was not high at the time. 30+ years later and form over function has mostly gone away, but also designers now start with 4 doors in the design. when they do not, the four door stuff looks visually less appealing. A good example is seeing a 2 door pickup these days, the proportion look off because they are such low production that the designers don’t make those to appeal to the broadest audience anymore.
My Gaga (grandma) had the 4 door in sand. In the day and to this day a lot of cars are bought by old people. And what old people wanted was a car that looked like a car. Nothing fancy. Now back then you could buy a new car for $3,000 and a decent house for $15,000. Or a wheelbarrow for of rutabagas. Say what you want but our fancy tastes are putting the cost of buying a new or slightly used car out of the pockets of many middle income people.
Is it just me, or does the Futura look like it could become a ute?
Meet the Ford Durango which was indeed a Futura ute that was built in limited numbers:
https://www.guyswithrides.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/4ED7DEF4-7878-4661-AA36-7555F6728083.jpeg
And then there is also the question of why get a 2 door Fairmont instead of a Mustang?
This is how all of the domestics ran their businesses into the ground.
“Hey, let’s cost ourselves a shit-ton of money making redundant products!”
They went from “the 1957 Ford” that was the same fucking car with different names and trims to … this.
A platform that came in FOUR variations here (sedan, two door, wagon, Futura) but also cannibalized the Thunderbird, which was uglier than homemade sin for ’80, also on the Fox platform.
And the Mustang. Also Fox. Though that one is different enough to be an example of scale = economy vs slicing the onion too fine.
The 1957 full-size Ford line came in 11 body styles and platform shared with Meteor in Canada which came in like 8 variations
What happened was Americans stopped considering “full size” to mean the same as “standard size”, demand for compact cars grew, as did demand for cars sized in between compact and full size, and automakers needed to offer products in those categories as well or else cede a vast segment of the market to the Japanese. And, since buyers were accustomed to having a choice of body styles in each model range, and competitors were still offering that, need to do it too, or else lose share
Because when your customer base is age 18 to death and family size is 1 to 12, and their tastes run from sports to practical you need many varieties or you fail. If I am not mistaken we are talking about Ford which still seems to be around. And most of the manufacturers who aren’t didn’t have as much variety. So I think your theory is disproven.
And that’s before mentioning the pre-aero Fox Thunderbird or Cougar. Probably my favorite of all the Fox bodies because they looked cool in NASCAR Cup trim.
That’s not Batman’s Futura.
It looks like a Ranchero that got converted into a coupé. I’m not a big fan of B pillars, big or otherwise, but it is reminiscent of the 1955-56 crown Victoria.
There was an aftermarket conversion company that turned Fairmont Futuras into Rancheros. Forgot the name of the company, but it named the vehicle Durango (well before Dodge did their SUV). At least one magazine did a story on the vehicle–Pickup, Van & 4wd (PV4) did a driving impression back in ’81 or ’82. Only negative thing that came up was that the magazine had to give the vehicle back when their story was done!!
Didn’t Dodge have a Durango pickup before the Durango SUV?
The base two door was the cheapest Fairmont. Get the customer in the door, then upsell them the Futura!
I used to know someone who owned a base-trim Fairmont 2-door sedan. Enlisted in the Army out of high school (didn’t have to, as his father and grandfather were “old money” businessmen in Florida). He owned it until 1986, when he traded it for a new Taurus MT-5 (base 4-cylinder with a 5-speed manual). He passed away in ’87 or ’88.
My guess pine box casket? Jk
The Futura was for those who wanted a Thunderbird, but couldn’t afford the payments. The Fairmont 2-door sedan was for the guy who originally wanted a Nova 2-door, but couldn’t find one since GM was replaced the Nova with the Citation, and knew the Aspen/Volare were hot garbage and didn’t have an AMC dealer within 50 miles of his house.
