A really interesting car, the Ford Fairmont was a square design that came between two much sleeker cars, the Maverick and Tempo. It was offered in a two-door sedan, a two-door coupe, a four-door sedan, and a four-door wagon. This 1978 Ford Fairmont Squire wagon is listed here on Facebook Marketplace in Warwick, Rhode Island, and the seller is asking $13,500. Here is the original listing. Thanks to Dennis H. for the tip!
A rust-free car that’s 46 years old is amazing. This 37,600-mile Fairmont Squire is rust-free and it looks like a time capsule back to the year when it was finally legal to make your own beer at home. I mean, not that it mattered to me (burp). The Squire package added woodgrain and all body styles had the same 105.5″ wheelbase and 193.8″ length. For the “It didn’t cost that much new!!” folks, this Squire (a $365 option) wagon would have been around $4,400 new, so yes, this one is priced much more than it would have cost new, over three times as much.
There was only one “generation” of the Fairmont, made from 1977 for the 1978 model year, until the end of the 1983 model year. I’m surprised that there wasn’t a rear wiper on this high-end Squire wagon but it was the late-1970s. The seller says this car is all original and it looks like an absolute jewel, in a great color. I don’t see a flaw anywhere on the exterior of this car.
Now, about the interior… I say, about the interior… There is not one photo of the interior of this car, have you ever heard of that? If this were a craigslist ad, I would expect to not see an engine photo but there is one, there just aren’t any interior photos. Not even one with the doors open, I’ve never seen anything like that before that I remember. In any case, you can sort of see inside to see the blue seats and we have to imagine that they’re as nice as the exterior is, don’t we?
The engine looks as clean as a whistle and it should be Ford’s Triftpower, a 200-cu.in. OHV inline-six with 85 horsepower and 154 lb-ft of torque. The seller basically just lists the specs of the car in their description, not how things function. Given the exterior appearance, I have to believe that this car runs as good as it looks. Any thoughts on this Fairmont Squire?
If it made the trip to Fort Adams for a C&C, it must at least run well enough for the 30 mile trip.
That’s a lotta car for 85 hp…
I love the wagons but this thing would be such a dog.
Ok, I’ll say it, needs a modular 4.6, there has to be lots of those floating around at this point.
It’s under 3000 lbs.
One of the first cars I ever drove, true not a drag car but ran well on the highway and was easy on fuel (for the era). Strangely enough where it really shined was in the handling department. Top contender during the Saturday night rat races. And my girlfriend appreciated the large rear area to “stretch out in” after the races. 😉
4cyl with auto was a dog. Owned one with 4 spd for 23 years and loved it. Had the Mustang dash
A 4.6L modular motor might be a tight fit between those unibody shock towers, being much wider than the OHV 5.0L mill, but 5.0L/302 Windsor would be a direct bolt-in, since like the Maverick/Comet, the 302 was the top engine choice in these. One wonders why the original owner went with the base 200 cubic-inch Thriftpower I6, and didn’t at least upgrade to the 250 cubic-inch six cylinder instead, with something like an extra 10 horsepower on tap, but I digress. If you cut the shock towers to make more room for the 4.6L mill, you’ll have to put a full frame under it to replace the mounting points for the front shocks and upper A-arms.
I’m not sure the 250 6-cylinder was available in 1978. ??
If you were Ford, and you were known for making wagons, and the Squire was the top trim, it makes sense that you would offer it on the Fairmont. I agree Scotty, this is a very interesting car. I wonder how many Squires were built. Looks to be in very good shape. I wish we had interior pics, a description of the car’s history (the AAA sticker is a clue), and details of its condition. I’d keep it stock including the humble straight six.
I’d be inclined to upgrade to the 302/5.0L V8 myself, but to each his own. If I kept the six, I’d at least put a TBI unit on it to replace the Carter one-barrel fuel mixer these came with. In stock form, with Malaise Era emission controls, next to the word “Dieseling” in the dictionary was a picture of that motor, LOL! The fact that the intake manifold was cast as part of cylinder head in the six-cylinder models was a distinct turn-off for me. With a bolt-on manifold, upgrades to the intake were at least theoretically possible. With the integral manifold and cylinder head, not so much.
I like these (but not for that price).We had a ’78 wagon
in Black,with a roof rack,& I added Mustang TRX wheels,which
filled up the fenders & lowered the car.It was one of the most
reliable cars I’ve ever owned,& would have kept it forever,but it
got hit & totaled by a drunk driver.
