I saw it go by as I sat at the light, and for a moment I wasn’t sure just what I’d seen: Was that a Mustang or a Maverick? Or a mashup of the two? I knew I needed to catch it and check it out, but the light was long, it was a ways down Chambers already, and traffic was a bit thick (for Eugene). But I’m intrepid, so I gave it my best shot.
Well, the left lane was turning out to be slower than the right, and a Ford pickup passed me there, closing off my intended move into the right lane.
I figured I’d better get as many shots as I could on the go, because this might be hard to actually catch stopped. Sure enough, the driver took a right turn at this little street just coming up, and I was stuck in the left lane. I figured he was gone, as there was no easy or quick way to pursue him further. At least I got a pretty good shot of the Mavi-Stang. And quite a nice job of it that someone did here.
I turned right at the next intersection, and on a lark, turned right again at the next cross street. There it was, gassing up at a station a half block down. A lucky break. I asked the owner if he’s mind pulling over after he finished filling his tank, and of course he obliged. Folks don’t spend this much time customizing their cars to turn down the chance for a bit more attention.
The owner, a young Latino guy (Miguel, I think), did all of the work himself, and was justifiably proud of it. And he was quite honest about what’s under the hood: a 250 CID six.
The interior is definitely more Maverick than Mustang.
The area of the rear window that was filled in is showing some stress cracks. Miguel said he’s just about to repair that and give the Mavi-Sang a new paint job, in time for the summer car shows and cruises.
The Maverick certainly was the closest thing to an original Mustang in terms of size, using the same track width and other key platform aspects of the original.
CC ‘built’ a better Mustang II using the Maverick’s wheelbase, which resulted in a longer front end and better proportions than the actual Pinto-based Mustang II. And the weight of two really wouldn’t have been any different.
The rear three-quarter view is the most effective one in terms of the deception, don’t you think?
Wow, that’s really not a bad look. Makes for a giant C pillar but the rear passenger window really works.
VERY fine. Too bad Ford didn’t think of it.
WOW! Nice custom job. Sweet! Sure puts any of mine to shame. He needs to come to one of the National Maverick meets. He’ll get plenty of attention then. You know before emissions hit, the 250 wasn’t that slow. A 70 Maverick with one and a automatic did 0-60 in 10.8 seconds in a road test. And today with classic inlines aluminum cylinder head and other go fast goodies, they can MOVE!
I really had to do a double take on those pics! That is the best looking Maverick I’ve ever seen!
This find goes directly to one of my weak spots. Six and slush box moving….what was that again. Good work. Good find and you need to be commended on your tenacity. Keeps me coming back daily.
Very well conceived, and a look that designers at Ford could have envied. Miguel is justified in his pride.
You write, “But I’m intrepid,” obviously inspired by the CC in motion that you were following in the left lane. It is hard to tell the model year from the rear of a first-generation Dodge Intrepid, but from what I can see, it’s the twin brother of my own, in the same color, metallic teal rather than the more common blue. I haven’t been to Eugene lately though, other than on the train between Seattle and California; and as of last night, mine was still in the garage. I did a double-take…wondering whether you had wandered south a few hundred miles.
I’ll call it the “Oregon Special.”
in 1974 they should have turned the Maverick into the Mustang, instead of doing the execrable Mustang II.
I don’t know. I kinda have my doubts if a Maverick based Mustang would have sold as strongly as the pinto based Mustang II. Not in 74. Maybe if the redesign had occured in 71, perhaps. In 71 it would have been closer in concept and size to the 64/65 original. By 74 the Maverick was considered an old fashioned design. I understand what the Mustang II was. I don’t hate on ’em like the traditional Mustang crowd does.
I’m not saying they should have just changed the badge, but a light restyling would have made it look like a Mustang and it still would have been hundreds of pounds lighter than the outgoing 1973 Mustang. The 2 door Maverick’s proportions were more or less “just right” to be a ‘stang. The 4-door could have remained the Maverick.
Ok, I’ll give ya that.
When the design process began for what was to become the II, it was already predetermined to be smaller than the outgoing car. Two programs commenced; “Ohio” (Maverick based) and “Arizona” (Pinto based). Once full-sized mock ups were completed and shown to consumer clinics, the Arizona cars consistently scored higher amongst potential buyers than Ohio cars. Southern Californian clinics were particularly unfavorable towards the Ohio proposals. This was how using the Maverick as a base for the next Mustang was scrapped.
I never saw why the Mustang II got the hate it did, Most of it seems to be that it was based on a “lowly” economy car. (which entirely ignores the fact that the original one was too.) Basing the new one off of Pinto made perfect sense in 1974, Considering that it was conceived before the 73 gas crunch (probably as the original grew to Torino size,and became too “fat” as a Pony car), Ford looked like they had ESP. It was the logical platform until the FOX was ready.
I agree completely.
I think a large part of that was by then the Mustang was widely considered a performance car, and the Mustang II had none.
