(first posted 6/17/2015) The Maverick was the the perfect car to send a college student off with in 1969 or 1970. Instead of that Mach 1 Mustang junior was salivating over, he got a car that was terminally slow, with steering that was even slower, and that managed to handle about as nimbly as its big brother LTD. Never mind the brakes, as they were rarely taxed. Quite a feat, actually. But Ford had its pulse on Middle America, and knew there was a growing appetite for something smaller even with folks that wouldn’t touch a VW, Opel Kadett or Toyota Corolla. And Daddy wouldn’t have to worry so much.
And now, forty-five years later, it’s back, in the hands of a U of O student. This example most likely never went to off to school in 1970, given the great shape it’s still in. More likely an elderly aunt bought it and after she stopped driving, it sat for some decades in her garage. But here it is, and this time, it’s a whole lot cooler than the first time around.
It’s not surprising that this is a 1970, as no less than 579k were sold during its extended 1970 MY, which started on April 17, 1969. That date was exactly five years after the Mustang’s introduction, and the Maverick came close to matching the Mustang’s huge first year success. The difference was that while the Mustang had a nice long run before its sales gradually slid down back to earth, the Maverick’s sales dropped by a huge amount in 1971. But that was in large part due to the arrival of the Pinto. Which of course became the domestic car of choice for sending one’s kid off to college in 1971. I ended up spending a fair bit of time behind the wheel of a ’71 Pinto that came to the U of Iowa that way.
This is an exceptionally well preserved Maverick; the seats look positively pristine in their original black fabric and vinyl. The owner told me that it has 90k miles on the odometer. He also told me about its history in the family, but the details are bit fuzzy. But his dad really did send him off to school in this Maverick.
Needless to say, in order for Ford to advertise a base Maverick for $1995 in 1969 ($12,700 adjusted), a lot of short cuts had to be made, including the lack of a glove box, and lots of hard plastic.
The Maverick used a lot of the 1960 Falcon’s underpinnings, but it had an even shorter wheelbase. That, combined with the sloping fastback roof, made the rear seat very popular with fraternities, as it made a perfect hazing chamber. Make four blindfolded pledges sit back there and take them for a ride on a winding road, and they were bound to be very sick, no matter what they had been forced to ingest.
Of course just driving this Maverick was a perpetual rite of self-flagellation when the 105 (gross) hp 170 CI six was teamed up with the automatic.
The only thing worse would have been the semi-automatic transmission, which was was basically a C4 automatic minus its valve body; meaning it had to be shifted manually. Fortunately, that option was ticked of by very few Daddies, unless they were really mean. Can you imagine explaining that to your frat brothers?
The owner confirmed that it was mighty slow. But he’s got a nice daddy, as the two of them had plans to swap in a 302 V8 over the summer. Aw shucks; don’t do that. Do you know how incredibly few unmolested original Mavericks there are left in the world? And how I’ll miss that distinctive nasal exhaust of a feeble Falcon six leaning against a torque converter; like a kid making a farting sound with his mouth through a straw. And that exhaust is about straw-sized.
Well, I guess it’s inevitable. And worse things have happened than having a 302 at one’s beck and call in a lightweight (2400 lbs) Maverick. I remember the time I dropped the hammer in the first V8 Maverick that showed up at Towson Ford; it was very happy to make quite long black lines of rubber with its skinny little 6.95 x 14 bias ply rubber. Yes, the V8 got an upgrade from the 13 inchers that the sixes came with. But they were mighty skinny. This one has been treated to some modern wheels and wider tires.
I my come off a bit harsh, but finding this Maverick by the campus and meeting its enthusiastic owner made my day. Who would have imagined in 1970 that a Maverick would still be taking someone’s kid off to college in 2015? Not me.
If you want an even more caustic look at the Maverick, here’s my full-on CC: Maverick -The Simple(ton) Machine
The shift quadrant is interesting. Must be the only time Detroit honestly LABELED a semi-automatic as such. All the others were various fancy kinds of -Matic or -Glide but never plain old Semi-Automatic.
Probably to remind unfamiliar drivers that are wondering if this thing is ever going to shift?
“Hi” to you, too, Mr. Shifter!
There has been some nostalgic revisionism in some quarters regarding the Maverick. People are claiming that the Mav was some sort of junior Mustang just waiting for an owner to find its performance potential. I’ve driven several of these cars (both three on tree and auto) and I can tell you that Paul is pretty much right – Mavericks were about as close as you could get to a mobile penalty box.
I’ve said it before, but the only way to make a “real” car out of one was to
A)get the 4 door
B)get the V8
C)check every option box, especially the LDO.
Then you got a reasonably comfortable, reasonably performing and reasonably economical car. The brakes sucked on the early ones especially, as there was no disc option until ’74, and no power assist until ’75.
I will never understand why Ford took the Henry J route and made the Maverick so cheap. I would have understood it if they did not have the Pinto coming 1.5 years later, but they did. In fact, even the Pinto felt more substantially built than the Maverick. It was hard to make a Chrysler product feel substantial in those years (never mind how tough they actually were), but the Maverick certainly did the job. As you say, it took a lot of effort to get a Maverick that was a really decent car. Ford must have learned the lesson, because they did not make the same mistake again when they did the Granada.
Perhaps Ford (or, more accurately, Lee Iacocca) had noted the modest success American Motors experienced with the old Rambler American in 1968, when it pitched it as a basic, inexpensive alternative to the imports. American Motors kept the base price below $2,000, and the car scored a modest bump in sales, which was somewhat surprising for a domestic car with a design that was already four model years old by that point. Whatever we may think of it today, the Rambler American’s basic design virtually defined “stale” in 1968, at least by the standards of that time.
Iacocca probably figured that there was an even bigger market for a compact at the same base price, but with fresher styling. Also remember that, in those days, even some people who wanted a basic, inexpensive compact weren’t going to be caught dead in a Rambler by 1969. That presented Ford with an opportunity.
