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?
The Fairmont is begging for a TurboCoupe turbo motor swap with no exterior changes. Nobody would be the wiser on the exterior, but it would be fast enough to be enjoyable and keep up with modern traffic.
I voted Fairmont because if it’s lasted nearly 50 years already it will likely go another 50 in the condition it’s in, whereas that Pontiac wouldn’t be enjoyable to drive even another 5 months…
Thats a really weirdly optioned Fairmont. Absolutely basest model powertrain, but A/C, deluxe wheel covers, vinyl top and side mouldings. Fairly loaded for the time and model but base drivetrain.
Do want.
I’m betting Beau’s dad sold a fair few like that. Gas in SoCal was never cheap and GM and Mopar wouldn’t sell you a stick A/G-body or Volare with California emissions so the Fairmont was the only game in town.
My parents bough the most basest Fairmont wagon I ever saw because it was by far the cheapest “new” one on the lot and had been there for most of a year. ZERO options. No radio, no passenger side mirror, nothing. Thanks to the internet, I was able to find an original brochure and in the “Notable Standard Features” section: “3-speed manual transmission, column-mounted shift”
I have NEVER seen or heard of a Fairmont with three on the tree. Pretty positive they never actually produced any but if they had – it wouldnt have surprised me ONE bit.
Yeah, the 2.3 couldn’t get by without the fourth gear but the six (which was initially standard on wagons, but the 2.3 was added in early calendar ’78) had 3-on-the-floor. I expect they found that the Fox being a new platform and all it was too difficult to get the 3-on-the-tree linkage components that had been clanking around (possibly literally) since the ’60 Falcon to work there so it was easier to make all the sticks floor shift.
The Pontiac is by far the logical choice but theres just something about that Fairmont. I think it’s the triple (quadruple?) red spec. Red interior, exterior, vinyl roof and wheels? Sold.
If I bought the Fairmont would I age slower, although I likely wouldn’t get to drive it much being confined to a secure facility due to losing my mind and buying a freaking 9k 79 Ford Fairmont?
Remember the student dictionaries we had in grade school or middle school? And they’d sometimes have a simple drawing of whatever the word was that you were looking up? As the most basic, elemental, definitional example of the word? If you looked up “car” in such a dictionary, that drawing would be a Fairmont.
Both are neat survivors, and if it was going to be a daily driver then the Pontiac is the much better choice, but that Fairlane is something is like to experience a lot more. Not saying it’ll be a good experience, but it’ll be different than any of the cars I’ve owned or ridden in.
Also, “That’s because up until the last ten years or so, they were just that: standard.”…
10 years is pretty optimistic, probably more like 20 or 25 in anything but the cheapest compacts
I mean, quite a few base cars still came with manual transmissions in the 90’s, so ten years or so is…. Oh. Oh, right. Yes.
I know the much newer/cheaper car makes more sense. But if I wanted a car with taillights shaped like the Pontiac’s, I’d get a Silvia. Besides, a row-your-own car with a Malaise-Era, upright-grille and formal roofline? I’ll deal with the lethargic 2.3 just for that absurd experience alone. And if I’m feeling especially naughty, turbocharge it. Or 5.0 swap it. Or if I were made of money, Cosworth YB swap it.
My mother had a 1980 fairmont, brown with a dark brown vinyl interior, the 6-cyl (inline?) purchased new in 1980. My parents still regard it’s purchase as one of the worst decisions they have ever made. They got rid of it in ’85.
Also, the $9000 price is absurd.
Pontiac.
Do not be swayed by those who bring up “FOX BODY!” This right here was the true Fairmont experience.
I’ve always wanted to build a sleeper Fox sedan and that would be a perfect starting point
Lazy internet research suggests that that Fairmont cost about $4400 back in 1979. Behold, shitbox appreciation!
(Just as rare is a Grand Am without cladding on it!)
I’m not buying a 2004 Grand Am and it’s “inspired by clams” interior (I assume this is Torch’s favorite interior?) at any price. What’s the alternative?
A freaking 9000$ Fairmont????
Well at least the Fairmont is interesting. What the hell, I’ll take it and regret my bigotry towards 00’s GM products later.
Triple Red?
Bucket Seats?
A four-on-the-floor?
(No, the vinyl top is not a bummer)
Oh, I’ll take the Fairmont all day long – and be a star at the local Cars and Coffee.