I, like you Jason, was a preschooler at the time, so looking at it through 1978 eyes is a challenge – but the Futura was overstyled like everything else Detroit put out for years while the sedan was crisp, clean and “European”. But not too European (and if there was no such thing there was the Fiesta next to it on the lot). Plus the 2-door sedan was cheaper as others mentioned.
My favorite’s the wagon though.
The 2-door sedan’s looks are far cleaner…the Futura looks like it has some other car’s rear window grafted on aft of the World’s Largest B-pillar.
But that turbo moon advertisement is fuckin’ slick! I don’t think I knew they came with Mustang wheel covers or the 2.3L Pinto turbo.
Maybe some other car’s windshield? Cuz that could be a windshield.
The Futura would make a great ute.
I owned a Fairmont and I honestly cannot remember anything about it, that is how bland it was. Beyond the styling I believe the Futura was a good price increase over the Fairmont which was already marketing as an affordable family sedan. Not many people in that market want a more expensive version of a boring car.
Given both were on the same platform the Futura was a Pep boys 2 door Fairmont.
not one gray or black one among them. the good old days.
AMEN Brother AMEN.
I had a ’79 Futura 4cyl 4spd with manual everything in the early 80s. Really not a bad car for the time in a simple but sturdy kinda way. With some alloy wheels and coil spring spacers in the rear to give it a bit of a rake, it was a pretty good car for my 20 year old self.
I’ve always wondered why Ford didn’t make the Futura body the Thunderbird in 1980. It was a very well-done bit of carrying forward the looks of the 1977-79 Thunderbird in cleaner, next-decade execution. Given a full luxury interior and a slightly upgraded front-end including covered headlights (but not as over-wrought as what ended up on the ’80 T-Bird’s front) and it would have been a much nicer ‘Bird. Even the big taillights of the Futura called out for bust a bit of continuation into a wall-style befitting a Thunderbird.
But no, some marketing executive board decided on the horribly overdone abomination that genuinely looked like nothing more than a tarted-up base Fairmont sedan. And it didn’t sell particularly well, which anybody could have told them just by looking at the thing. For major downsizing of 1980, the Fututra’s styling that capitalized on the ’77-’79 car’s shape should have been a no-brainer.
At least somebody at Ford was brave enough to push the design into the Fairmont lineup as a top-of-the-series car. It really would have been a shame not to have put it into production.
There has to be an at least mildly-interesting story behind what happend.
I gave up on the Thunderbird when it went from a two door two seater sports car to a land yacht. Using and abusing a legacy car are two different things.
Futura was such a good name, too bad Ford let the copyright lapse. The Fusion was supposed to be the Futura.
Just because it lapses doesn’t mean they couldn’t use it.
It looks like it wanted to be a Fairmont Ute. Or BRAT-style pickup.
I had a Futura! and we even went as far as to put a Mustang GT 302 in it, I’d say it was probably 1984/5. Since it was a 4 cyl with a stick, it already had all the clutch assembly in it.
We never truly got the V8 to run like it should have, but it was a lot of fun, I still miss that project, I saw it driving around a year or two later in the neighborhood and it was clear someone gave the tuning the TLC it deserved.
I loved the look of it and have since lusted for a Durango when I hit the lottery.
Lusting for a Durango after hitting the lottery is clearly a psychological issue best dealt with by professionals. JK
You have to remember pricing strategies back then.
The two-door pillar sedan was the cheapest bodystyle you could get – because it was the cheapest to produce.
Next step up were the 4 door sedans
Then the wagons
Finally the 2 door and 4 door hardtops at the top (unless there were convertibles involved)
The Futura took the place of the hardtops at the top of the line.
So the 2 door sedan was for cheapskates
The Futura was for people who couldn’t afford to step up to the new Thunderbird, but wanted some of that latent styling from the 77-79 Thunderbird.
I don’t think so. The Futura was the Fairmont Coupe with sprinkles. You could get both similarly equipped but end up paying much more for the Futura.
Futura sounds like a furniture company from the Jetsons