From that standpoint, the Maverick made sense. Given its first-year sales, and its respectable sales for several years in the 1970s, Ford’s approach wasn’t necessarily a bad one.
Ford kept the Maverick around so they didn’t need a stripped Granada.
But the baroque Granada was just another Falcon in drag and a pretty dire piece of work too. They initially sold well (Ford customers were loyal to a fault) and are mostly remembered for their risible Mercedes comparisons.
Per old car buff magazines, there was demand for ‘entry level’ i.e. ‘cheap’ cars, which led to VW Bug’s popularity. Maverick was aimed at the Beetle and Popular Mechanics [maybe?] had a road test called “Maverick vs. the Mob”. Comparing it to VW, Corolla and Datsun [510?] small cars.
The $1995 price was to “get them in the door”, then upsell to a Stang, Torino, even an LTD.
Seriously?? No power brakes until ’75? Sounds dangerous.
The story was that there was no MC-Booster assembly in the parts bin that would clear the shock tower. In ’75, they were able to use the unit designed for the Granada. AFAIR, the MC angles sharply upward and inward from where it joins the booster. The ’75 Maverick also inherited a few other new bits from the Granada, including a one-piece cowl brace instead of the old 2-piece unit.
In 1974, as weight rose they added the larger bakes from the Torino. Over time, it was less and less simple.
Power brakes were an option on many full-size cars throughout the 1960s, and those cars were heavier and more powerful than the Maverick.
My parents, for example, had a 1965 Chevrolet Bel Air station wagon with a V-8 and drum brakes with no power assist.
Must have been like trying to stop an ocean liner with a canoe paddle.
Drum brakes don’t really need power assist. They are self-energizing, which means to some extent, activating them creates additional pressure, by their design.
There’s rarely a time when one really needs to create high pedal pressures with drum brakes. When that happens, it’s because they’re fading, and more pressure doesn’t really help that.
Many folks (including myself) disliked power assisted drums, because they were very grabby, as the power assist was too strong for the job. One had to get used to being very gentle with the pedal, or normal traffic stops were way too abrupt.
Disc brakes is a totally different story; they really want assist, as there’s no self-energizing action, and they need high pedal pressures.
My Peugeot 404 sedan had unassisted front discs, and required a firm foot. My 404 wagon had drums only, and its brakes were ever so gentle to apply, and very easy to “dose” in the right amount for very smooth stops. I liked those brakes much better.
Assist on disc brakes became pretty much standard early on because of the high pedal pressures. On drums, it was an un-needed convenience option.
Some Drum brakes are self energizing, not all, if they have a fixed mounting point top and bottom, they are not self energizing, if they only have the top mounting pin, then yes they “self energize” as the shoes dig in more as they are able to rotate to some degree when the brakes are applied.
The power brake was simply to reduce the pedal effort when applying them, not additional braking power.
Power brakes were luxury items for decades and only slowly made their way down as standard equipment on mainstream and compact cars.
Hardly dangerous.
roger628, I purchased a new LDO in summer of 1972 – the four door models were in scarce supply at that time, IIRC. There weren’t many option boxes to check after the LDO and V8 options – even so, you quickly ran the price up substantially beyond the base. The 302 produced terrible economy in the city – I got around 13 MPG.
Here’s the sticker – not in great condition due to the glue they used in those days.
And here’s the car:
Even the bumper guards were “color-keyed”!
You were missing a few. No metallic paint, rear defogger, or consolette with clock. FM Stereo was not available until ’73.
IIRC, the dealer had received only three of the LDO’s, mine and two others – all three sold within days of coming off the carrier. I believe the other two were both white. And I recall that all three were identically equipped. I had not even heard of the model and stumbled across these three en route to buy a Mustang. I traded in a 69 Beetle and it was very annoying to lose the rear window defogger. I have the brochure around here somewhere and I do recall that little console.
Makes perfect sense to me.
In Australia Ford had taken the Falcon down that route, and had heaps of options available, three (some years four) trim levels, and none of this having to buy a package of options, like it so often seems you had to do in the US. How they managed it in those pre-computer days – it makes my head hurt to think about it.
Down here there wasn’t the pressure to ‘move up’ to a bigger car though, so it made sense to offer all the good stuff. Different countries, different cultures though… I have to wonder how popular a luxury Maverick would have been if it had been offered from the start; it might have worked wonders for the car’s image, but was the market ready for it?
Comets were no better. My Grandmother had one. It had two options; whitewalls and automatic. It was brown, need I say more?
Motor Trend itself called the Maverick “A $2000 Mustang for those who can’t afford a $2600 one.”
There was a time when Motor Trend reviewers never met a car they didn’t like. Couldn’t risk losing Ford advertising dollars, could they?
And things are different now? Will a German car ever loose a comparison test?
I always laugh at people that “think” they know about a certain car but in reality do not. If you think outer sheet metal makes a car what it is, then you are clueless. You realize the majority of front suspension pieces from Falcon/Mustang bolt up to a Maverick correct? The rear suspension are of similar Leaf/shock design(no part swapping unless you mod but very similar) Both are of “unitbody” design. Both came with front sway bars etc…As to brakes in this era you could get 4drum, 2 disc/2drum. Either was standard on both platforms. Both Carried starait six engines or a 302 v8 at some point in the lineup. If you matched up the eras when they were both manufactured, Got exactly the same 302, same c4 trans, same brake setup, same suspension options and tires, you would feel very little difference between the two. Yet, so many here want to imply the maverick was garbage but the mustang was god….BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH …… Go away with that BULLSHITE!!!
In reality The Maverick would weigh less and would beat the Mustang. Yes, you could order better options on the Mustang, but that was not your all’s argument. Just that the Maverick was horrible and not worthy to drive, yet there was very little difference chassis wise between them. Mustangs and Mav were both designed from the underpinnings of the Falcon.
My now 94 year old grandmother was unexpectedly widowed in 1966, leaving her in a bad financial spot. One of the most stubborn people I have known, she adjusted her life and swore she would pay cash for a new car within five years.