It came from the Portland,Oregon area,& when I pulled off the
roof rack to wax under it,there was volcanic ash,from the Mount-
ST Helens eruption.
I love Fairmonts and Zyphers, the original Fox body. Too bad no interior pics they have such nice seats. Only blemish is the dent to the right of the plate cove. Sixes were offered with 3-on-the-floor. Now that would be cool.
According to the 1978 Fairmont brochure, the standard transmission with the 3.3L six was a -column- shifted 3-speed manual, but the only 3-speed Fairmonts I’ve seen have floor shifts. I think it’s doubtful that Ford built any with the column shift. Given the minuscule demand for the 6-cyl/3-speed combo, I find it doubtful that Ford would engineer a manual shift steering column and associated linkage when at least some of the floor shift hardware was already available.
I read somewhere that the last Ford you could buy a 3-on-the-tree in was the 1977 Mavericks. Not sure if that’s true, but it seems like it could be.
@ Dave R… I think you are correct regarding Ford passenger cars… However, I believe one could get “3-on-the-tree” up until ’86 in the F100… …and I think GM continued to offer it in some of their trucks for another year or two.
I have an ’06 Silverado with a floor mounted manual which I believe was the last year any manual was offered… maybe ’07 in the “classic” Silverado.
I had a 78 Fairmont two door, two tone kind of ugly brown, with a six and a stick. I also had a 75 Granada with a six stick. Both were fun to drive and their selling point to me was that they were stick shifts.
I had used 81 Fairmont wagon covered in rust spots. Bought it cheap and it ran and ran. Our family used it once on a long highway trip and it never missed a beat. They weren’t durable cars, as few survived after several Canadian winters but simple and easy to work on. I’d absolutely want the wagon in the ad.
Had a 2- sedan for about 2 years. It was an odd ball in many ways because it had a 4 speed and the 2.3 lire 4 cyl which, according to Ford, made 3hp more than the bigger 6 cyl. I eventually put a rear sway bar from a Mustang on it and some decent skins and I have to admit that for an American sedan the handling was way ahead of what I was used to from domestic products of the time. The 2.3 always felt a little up though with that 4 spd stick though, I suppose that the gear ratios where engineered more for economy rather than performance. I always wondered what the car would have been like with say another 25hp coming from the 2.3 but I never got the chance to find out as the car was stolen and I think that it was found in a field somewhere. Some years later I purchased a stack of old issues of Car and Driver and in one was a build up of a Fairmont 2dr sedan with a 2.3, made for interesting reading.
When I was down-and-out, in the early 1980s, I made my beer money by driving for the local cab company. Not Yellow; but a suburban company with a more-regional focus. The company ran Fords…they had run Granadas for years, and with that phased out, they moved to the Fairmont.
I actually liked them. They drove well; felt a lot more nimble than the “Grenades” and delivered reasonable gas mileage – better than the other. For the light weight, I guess.
Unfortunately for the breed, the Fairmont was seen as a disposable car. The Fox body could be made to last, with some care…witness all the survivor Mustangs, the Fairmont’s younger cousin; but these are mostly but a memory.
Speaking of memories: I have them with the Ford faux paneling. My Pinto Squire had it; suburbanites everywhere in my world, had Ford wagons with the Squire option. All the sizes, and for 30 years.
But. Those days were a long time ago; and today it seems gauche.
I don’t know if that would be a deal-buster or not. It sure would be rare…
The good old Ford Squaremont. That thing would be cool with a 5.0 5 speed swap and GT suspension upgrades
I see more and more of these Fairmont’s being turned into drag cars. Not that it’s a bad thing, but those are being butchered up. Never to return to stock. I hope the high entry fee will save this wagon from that fate. Having said that? I had to rent one of the 4 cylinder sedans when my LTD was in for repair. What a dog. As exciting as watching grass grow.
Just because a car is old, doesn’t make it a classic or desireable. The price is ridiculous as well.
Cheaper than buying a new car!
5 year warranty? Roadside assistance? 100,000 mile tune ups? New cars have never been so good.
Especially in this color. IMO this is a $5k unit.
An event stuck in my memory… I was a Sr in HS or maybe a college freshman… and I went with my Dad to look at one of the first shipments of Fairmonts at our local Ford dealer… We were both astounded by how bad the exterior panel fit was.. and how different it was from car to car… we walked the line of cars and then drove away, my Dad waving off the approaching sales guy. Not a high point for the US domestic car industry…
A Fox body Mustang station wagon
Lovely car. I had a friend when I was a boy whose parents drove a Ford Fairmont wagon. I didn’t see what engine powered the car, whether it was a straight six, or if it had a V8 engine.
