Good morning! We’re sticking with stickshifts today, because two cars came up on the Underappreciated Survivors group on Facebook that caught my eye. They’re both cars that were very common in their day, but nearly always seen with automatic transmissions. These two, however, are equipped with manual transmissions. Does that make them interesting enough to consider? We’ll see.
Friday’s runoff featured nothing but manual transmissions, and only cars built after 2010. I confess I’m surprised by the outcome of the vote; I don’t know which car I expected to win, but it wasn’t the VW Golf. But win it did, by almost a two-to-one margin over its nearest competitor, the Nissan Juke.
That would be my first and second choice as well. I really like that Golf, but I’d have to see if it was worth the extra two grand over the Juke. The other two, the VW Tiguan and the Hyundai Elantra, don’t interest me all that much, and they didn’t interest very many of you, either, from the looks of it.
Younger readers may have heard some of us older folks refer to manual transmissions as “standard” transmissions. That’s because up until the last ten years or so, they were just that: standard. Order a car with no options, and you got a stickshift. Some cars were almost never seen with their standard transmissions, though; virtually everyone who bought one opted for an automatic. These two managed to sneak off the assembly line without an optional automatic. Let’s check them out.
1979 Ford Fairmont – $9,000
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter OHC inline 4, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Willowbrook, IL
Odometer reading: 47,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Ford’s RWD Fox platform had a hell of a run, and produced some well-loved cars, but it all started here. The Fairmont debuted in 1978 as a replacement for the Maverick, which was based on the old Falcon platform that dated all the way back to 1960. Never let it be said that Ford doesn’t get its money’s worth out of a design.
The Fairmont was available with a bunch of different engines, but this one has the most basic option: the 2.3-liter overhead cam four-cylinder from the Pinto. This engine had a long and distinguished career under the hoods of Ranger pickups, but for the Fairmont it was barely adequate power. It drives the rear axle through a four-speed manual. It has 47,000 miles on it, which sounds low these days, but when this car was new, getting 100,000 miles out of a car was doing really well. It’s a one-owner car, and the seller says it’s “ready to enjoy.”
It’s unbelievably clean inside. It looks like there might be a hole worn through the side bolster on the driver’s seat, but apart from that, this could be a picture from a Ford brochure from 1979. Whether or not that’s a good thing, I’ll leave up to you.
It’s almost as clean outside. The paint is original, and it’s in fine shape. The vinyl top is kind of a bummer, but at least it’s in good condition. Now, about the price: Yes, it’s a lot. But this might be the nicest Fairmont left. Someone will want it. If that someone isn’t you, then no hard feelings; just vote against it and move on.
2004 Pontiac Grand Am SE – $3,200
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2-liter DOHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Rockville, VA
Odometer reading: 175,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Pontiac Grand Am was so ubiquitous for so long that I can’t imagine anyone in the US hasn’t crossed paths with one. I know I have. I’ve never owned one, but I’ve driven a few, worked on many others, and I did own one of its sister models, an Oldsmobile Calais. Like this Grand Am, my Calais was a four-door sedan with a manual transmission, which must have been rare in either case.
To get a manual in a Grand Am, you had to equip it with a four-cylinder engine. For 2004, that meant a 2.2-liter Ecotec engine that made just 140 horsepower, but was a lot more refined than the Quad 4 of earlier models. It’s durable, too; this one has 175,000 miles to its name, and it’s still going strong. It has a new water pump and thermostat, so it should be running nice and cool like it should, and the seller just put new tires on it as well.
The interior is exactly what you expect: fuzzy gray seat fabric and lots of gray plastic. The SE model designation sounds fancy, but it’s actually the base model. Note the crank windows and lack of buttons on the steering wheel. Uninspired as GM interior materials circa 2004 may be, they actually hold up fairly well. This doesn’t look like the interior of a 175,000-mile car. The seller says everything works fine, including the air conditioning.
The paint is in really good condition, and as a southern car, it probably doesn’t have any rust. This dark pewtery silver isn’t all that exciting, but it suits this car. The SE model doesn’t have the silly lower body cladding or weird spoiler that the GT model has, and in my eyes, it’s better off without it.
Automatic examples of these two cars are a dime a dozen – or at least, they were in their day. Does the presence of a manual transmission in either one magically make either of them a collector’s item? Probably not. But it would make them conversation-starters. Which one appeals to you?