She did so and a 1971 Maverick is what she bought. Painted Grabber Blue, it had the 170 cubic inch six and three-speed.
As a child I rode in that car often, but never remember sitting in the back; I do remember going down the road while standing in the front seat. No bothersome child seats for me, thank you very much.
That was a deceptively tough car, with her hitting a tree and subsequent home-brewed repairs rendered it drivable enough to get her through two more years to 1980 when she bought a nearly new Aspen. I’m not much on these but have to respect their stout constitution.
The first car I bought was a 1971 2dr Maverick in Wimbledon White for $625 on 11/18/83. I still own it. By the way , only 14,474 2dr 71 Mavericks had the 170/3-speed combo. And although there are a lot of negative comments on here, I have owned 17 Mavericks over the years, currently own 7, have a building full of parts for ’em, so for me they work just fine. In fact in March it will be the 30th anniversary of my first parts car. A blue 74 2dr Comet bought for $50. Still have all the parts I took off it in storage. When I get home, I’ll post it’s pics.
That’s really neat. I’ve always liked the looks of the two doors, especially the early Grabbers and Comet GT’s. Is there a particular reason you’ve stuck by these cars all these years?
Well they were cheap ( I hate car payments), mine have been stone cold reliable, insurance is cheap, maintenance is easy (although of course more frequent than newer stuff), and they just seem to fit me. Plus I have a lifetime supply of parts. They are not my only cars though. I have 18, all the way from a 74 Montego that’s been in the family since new to a friend’s 94 Taurus GL I bought last year.
Man did they sell a bunch of these. In my mind they were sold more as 2nd cars which was an aspirational thing in a modest midwestern town. The styling holds up pretty well. The later Grabber models were hot-rodded and an acquantance in high school wrapped his modified 302 motored Grabber around a tree and lived to tell about it.
This is a 1972 model. Those bumper guards were not offered in 70, and this was the first year for that even cheaper than normal 2 spoke steering wheel.
Yes it’s clearly a ’72 model. The orange engine label tag, the two spoke steering wheel, and bumper-ettes are the clues. Also 70-71 had Black painted engine compartments. I’ve owned about a dozen or so and cut up twice that for parts over the years. I love these cars. Here is a photo of a 1970.
http://www.fordmaverick.com/yrtoyr.htm
Well, the owner thinks it’s a ’70.
FWIW, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ’70 in ages. I suspect the quality improved each year, and a disproportionate number of Mavs left (like so many other American cars) tend to not be from the first year of production.
To throw a mix into things. Ford made early and Late 1970 models. Cars made March ’69 thru August ’69 were early ones. All mavs made after August were regular 1970 production. The early cars had a non-locking steering column, larger steering wheel with horn ring, ignition switch on the dash towards the lower right of column, all falcon suspension with 13″ wheels, 170 and 200 engines, semi-automatic transmission. The interiors are different as well. I could go on and on.
My mother had one of the early production models with the ignition switch on the dash (easy way to spot one) and the 200 six. The transmission was fully automatic, though.
That’s the year mine was produced. I’ve had it for 10 years now. Still rocks. Still rolls.
The bumper guards are listed in the 71 sales brochure.
OK, I clearly haven’t had enough coffee this morning, but I’m liking the lines of this car. Simple, sweptback 70s look. The interior doesn’t look so hot though, even in pristine condition as on this car. Seriously, how much money could have been saved by not having a glove compartment? Still, it’s a cool ride for a college kid today, assuming the car is more for “show” than “go” (at least until the 302 is fitted, but even then there are still the pesky issues of decent handling and good brakes). No matter what, it will always be noticeable on campus.
“The interior doesn’t look so hot…”
Oh, I think it’ll be hot enough. Black vinyl in 90-degree heat…
Never seen on in action, but it looks like a Datsun 120Y on steroids.
Or maybe the Datsun is a Maverick copied at 60%!
An interesting observation. I had a Matchbox car that was the Datsun and I always thought it an error as it looked like a Maverick.
Well, given that the 120Y/B210 came out in 1973, the answer is pretty self evident. 🙂
I kinda like it…how much simpler could a car possibly be? Somehow I escaped ever riding in one…I do recognize the steering wheel…looks like the one in my grandfather’s 71 Pinto.
Not a fan of the blacked out wheels, but who am I to judge?
I’ve mentioned it before, but my grandparents had a dark green one that they left year round in SE Florida where they spent winters. In the mid 1980s we were also living there, so for a summer or too while they were up in Connecticut, had use of “Old Greenie” to back up the Chevette disaster. It apparently handled like a pregnant sea turtle and had terrible brakes.
Very cool that this one is being taken to college though. I actually liked Old Greenie then (definitely the only one who did) and like the looks now.
In 1984, my great uncle could no longer drive so he gave me his 1974 Maverick. It was All original, including the oil.
That six cylinder was bullet-proof and the car put up with an amazing amount of abuse from Dukes of Hazzard style jumps over bridges to speedo-pinning highway runs. You could get the car to move, but you really had to want it.
There might be a couple of later year adds, but that car is a 1970/71. The 72,73,&74 came with the two-spoke wheel and a glove box.
The glove box was added in mid-73. After thinking about it, this could be either a ’71 (first year for the bumper guards & side moldings) or an early ’72, before the Seat Belt Light and Buzzer system, which also standardized the belt retractors . The warning light was mounted in the dash ahead of the passenger and this one clearly doesn’t have it.
I hope they the do V8 swap properly, which unfortunately, entails throwing away every piece of rolling stock under there. I’m talking the brakes, the spindles, the rear end, front springs, the whole 9 yards.
You are right about that. Ford cheaped-out on every single mechanical component on the sixes. The theory was that making everything lighter weight would make the six a better performer than the competing six cylinder compacts. Chevys (I think) and Mopars (and Hornets) were simple engine swaps. A V8 in one of these would severely overmatch everything else covered by sheetmetal. Those four lug wheels would have to go, too.