Mine was just like that without the squire. It was the six with three speed floor shift. I got 150k miles out of it, but it was woefully short of power.
I worked at the Ford plant in St. Thomas back then. You could get a Fairmont/Zephyr with a 2.3l 4 cylinder, a 200 cid or 250 cid 6 cylinder, or a 302 V8. I’ll never forget that 2.3 sedan automatics with A/C and California emissions could not make the incline onto the upper deck of the car haulers. They all had to be loaded on the lower deck. Pretty sure there are none of those left on the planet!
Imagine buying one at a dealership near San Francisco where it’s flat, then trying to drive home on the average SF hill.
No 4.1L six in a Fairmont.
my ’86 LTD wagon’s l.gate will fit (need keep the striker/latch) on there for the wiper. Last fox waggys (’83/6) had the only wiper oe. Otherwise a cherokee can B retro-fitted.
The i6 is a tq monster so no fears w/ “this thing is a dog… needs… (bent8)…”. I have the oe 3.8 in w/cfi and it’s fine. Will doa head swap w/’08 4.2 (F-150). Bring in everything I need fora 20 yr up grade (to s.p. efi, obdII, etc, etc.). Gotta lub da Essex.
Last yr for the 3.3 ThriftPower was ’83 marquis/ltd (not crown vic/panther). AOD wasa overdrive (:68 I think) it cane with.
Would LOVE it — but not at this price. At my age, I would not need the power it lacks — but having a wagon would be handy. My 370,000-mile ’88 Grand Marquis is getting “tired” now, and I really don’t want newer cars. LIKE that “square” look — and I’ll bet this gets better gas-mileage than my Mercury.
I bought an ‘80 Fairmont Futura 2 door brand new with 200 six and stick 4 speed OD. Fun to drive. No lack of power for takeoff or highway cruising- mountain passes included. 28 mpg highway.
My Dad had a ‘78 Fairmont wagon 200/auto, and an ‘80 Zephyr Villager wagon. 250/auto. Both were wrecking yard refugees, and after needed repairs and refurbishing, delivered lots of service as “shop trucks” and cross country cruisers. Inexpensive, reliable, durable, reasonable fuel economy- what’s not to like.
I’d love to drive this wagon! GLWTS
I had a 1979 Mercury Capri (the Mustang’s corporate sister), with the Cologne 2.8L V6 and the four-speed OD transmission, and it wasn’t Ford’s best idea, that’s for sure. Maybe that OD gearbox worked better with the straight six in the Fairmont, I don’t know, but in the Capri it was a joke! There was a huge gap between third (3rd) gear (1:1) and fourth (4th) gear, so around town at between 35 and 40 mph, you were either screaming at 4500 rpm in third gear, or loafing at 1200 rpm just off of idle in fourth gear. Either way, you never seemed to be in the right gear, and were constantly hunting for the nonexistent sweet spot, upshifting and downshifting like a centipede with a case of poison ivy!
It was a Band-Aid fix during the second Oil Crisis, meant as a stopgap measure until Ford had a five-speed gearbox ready for the 1980 model year.
200 straight 6 has more torque and the OD transmission worked well. It may be a different transmission, because in the “RUGDAN” unit in my Fairmont, 4th over felt like a “half step” above 3rd direct.
I had a 78 wagon, but not the Squire version. I recall it had a rear window wiper and that it was the same as the windshield wipers. An option, I suppose, that was never ordered by the dealer or a buyer when new?
Ford changed the front facia and kept the rest after ’83 and called it the LTD II so they could push it over the $5k mark.
Saw a zillion Fairmont/Zephyr and Mustang quarter panels, front fenders and roofs go through the old Studebaker stamping plant when Allied Products owned and operated the plant.
That would have been ‘79-‘80 in South Bend.
Same presses that stamped Commanders, Hawks, Larks etc…
By 1982 I was working at an accelerator laboratory and we had a 1982 Fairmont wagon with the Thriftmaster Six, automatic and A/C. It was our courtesy car used mostly for picking up visiting physicists from the airport.
I remember picking up a physicist from Germany at the airport in that wagon and he probably commented about it being “strange” and “Kinda weird” in a thick German accent.
I liked it because it had A/C.