That fairmont is in great shape but I cant imagine how awful it is to drive. It’s also TOO nice for regular use and too shitty to enjoy on the road. Honestly, the best (and most likely) bet for that thing is an engine swap.
Pontiac gets my vote. Those are good (albeit basic transportation) cars. Reliable, comfortable enough. And if you’ve ever spent time in a GM of this era, you know exactly what that interior smells like on a hot day, and how those cheap circular plastic door handles feel. I mean….not good…but nostalgic.
Grand Am, because 4 reverse lights…
That’s a Mustang LX dash and trim. Sold!
Actually the opposite considering the Fairmont came out in ’78 and the Mustang in ’79.
Gotta go for the Fairmont this time. I also had a Grand Am, but the Fairmont was far worse.
It was my second car, a replacement for shit-brown 74/75 Musting II, and its only redeeming feature was that it didn’t eat starters like the Mustang did. It was a baby blue two-door with a rust spot on the hood,200 six (emissions delete), and a THREE speed manual. Yes, THREE, not four. Except that something broke somewhere along the way and it became a two speed (1 and 3 only).
For some odd reason this was the last Ford I ever owned.
Mark, I hate to say this, but you’re like a decade and a half off with your definition of “standard”. Most mass market cars had the automatic as the standard or only option since like the early 2000’s. In 2016, Google tells me only 79 models on the market (which is like 1/3 to 1/4 of the total market) even had manuals as an option, and those were mostly high-end sports cars.
You must understand, 1990 was only 10 years ago.
This.
I once owned a Fairmont (given to me as a gift from my Dad). Avoid them at all costs. Mine was incapable of driving over 55 without shaking itself apart. It was quite a POS.
Grand Am all the way. Growing up , we had a Fairmont (2door, auto, 2.3L) that must have a mandate that this is “car”. Not fun car or unique car, just car.
At least the Grand Am has a better engine (power to weight) and had Pontiac survived would have taken the mantle from the Altima as the fastest car with 3 hubcaps and Zero Phuques from the suspended driver
At 1/3 the price I’ll take the trailer park race car grand am. They are starting to get rare to see out you have to actually drive in the trailer parks to see them resting now.
The Fairmont is cool in that there are so few Fairmonts still around in good condition, and a manual Fairmont in good condition is basically a unicorn. But $9K is a big ask.
I’ve had enough seat time in that generation of Grand Am to not need anymore. I’ll overpay for the Fairmont instead.
The Grand Ams were EVERYWHERE and then they just all disappeared. I thought they were adequate but I never Aspire-d to own one.
I like the Fairmont, it has a lot of the same interior as my parent’s 1979 Mustang. It was not a great driving car but it was reliable. But not for $9,000, way too much.
Though it’s way too pricey, I’ll take the Fairmont if only for some Cars and Coffee cred. In reality, I don’t want to own either of these cars.
I actually drove a manual Grand Prix back from an auction once. It was not great. However I always hated the interior on these cars, so that may have colored my opinion.
I’d take the Ford. It’s interesting in such clean condition regardless of transmission, and more interesting with a manual.
Man the Fairmont brings back memories of my first car back in 96′ which was an old Police spec 79′ Fairmont with the 302. It was our town’s old officer friendly car I bought at a police auction Blues Brothers style for $500. It had a push bar, interior divider with the rear doors that didn’t open from the inside (which was great for trapping my friends in back at lunch), holes in the roof from the old light bar and tons of rust. The rust was so bad that I think it only lasted me a little more than 500 miles before I went over some train tracks too fast, got a little too much air and managed to knock the front bumper and push bar free which I promptly drove over, popped 3 of the 4 tires and tore up a bunch of things on the underside of the car, but at least I didn’t break my watch. When my dad came to pick me up and looked at it he decided it wasn’t worth fixing and called a wrecker to junk it, but it was great fun for the 3-4 months I had it.
Winter car: Grand Am for $3k
Other car I’m going to drive when it’s nicer out: I don’t know, but I will have at least $6k to spend on it because I didn’t buy a $9k Ford Fairmont.
I can’t believe I’m voting for a Fairm—WTF, $9k?! It’s not even a coupe! Pontiac with the heinous GM interior it is.
Fairmont + junkyard 5.0/T5 + Mustang interior goodies – any outward sign of any performance mods = a hilarious good time at stoplights.