It might be cheaper in the long run to join the “hot 6” club. Dare to be different.
Agreed. The 200 (which this one has), can be modified to make some very serious power.
Clifford 6=V8
They can be, but it will take some serious dollars.
Dropping in a 250cube crossflow would be the simple method and fitting XF Falcon suspension and brakes. fone an Aussie wrecker for a kit.
The V8 had 5 lug wheels. Those V8 Maverick rear ends are popular with streeet rodders because they fit pretty well under fat fender cars. I had one in the “35 Plymouth sedan I used to have. At one time they were fairly common in junkyards and dirt cheap.
Funny… I’ve recently looked at these with some nostalgia on ebay. My oldest brother, Terry had a ’69 (actual car pictured), white with a tartan blue interior, and I liked it’s curves, size and simplicity. The interior certainly was a harsh environment, though, with about as much comfort as the molded chairs bolted to the floor in an old bowling alley. I know I would be frightened to death in a Maverick on a twisty road these days, but back then, it gave me a triumphant moment behind the wheel.
Dad and I were convoying two cars between Middletown, NY and Eastern PA. As the main route from here to there in those days, Route 209 had a reputation as a heartbreaker. It was all two lane, alternating between 25 mph bottlenecks in small towns and long stretches where you might top 60 with luck. The capper was the amount of truck traffic; you could easily get stuck behind a herd of semis for half an hour. The truckers nicknamed it the Hồ Chí Minh Trail, a wry reference to the supply route used by North Vietnam during the war to move materiel south in Laos along the Eastern border of South Vietnam.
Dad found himself stuck behind a couple of big rigs, while I trailed in the Maverick. As we rounded a narrow, sweeping right, the road in front of us opened up and the centerline broke. Dad couldn’t see it, but I pulled out, hit the gas and flew by, indicating he could follow, and he jumped into my draft. We must have been doing 75 when we slid in front of the two tractor-trailers. Later, we giggled over the moment like a couple of moonshiners.
Now, it’s scary to think about doing that sort of thing in a 6 cylinder Maverick, but you went with the available technology. As they say, it’s more fun to drive a slow car fast…
The early Maverick was not a bad looking car at all. This one with the larger tires and wheels looks even better.
What I remember about these was that they were not nearly as much car as the Mopar A body was, which was considered the car’s direct competition in those days. These cars felt “thinner” than the competition (and than the Falcon that they replaced). However, they were newer designs than both the Mopar and the Chevy, and I suspect that the $1995 price point was part of the design from the first. Wasn’t this the last American 6-ish passenger car you could buy (theoretically) for under $2k new?
I will also agree that the little Ford 6 had one of the less appealing exhaust notes. That plus the squeaking front suspensions were only two of the reasons I never aspired to one of these.
I wonder how it compared to the last year Rambler that also offered the $1995 special? For a family, the boxy Rambler looks like the obvious choice. For a student?
When I saw that the Datsun 510 was actually $1895,and how much extra performance offered, that might be the way to go. You would still have the tinnyness, the lack of long distance interstate capability, the extra maintainance, and the problem of getting parents to chance a Japanese car.
I had a ’71 Datsun 510 sedan in the mid-1970s. These were so much better than just about any other inexpensive subcompact in the U.S. at the time it was crazy. Wish I still had it. Unfortunately in the Rust Belt they all crumbled into red dust and bits after several winters. (In California Datsun 510s look to be relatively common but most have been customized.)
What a great thing was done for this kid. This car will be a history lesson, a blank canvas, and a conversation starter for his whole time with it.
I am glad you have given more thought to a car like the Maverick. I can see how it would have offended your sensibilities at the time. To build a smaller car and then go out of their way to give a big car feel was not how you would have gone.
As the first car of the Nixon era probably meant you were going to see coat and tie short haired guys getting out of one in the church parking lot in Towson next to their parents LTDs. Over time, perhaps a long time, some perspective has emerged on all sides that they weren’t going to church and cutting their hair specificly to piss you off just as was true in the opposite.
With that political gasbaggery out of the way I am going to praise this car. An long lived inlne 6, a proven C4 3sp auto, a solid mostly metal dash and nice cloth interior. Manual steering and brakes but probably adequate in a 2524 pound car. Power steering was less than $100 if one thought necessary. Gearing and torque that allowed you to hit the highway. All for $1995, around $50 a month for only 36 months with the fairly low rates of 1969. I assumed $2100 out the door with $420 down and 5% interest. Small price for freedom. Get it in Freudian Guilt if your establishment parents helped you get your hands on the keys.
I checked automobilecatolog.com to see how it compared to some alternatives. I included some German Fords to help us think about what they were off to college in over the pond. I think the 17M is close to Maverick in size but the Escort a more realistic student choice.
Maverick 170 AT 2524lb 100hp 15.9 0-60 89mph top speed 18 mpg 21.8 mph top gear
Corvair 500 AT 2597lb 95hp 19.10 0-60 89mph top speed 20 mpg 23.3 top gear
VW 4sp 1900lb 60hp 17.0 0-60 82mph top speed 28.mpg 21 mph top gear
510 AT 2193lb 96hp 14.3 0-60 96mph top speed 22 mpg 17.6 top gear
ger 17M AT 2425lb 82hp 19.1 0-60 86mph top speed 24mpg 21.2 top gear
ger Escort 1300 AT 1863lb 61hp 20.2 0-60 84mph top speed 25.8mpg 15.8 top gear
69 Falcon 170AT 2820lb 100hp 18.8 0-60 86mph top speed 19.8 mpg 26.4 top gear
The only car obviously better is the 510 which was not $1995 and lacked a gear for interstate cruising. It isn’t surprising that the mpg of the Maverick is worse but I for one am surprised it beats the German Fords on the autobahn. Dearborn for the win.
One small correction, the 510 cost $1895 in 69, quite the value.