The Fairmont is simply stunning (for a box)! The body-color turbine wheel covers are the epitome of style. I love that someone ordered it with so much decor but such a basic powertrain. My mom had a ’78 Fairmont wagon with the Pinto 4-cylinder and 4-speed manual, but hers was bereft of any upgrades – no power steering or power brakes, AM radio, no a/c. She did put over 100k on it by 1985, so it was reliable enough. Oh, I guess she did splash out for a rear defroster and wiper. Those were probably options. I think this is the first featured Shitbox I actually want to buy.
Practically everything was optional. My parents bought a leftover wagon when the next model year came out. ZERO options. 4 cyl 4 speed, dog dish wheel covers, no rear wiper or defog, no passenger mirror, no air. Didnt even have a radio.
Oh wow! That means my parents also sprang for the full wheel covers too! We were living larger than I had imagined.
Even the pleated vinyl seats on this one are an upgrade from the tooled-effect vinyl that was standard. Plaid cloth inserts were the other option if you were getting a Fairmont without the column-shift auto.
LOL – I have encountered another Fairmont nerd. Hello friend.
Oh, I’m a nerd for every type of car…
Me too – just not as knowledgeable on some
If that Fairmont was like 5k, it would have gotten my vote. For that price, no matter how good it presents itself, it’s still a nearly 50 year old 4 cylinder car…that’s not a Honda.
trust me, a 4 cyl 50 yr old Honda CVCC is not the upgrade you think it is. These 2.3 Pinto engines were easier to work on and lasted as long if not more.
Oh agreed, but at least the car around that Honda engine is generally more widely accepted.
NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS?!?
For a FAIRMONT?!?
Maybe he put the asking price in some foreign dollar where it works out to, like, three grand.
Otherwise, gimme the Grand Am that’s old enough in car years to be a Grand Ma.
Well, 9000 Rubles is about $115 so maybe
Voted Pontiac because it was more reasonably priced. I would have picked the Fairmont all day if it was a few grand less, it’s a cool survivor but not a $9k car
That 2.3 in the Fairmont is a wheezy lump. I’ll take the Grand Am.
That Grand Am is a decent daily beater all day long. Not enough power to hurt itself.
I voted Ford because as someone said it is fascinating. I don’t care about the price. Just the fascination.
I’m also a sucker for N gears on the floor shifters, no consoles. There’s something so fascinating about their starkness. Maybe it’s the relatively long handle, so you can really see, out of the corner of your eye, yourself shifting it.
It’s a four on the floor. Like a muscle car!
Love that red interior!
Went with the Grand Am – not because I wanted it, rather because I wouldn’t want to drop $9k on any Farimont, regardless of what’s under the hood. Now that’s out of the way, I will admit that this is a fascinating car. The Lima and 4-speed are absolutely base spec, but whoever ordered it originally chose to spend their money on exterior bling instead. The vinyl top, chrome bodyside mouldings, chrome mirrors and turbine hubcaps are what you would see on the top tier Farimont (or as top tier as they got anyway). This is a great example of how you could order a car with specific options back in the day.
Yes, I am throwing dirt on the humble Fairmont but I have reason – we had one in the family back in those days, and I guess it served its purpose, but it really was a dreadful car. Noisy, cheap everywhere you look, and unreliable. It had a habit of stalling when making a left turn from a dead stop in cold weather. Some might see these things with some degree of nostalgia (including my sister, who inherited that thing as her first car), but I remember it as a gutless POS.
Yeah, same memories. One of the moms in the car pool had one. It was a pile and in 1979-1980, that was saying something. It broke down at least 3 times on the way to school. The nuns didn’t care what our excuse for being late was. The next year my mom found us a different car pool partner with a Buick if I recall.
My sister literally inherited a blue one of these, but with the auto.
Her first car. She got rid of it asap.
+1 to the total piece of shit reference.
If the fairmont was $3000 it would be fun just to show kids what how colored interiors were back then. If it was red, EVERYTHING was red.
If the Fairmont was half that price, I’d jump on such a clean model, even though the inside looks pimped out. But the GA would make a fine older car I could run on the back roads and not worry about it at that price.
The Fairmont is priced in “I think it’s a low mileage classic” territory, when in reality it’s just low mileage.
Oh wow, I honestly had no idea that gen of Grand Am was available with a manual. These were one of the default choices for midwest high schoolers 20-25 years ago, but every one I’ve seen was the automatic.
I dated two girls that drove these in a row back in the day. They were everywhere.
That Fox sedan is a perfect example of “try to find a nicer one”.
While it’s a great survivor, I would instantly yeet that boat anchor 2.3 for something a little spicier. Like a much newer turbo 2.3. And all the necessary updates to make sure that power can be handled responsibly. Probably gets better fuel economy to boot. It’ll be the nicest $25k Fairmont in the US at that point.