As mentioned it was the performance cred. In 1973 the Mustang Mach 1 had 5.8 liters, in 1974 the Mach 1 had 2.8. The Camaro and Firebird from GM soldiered on with the big ol 350+ ci V8s for several more years. To gear heads, who tend to be pretty loyal to brands, to basically have their Ford entry taken away and either be forced to keep their older model or go to another company, you can see the resentment.
The bread and butter buyers are of course primarily important, but to them it was all about having a nice looking fun car that returns good everyday efficiency, and if Ford didn’t deliver on that they’d just quietly move on(as many surely did in the 71-73 years, to imports), no stink about it, because they’re not passionate like enthusiasts are. Enthusiasts reaction to the Mustang II is fairly justified IMO, it was only a few years since Ford’s “total performance” era, a 1,2,3 LeMans victory, Carrol Shelby christening a Mustang “King of the Road”, or Even Ford themselves naming Mustangs things as boastful as Boss or Mach 1. They’re supposed to expect the 2.8l cologne powered Mustang II to woo the buyers and fans previously interested in those?
The Mustang is it’s most appealing when it offers both choices. That’s why the Fox isn’t shunned like the II. Had there been no return of hot 5.0s to the roster that generation would probably be even more hated than the Mustang II simply because it doesn’t look enough like a 65. But instead it managed to completely capture the hearts of the V8 loving enthusiasts AND be appealing for the regular everyday buyers who wanted something cooler than a dedicated econobox.
I am a traditional Mustang guy, but unlike most of us I have some respect for the Mustang II. When they first came out I thought ( and still do) that they were an attractive design but kind of stubby. I was of the opinion that the Mustang had gotten to large and was almost Torino size. The II turned out to be a smart move for Ford as witnessed by the initial sales success. My first new car was a ’75 Mustang II coupe that replaced my ’67 Mustang coupe as our family car. I drove the new one for about a week to work and then told my wife that she could use it instead of me. I went back to driving the ’67 that we had kept for a second car, and my beater ’59 Ford pickup. The Mustang II was not a bad car, but after a couple about 3 years we decided that it was time to move up to a larger car since we had added a second child to our family. Since I don’t like wagons, vans or four door sedans, we bought the ’79 Malibu coupe that we still have. The ’67 Mustang went away about 20 years ago when I built a street rod, which is now ( thankfully) gone, too. When my oldest 2 daughters started driving we bought a ’78 Mustang II for them to drive. That car did very well for having teenage drivers. It had been hit about 4 times and most of the sheet metal had been replaced by the time we sold it 5 years later. I am a Mustang guy but have nothing against the II. In fact, I have always believed that if it wasn’t for the Mustang II there wouldn’t be a Mustang today. I do wish they had been stretched out a little like that photoshop shows. That is a good looking car!
Absotively, posilutely! But that would have saved Ford fewer pennies, still basing it on the Falcon instead of the Pinto. And there was the ever-looming $10/gallon gas on the horizon and the threat of Big Government High-Handed Intervention (CAFE). One didn’t happen. the other did.
Sorry but when pen went to paper on the MII there was no threat of $10 per gallon gas or CAFE.
Ford did get lucky in that the first gas crisis occurred just as the MII made it to market and I believe that played a big part in the success of the MII. Yes the MII was successful, very successful selling much better than the Clydesdale it replaced. Had gas prices not skyrocketed it is likely that it would not done near as well.
I’m also not sure how basing it on the Pinto saved more pennies than another variation on the Falcon platform. Fact is there were major changes to the Pinto platform to upsize it and make it strong enough to handle the increased weight and accommodate larger and more powerful power trains. Of course many of those changes did transfer to the Pinto to ensure interchangability and keep costs down. Not unlike the way that the components that beefed up to accommodate the intermediate sized Fairlane trickled down to the Falcon and then the original Mustang.
I think it was ROI more than anything. The Falcon platform development costs had to have been paid off several times over by the time the Maverick was conceived, whereas the Pinto was truly all new, and only in a low profit segment at that. Putting the MII on it was all business.
Wouldn’t turning a Maverick into a Mustang have been kind of pointless? The “original” Mustang was based on the Falcon, and wasn’t the Maverick also Falcon based? The Encyclopedia of American Cars says “…..even it’s basic chassis and powertrain were the same”. So isn’t a 73 Mustang already Maverick based?
If the idea for the 1974 Mustang was to build a smaller, more economical Mustang, using the Maverick as the base wouldn’t have done it.
Howard: You’re missing the point. The Mustang had grown steadily, starting in 1967. Its track/width was increased twice, as was its length. Weight was way up. The ’71-’73 Mustangs were called “Clydesdales” for a reason.
The Mustang needed to get back to its compact roots. But instead of using a revised Maverick platform, which was similar-sized as the original ’65 Mustang, with perhaps a new front suspension/steering, Ford used the Pinto platform, which was one size too small, making for ridiculous proportions, huge front overhangs, and crappy handling.