Good comparison, but how about the Cortina? Japanese cars back then gave you enough std. equipment to soften the blow of buying an “economy” car. And the 510 coupé, despite the low price, was really in a different league, eminently upgradeable & popular among SCCA racers & young imitators.
Keep in mind that the performance numbers on that website are all calculated (theoretical), not based on actual tests. A Maverick 170 with AT might hit 89 mph, but it might be a long wait to get there.
After ’70, the automatic was unavailable with the 170. Ford wisely forced you to step up to the 200.
Around then a lot of the small sixes were going away. The Chrysler 170,and later 198, the AMC199, the Chevy 151(4) and 194 and 230. Emissions were biting, I am surprised the EPA didn’t offer a variance so to keep the domestic compacts more economical.
EPA evidently didn’t [doesn’t?] care about “energy independence” or economy, that wasn’t their problem.
The EPA was founded by Nixon. Kind of ironic that the 1st Gas Crisis followed not long after (Yom Kippur War→Operation Nickel Grass→Oil Embargo), after which fuel economy suddenly mattered.
He should’ve seen that coming: Arab threats of an embargo quashed an earlier Anglo-Israeli deal over the Chieftain Tank. This is why IDF had to make do with older Centurions.
A miserable cramped cheaply constructed car that would do much better with a 250 six upgrade, brake and suspension upgrade and a switch to 14″ rubber and not the ugly black wheels on this otherwise neat looking car. LOL at the VW Beetle like semi automatic.
Very different operating principles though. The VW was a manual box with both an automatic clutch and a torque converter, whereas the Maverick, was, as noted above, a regular automatic minus the valve body.
For whatever reason, I would get motion sickness in Beetles. Not in any other VWs, just Beetles. Very irritating. Maybe because the windshield is so close to your face.
That said, to me the Maverick was a better value than the Beetle, especially since you could order up some options not available with VW like air conditioning, non-toxic heat, etc.
It amazes me that Ford used the Falcon chassis for so long, including the 1975-1980 Granada. 20 years for a chassis is amazing.
20 years? Meh. The Fox chassis… 1978-2004. Yes, the ’94-’04 Mustang is indeed a Fox. Look at a ’78 Fairmont and an ’04 Mustang from underneath and you’ll see they’re the same.
The good thing about my college days was that I was able to take a subway to my SUNY and CUNY colleges.If I had to commute with this Maverick, I`d probably would have dropped out.
Choose the subway over a car to get around? What website is this? Have I been hacked?
No,you haven`t been hacked. It was cost prohibitive with the price of parking-no campus parking was available,tolls, parking tickets,gas,and insurance.Besides that, I would use my fathers `73 Cadillac when I needed a car for a date,or other reason.Nicer than a Maverick, wouldn`t you say?
If it were a viable option, I’d take public transit to and from work. What joy is there in a mostly highway morning commute? Or sitting in traffic? Heck, if I didn’t have to drive to work, I wouldn’t have to be so concerned about the reliability of my car and could choose based on the most interesting thing available within a budget. There are a lot of advantages…
I had the 1974 version of this car. These were made stronger compared to the car in the post. It had disk brakes, a 250 ci inline six and a nice FMX auto box. But, it was a pig on fuel, even with the 250 I-6. They rusted prodigiously in the midwestern salt, and even as skinny as I was back then, they were cramped. My (to be) wife’s Olds Delta 88 was better on fuel (even with a 403/4bbl), had tons more room and much better rust resistance.
I had a friend who had access to the parts department in a Ford store, where we got a NOS 289 4bbl engine that I stuffed into the engine bay of that Maverick. While it did help with the acceleration of the car (and oddly the fuel mileage, too) the brakes and suspension left too much to be desired. I eventually gave up on this car after I found a fairly decently maintained 1972 Olds 442 that I bought instead.
I look at this car and wonder what we could do to it with the marvels we have today.
What about an Ecoboost 2.3L swap?
Or a small block Chevy? (I had to!)
A modern 4 cylinder swap would be the way to go.
Nice 2-door, I love the small bumpers. Those wheels are atrocious, though.
I bought a 4-door ’74 Maverick as my daily driver about 6 years back. Paid $900 dollars for it, sold it a couple of years later for $3000; the guy that bought it made me an offer in the McDonald’s drive-thru! It had the little 200 inline 6 in it, with the automatic transmission and power steering. It was a survivor, still in it’s original paint, which was Ford Lime Yellow. It was not very peppy, and I could never get the drum brakes completely lined out to where it wouldn’t pull to one side or another. (By contrast, the drums on my ’65 Valiant feel much more robust and track much more true!) But it was a great little car for me, the 6 never failed to get me where I was going and the AC was cold. I love my Valiant, but I still miss Bessie every now and then…
Parents had a grabber way back when. Brown with yellow racing stripe. 302/auto.
Pretty funny to see a couple seventy somethings tooling down the road in their hot rod. They gave it to my nephew when they were done driving. Didn’t do nearly as well with him.
Had a ’72 Comet, 302 2bbl C4 auto, ps. Other than that, total strippo 2 door. Only had it for about a year in ’97-’98. OK car for $500.00. Had good power. Interior was falling apart. Body seemed to be pretty strong for the era. Bad gas mileage, but carb needed work which it never got. It was straight and original, the dark blue paint was a little faded. Sold it for what we paid. It was ok for what it was. Next owner (nephew) lost control in rain and slid into a curb, collapsing right side suspension. From there it went to junkyard. The pictured car looks so much better with decent size wheels and tires.
I never understood the shape of the Maverick. Did they not sell enough Falcons, with their boxy-but-efficient style? They made the wheelbase shorter, and gave it a sloping fastback roof, and threw in some GM-esque coke bottle hips for good measure? How much interior room was sacrificed in the name of style? And IMHO the Maverick was one of the ugliest cars of the decade. Lumpy, stumpy, and awkward. It looked it was trying to imitate its Torino and Mustang big brothers. The 4-door is even worse in my opinion.
It is remarkable that this example has survived over 40 years and 90K. I doubt they were engineered to last that long. A testament to the original owner’s diligent maintenance and gentle driving style. As a survivor car, I take back all the mean things I said about the design, and heartily salute it as a well-preserved relic of the 70’s.
In the early 1970s, no automobile company engineered its products with the expectation that they would still be in daily use 45 years later.
Remember that 45 years before 1970 was 1925, and, except for a very few eccentrics, no one seriously expected to be able to use a 1925 car as a daily driver in 1970.
In 1970, we thought that we’d be flying in nuclear-powered transport pods like the ones used in The Jetsons by 2015. Cars like the Maverick were only going to be found in museums.
The mechanicals of the Maverick were hardly unreliable. This car had two weak points – the hit-and-miss quality control that was common to Detroit in the 1970s, and a propensity to rust.
Re the fastback styling, my assumption is that was the way Ford figured they could attract young buyers possibly put off by the overly boxy, “budget family-car” image of the Falcon, which might make people think they have family responsibilities (horrors!). Maybe this is why Dodge offered a Dart “Swinger” model as well: “Hey baby, where have I been all of your life?”❤
The Duster was another example of a fastback compact, it was very popular.
The Duster was the best car Mopar ever made, I think. Based on their ‘greatest hit’ A body.
Agree; Chrysler was superior in that category, what a pity they fumbled the F-bodies.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. One of the most naively styled cars ever…looks like it was done by someone who had never designed anything before, and whose ideas of sporty we’re completely encoded at age 6.
There’s a Maverick here in Portland that I see now and then on I-205. In good shape with stock color light green paint.
Here in Brazil Mavericks were built from 1973 to 79 and we call them “Pony Car”.
Can you guys believe it? They become ridiculously pricey now a days.
A pristine, GT 302 V8 can reach some where around US$ 50.000,00.
We are finishing the restoration of a 74 GT…
The Brazilians did some interesting things with the Maverick, including the Lima 4, which it never got in the USA. Did the Brazilian GT302 get a 4 barrel carb, dual exhaust or a 4sp from the factory. USA got none of that either.
The Brazilians also produced a Maverick station wagon.
I did a double-take, it looks like a Pinto wagon with 4 doors. No surprise, the Pinto looks like a foreshortened Maverick anyway.
I like it! Wish they’d have given us one here in the States.
Man, just when you think you’ve seen it all. It actually resolves the awkward rear end styling much better than the 2 or 4 door.
From what I have seen the Grabbers have a following as a sort of alternative Mustang. To me the neat styling of the 72 pictured here, compared to the bloated excess of the 72 Mustang makes the case that a V8 Maverick is actually closer in spirit to a 65 Mustang the the 72 Mustang, which is more of a shrunken Thunderbird.
I’d like to see what could be done with a Maverick and a Euro Ford V6. A short light Cologne with either a 70s 4 speed or the Sierra’s 5 speed, bucket seats and some suspension work might make something interesting. Then again the V6 might be better used in a Pinto since those were successful road racers.
My friend & I always got a laugh out of Maverick “Grabber,” it suggested a pervert in a raincoat.
A pretty good looking vehicle. I still see a few on the road here in the rust belt. Never owned one, never drove one. But for the time the exterior styling was exceptional IMO
Fastbacks were the rage in the mid 60’s, when the Mav’ was penned. The early 60’s Falcon was “out of style”, and GM was pushing slick roofs. Making the Maverick ‘look sporty’ would get tire kickers. It was like a scaled down Mustang fastback.
The 70’s brought in ‘formal’ styling, and the Granada took over. So, Ford took the ’69 Falcon and reskinned it, and voila! an all “new” lux compact!
The ‘Falcon’ platform had Maverick at bottom climbing up to Boss Mustang or Lincoln Versailles at top.
Good summary. And the Fox simply took over its role.
I’ve always thought the styling of these early slim-bumper cars was really nice. Didn’t work quite as well in 4-door format though.
My grandfather bought a Maverick in 1971 or ’72, as a second car for the family since my Mom was using their ’68 Impala to commute to college. It was gone in ’76, replaced by a Dodge Coronet, but it lived on in family lore as the worst car he had ever owned…
Wow the feeble 170 was an ancient artifact here by 1970 only 200 or in 71 250 cube 6s were on offer in local Falcons or you could have a 302 or 351 V8, but we couldnt get that stylish Maverick body style it was only seen in magazines we got strictly 4 door bland from the unadventurous Aussies.
Thanks Paul, I have always loved Mavericks. I have owned 2, one was a very early 1970 with the ignition switch in a beautiful cast aluminum pod bolted to the package tray under the dash. It had the 170 six. My other one was a 1971, key on the column 200 six. Great cars. And scream “blank canvas”. The potential to build a smoking hod rod is amazing. I have seen a few with built 351W’s and 5 speeds. And while I have never been able to confirm it, I heard that Ford was planning on putting the Boss 302 in some of these as a Showroom Stock racer. But safety and emissions reg’s changed those plans. But it makes since when you think about it. Fastback body without so much as a glovebox. Boss 302 and the Maverick both show up at your local friendly Ford dealer in 1969. Many drag racers, like Gapp & Roush ran that very combo. And I do remember seeing a Ford built Boss 302 Maverick prototype in a magazine back in the 70s.And last. As much I like clean, unmolested, rigs as anybody, these six banger cars were so slow, there is no compelling reason to keep them stock unless you want to die when merging on the freeway. Couple years back did see one in a magazine with a turbocharged 300 Ford truck six in it and it ripped on the drag strip, super cool and unique.
One of my friends bought one of these in 1971 or 72. It was a ‘first new car’ for him, and he considered it (new) to be a well-considered and practical choice. One of the things which appealed to him and which I haven’t seen mentioned here so far is that Ford was pushing these as a ‘throwback’ to the days when an owner could do all his own maintenance, and claimed that the car was designed with that in mind. As I recall, the owner’s manual was full of DIY information.