Below is the real MII (lower image), along with a Maverick-based version done by CC commenter geozinger (top). Which do you like better?
The only difference I see between these 2 “concepts” is the Maverick based version has less front overhang.
I guess a continuing mistake I make when replying to most comments here is that I take what someone has “said” WAAAY too literally.
I’m not a big fan of the Mustang II, (to me it was a preview of sorts of what Ford would do in the 80s when they built an LTD on the Fox platform….yet had a bigger LTD on the Panther platform, too.) and yet whenever I see one on Craigslist I’m tempted to contact the seller.
A car the size of the original Mustang, with updates, would have been interesting. But I’m guessing that car would have competed with the Granada, or at least that is what the powers-that-be at Ford might have been thinking.
the 6-cylinder Maverick was less than 200 lbs heavier than the V6 Mustang II (~2,900 lbs vs. ~2,700.) The 1973 Mustang had ballooned up to 3,500+ lbs.
They may have started with the Pinto, but creating the Mustang II off of it added 600 lbs.
I think they could have credibly re-styled the 2-door Maverick as a Mustang, held the line on weight, and offered a low-spec 4-cylinder model for fuel economy with performance credible for the day.
(of course it feels a bit silly to gripe about the ’73 Mustang’s weight when the 2016’s lightest version is just as heavy.)
Agreed. It’s a point I’ve endlessly argued. And thanks to photoshop, we ‘built’ a better MII using the Maverick’s wheelbase, which gives it much better proportions.
And weight really isn’t that different. My whole argument is here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/what-if-cc-builds-a-better-mustang-ii/
I’d run it again, but it’s already run twice.
I did like that article; I read it the last time you re-ran it.
Hurts the eyes IMO.
I like it better than Ford’s effort with the Pinto it just needs a later OHC Falcon transplant and I bet XF brakes would bolt in too.
Much better looking than the Mustang II.
I like it, though it would have been OK to leave the rear window stock, IMO.
I always thought the Maverick was a good alternative to the too big Mustangs of the early ’70’s. Should have been a “Mustang II” alternative before the Pintostang came out.
Impressive. This makes an ordinary Maverick Grabber better looking.
The tail lights are an improvement, the stock ones couldn’t be less inspired. Not so fond of the C pillar fill in, the roofline and greenhouse was the most attractive part of those cars
I noticed those, they look like sequential Thunderbird or Mustang California Special units.
This is an interesting custom touch, and for me underlines that they should have based the Mustang off the Maverick not Pinto.
A 4.0 dohc turbo six would make this car get up and boogie too, with an easy 400 hp to the wheels!
Count me as a fan. Nicely done!
Hey, I’ve seen that car before. I passed it on the freeway driving through Vancouver, WA last year. Great to see a write-up on it.
Nice job, and the GT 250 moniker is quite witty in it’s own way.
That’ not only quite well done fabrication wise, but style wise as well. I think it really works. One of my only gripes about the original Maverick is how the quarter window extends too far back over the rear wheels. This fixes that.Though the c-pillar is quite large on this, it still looks great in my opinion.
Good catch right there and nice to see it has a loving owner. The circa 1989 F-150 and 1995 Intrepid are also good catches.
Honestly, if you had said this GT250 was a 1976 Australian Ford Falcon variant, I would have believed it.
Ford Australia actually did something like this to create the Landau from the standard Falcon hardtop. Because the production line couldn’t get a good enough finish on the infill panel joins, so a vinyl roof was standard.
Around the same time, you could get a twin-carburettor version of the 250ci six, making 170 hp. Not in the Landau though, that came standard with a 351C.
Very nice. Amazing what a better integrated set of taillights will do for a car. I wonder how the 1967 GT350 versions without the bezels would look.
Unfortunately, the taillights, alone, are really the biggest improvement and the only thing necessary. The body mods don’t quite match up nearly as well.
Nicely done, I think it works quite well.
I think the taillights are off of a circa ’65 Thunderbird. The owner really made a sharp car out of a rather spartan sedan. It’s funny how something like a simple taillight mod really transforms the rear end of these. I really like the Bobcat taillight swap…
Allow me to provide a dissenting opinion.
That back seat window treatment is the cheesiest thing I’ve seen in years. It looks like he went at it with a saws-all (metal, glass and all) to fit the smaller window, then applied 6 lbs of Bondo to cover up the original glass.
The doors don’t look right at all. They don’t appear to fit and the location of the door handle looks odd.
Not my cup tea.
Its been a few years back, but I documented this one in Rockwall Tx. Not much body modification, but still a hell of a nice ride
I like it quite a bit! The rear fender scoops are perhaps unnecessary, but they don’t really bother me either, and I quite like the window mods and the taillight replacement. It’s a good looker, and to be completely homebuilt? Miguel deserves a lot of credit!
Next step: find some performance upgrades for that six!