At the time, I viewed the car as an effort at an American Beetle – cheap to buy, cheap to own, and easy to maintain. VW was the only foreign target for Detroit in 1970. The Beetle was everywhere, and even my grandfather caught a bug in 1967 or so.In those days, in our area at least, Japanese cars were just pretty much rumors; the only one I clearly recall is Malcolm Bricklen’s Subaru 360’s which were being sold by one of our local Department Stores more as a novelty toy than a car. That fiasco and the tiny Honda 600’s formed our impression of Japanese cars and it would be about 1976 before the new Civic changed everything.
So, Ford was trying out the reliable bare-bones “just transportation” meme as a hedge against foreigners imho but the looks suggest that to me that the car was also supposed to be a Vega fighter, albeit built on the cheap in hopes of beating GM’s new miracle car on price. Recall that in 1970 everybody knew that GM was coming out with a World Beater Economy Car© and nobody even imagined what a disaster GM was going to make of it.
As for the driving experience, I couldn’t imagine why anybody would buy a Maverick when he could get a Plymouth Valiant or Dodge Dart with the immortal slant six. It struck me as a cheap car, but – to be honest – no worse than any other poor man’s sled of the day. Certainly not as cramped, noisy or gutless as a Bug.
Back in 1970 or 1971 our neighbor bought an orange 2-door Maverick Grabber. It was a nice, simple and economic car, despite the fake hood scoops and black stripes.
Then in 1974, my mother bought a brand new dark blue 2-door Maverick with luxury trim, 302 V8 and 3-speed automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning and just about all the options except for vinyl roof. The car also had those big heavy 5-mph front & rear bumpers, seatbelt-ignition interlock and buzzer which forced you to buckle up before you can start the engine. 1974 was the last year without catalytic converter and ran on leaded gas. With the 302 V-8 engine, it was lively and had good acceleration.
I rather liked the Maverick and thought the fastback was sporty, except on rainy days when couldn’t see out the rear windows. Over the years it nickeled-and-dimed us on repairs, body trim and hardware started falling apart, and then started developing major engine, transmission and power steering problems. My mother eventually replaced it with a 1982 Buick Regal 4-door sedan with the 3.8L V-6 engine, which accelerated as slow as molasses.
About those 5-mph bumpers: As ungainly as they were, they took those 5-mph and under impacts well with hardly any significant damage. I remember being rear-ended by a late model 1980s car that must have hit me more than 5-mph. Damage was insignificant except for slightly tweaked bumper guards, but the other car’s front bumper and grille was pretty much smashed in. You should have seen the look on the other guys face. He even tried to shift the blame it on me, stating that had I not stopped (at a red light), there wouldn’t have been an accident. LOL
(How about a history article on the evolution of bumpers, including those infamous 5-mph bumpers? They don’t make ’em like that anymore and were’nt they mandated in response to consumer safety advocates concern about rising repair collision costs? Fast forward 30 years where a scrape on a modern car “bumper” will cost nearly $1000 to fix. Where are those “consumer advocates” now?)
High school kids have no ideal how bad they got it today-everyone around 1980 could afford used Mavericks, Novas and Dusters—rarely 8’s but all good memories.
Perhaps the whole concept of a “car for college” ought to be questioned here. I owned several amazingly rare and exotic cars in my early driving days, but during college I was happy to throw away the keys and enjoy my only four car-free years. Living at a small residential college out of town, I had everything I needed or wanted within a short walk, or at worst, a long bike ride. These were my thinnest years, and some of my poorest, so having no car bills was a godsend.
That’s the deal I struck with my daughter at 18. I’d continue to take her to school and practice sessions, and she could have the keys to the Tiguan or the GTI whenever I could spare them. But she wasn’t getting a car. That money would go towards paying into a college campus that would make a car unnecessary. Next fall she moves into a small Liberal Arts College 1500 miles away, to a three-block campus, in a town with good public transportation (and ZipCars, which we never dreamed of). I expect she’ll get a bike, too.
If she’d chosen the Big State University an hour down the highway, we could have saved about $9,000 per year in tuition, room and board. She would have been close enough to visit us often (hooray!), but that would require a car. Any decent, safe used car for a teen would probably cost $4,000 per year to purchase, repair, gas up and insure. And then she’d be spending that time driving a crowded, dangerous freeway, not studying or goofing off or any other enjoyable campus pasttime.
BTW, students at BSU take an average of six+ years to graduate; at the cozy little college, 80% get out in four years. Parents ought to spend a good long time considering college economics from various angles.
LAX got a sweet purchase offer on these in 1974 and so bought a slew of them , all four doors with slush boxes and AC in mustard yellow , we were still pulling new ones out of dead storage and doing the PDI in 1980 .
.
Basic but sturdy little things , they didn’t handle well but were designed to be plodders .
.
-Nate
Cool cool write up, my dad told me he had a 77 maverick two door, straight six and an automatic. He owned it in high school in the early 90s, and to this day talks about it. He loved it,And is considering looking for another one. I may possibly end up driving my car to schools a few times, for the fun of it, my 72 Vega hatch haha. Odd cars are fun cars
A friend of mine ordered a V8 4 door Maverick back in the day. Ford even produced a template to put inside the wheelwell so you could drill a hole in it so you could change the rear spark plugs. (Chevy did the same with the Vette) He was a banker and needed something that was not pretensious so his bosses didn’t think he was overpaid and ran well. It came with 14″ wheels and they were not too skinny.
The first car I drove after driver’s ed was a 70 Maverick, 2-dr, yellow, 200 cid, 3 on the tree, manual steering. The steering effort wasn’t too high. Gremlin/Hornet manual steering took much more effort (hey there, Kenosha homies!). I didn’t push the handling limits much but there wasn’t a lot of confidence given the skinny bias-ply tires and everything else. Depressing interior and cheap feeling all around to be sure. It was ‘peppy’, certainly moreso than the 75 Granada with 6-cyl, automatic, and a load of driver-ed students and the instructor. The engine was always quiet and drama-free, unlike the Chevys that were the parent’s usual first choice.
I’m astonished that so few here remember that price sold vehicles in that time period; while people buy more car than they can truly afford, people were still price sensitive in that segment and there was a method to the madness of achieving a near $2k price point in a product. Yes, people noticed they had a stripper, but in that day and time there was still some common sense about living within your budget. And certainly there was no real substantial good used car market as cars that were sold there were often all used up or rusty or both. The used car segment did not truly become substantial until the 2000’s where new car prices went through the roof; and cash for clunkers made used car prices skyrocket as the herd was culled to get $ in trade in by the government intervention.
I am not sure what this prejudice is against “hard plastic” interior surfaces. I’ve seen my share of “soft” ones disintegrate over time and the hard plastics continue to work. I’ll take durable over showy any day!
I still prefer the Falcon to the Maverick simply because of the room factor. The government screwed with all cars with those useless bumpers in the post 1974 world so even small cars became less efficient in weight and space.
I never knew my son had an article done about my yellow Maverick.
It’s a 1972 model, 250 Cu inch six cylinder
I loaned it to him for college after he left the Marines.
I drive that car daily
Steve
I missed this when it was originally posted but my dad just stumbled on it and sent it to me. That’s me in the green shirt on the left in the top photo. I love this car and had such a blast driving it in college and always got heads turning. Out of every car I’ve ever had and driven this is the only one that never failed on me. Hopefully that thing lasts forever and plenty more generations get to enjoy it.
I got to (had to) look at one of these every day when I was in high school, the neighbour had one. Complete stripper model, dog dish hubcaps, the works. Drab olive green, three on the tree. He worked at Ford in Oakville, so got a good price I’m sure.
He got a lot of years out of this car, and didn’t touch it when he had consumed (copious amounts of) Russian vodka.
The opposite of his car was my God Mother’s family, who got a 1974, completely loaded with every imaginable option, including two tone paint in red and white. Still no glove box though that I remember.
Looking at this car today, I quite like it. It is a nice fastback design, long hood, short deck, well proportioned. Yes it’s in exceptional condition. Just amazing.
Sadly, I have never desired, or ever could desire, a Ford Maverick coupe or sedan in any guise. I grew up around them, and spent many hours in them, however, nothing about them ever stirred pleasant memories. It is one of a few cars of my childhood that does this. I believe it is because these cars never exceeded my expectations of them. They weren’t comfortable, quick, or luxurious. There wasn’t anything cute or charming about them. They weren’t purposeful looking, or sporty. Mavericks couldn’t do anything that their auto competitors couldn’t do better.
I was following a 15 year old Corolla and noted how it had been a while since I saw one from that generation. Then, like a true Curbside Classic junkie, I imagined writing it up. Nope. There wasn’t a spark of interest in that Corolla. It was an invisible car that isn’t remarkable – yet. Perhaps I will find it interesting in the future. Certainly, not now.
That’s how I’ve always felt about the Maverick and sadly, it has been 50 years, and still, nope – not interesting.
Consequently, I am pleased that others find this a car worthy of inclusion. It deserves to be. I just can’t figure out why – yet.
Heh, that reminds me of high school. In the senior yearbook for my pet peeve I put “DN’s brown Ford” which was a six cylinder auto Maverick.
I walked home every day and every day he accelerated past me out of the parking lot. I grew to hate that “Mooooooooo” sound as it went by.
This one looked quite good in 2015, I wonder where it is now?
I had a friend who had Maverick 4-door sedan, back in the day. I borrowed it from him once for some reason and was shocked at the lack of interior space in the car. I’m 6′ 4″, and my head was firmly pressed into the headliner, and there wasn’t much legroom either. Far more room in my ’70 Datsun 510. Nice work, Ford. A penalty box, indeed.
Thank you so much for the post. What great memories. I had the great good fortune to own a 1970 Maverick as my first car. Stick on the steering column. I was 17. Cost $900 in 1979 dollars, or about $2500 today. It was beige with a brown vinyl top. My dad bought it, and I paid him back $100 a month from my various fast food jobs. He kept a ledger. I wrapped it around a tree just after graduation. I then glommed onto another 1970 Maverick; this one an automatic. Seemed fast enough to me. I miss both those cars. Miss them a lot. Yeah, no glove compartment. I remember that now. And those plaid seats. Still, it was freedom for this teenager; I go places and do things. Just like a real adult.
My mother died in 1981. Dad gave me a bequest of $2000. I could have gone and done something prudent, like buying stock or paying for a college education, but that wouldn’t have been any fun. I instead spent quite a bit of that money getting my second Maverick repainted. What would today be revered as patina was seen as ugly by the teenage me. I just knew that repainting it would make it go faster. It was a very nice dark blue. Probably called Sky Blue or something. Hulla Blue? That’s what the ad calls it. I traded in that Ford Maverick on a 1982 Chevy Citation. Ignorance compounded by stupidity. I just had to have something new. I shortly came to regret my choice.
Good times.
This is one of the very few cars I thought looked better in 2-door than 4-door.
We had a new red ’76 Maverick at my part-job college job, and a beat-up relative, a dried-mustard-coloured ’73 Mercury Comet. Both, even the new Maverick, had ghastly disconnected-steering feel and ridiculously strong accelerator return springs. Both were equipped with a V8 engine, presumably a 302.
I far preferred the other two pool cars, a ’73ish Corolla (even with the 2-speed ToyoGlide) and a new ’76 Nova. (The Nova had an inline-6, but was much smoother and overall a much better drive than the V8 Maverick.)
Here is is now, still original paint (except the hood) that has been cut and buffed by Mad B CUstoms. The V8 did go in and it rumbles
I was wondering what happened to it after reading the original date of the post.
I can envision a new CC series: ‘What ever happened to X?’ where the poster updates all of us on the car in the post
Thanks for the update!
I’ve kinda grown fond of the early 2 door Mavericks. A good friend got one as his first car, painted in the same metallic dark olive green Moparlee mentioned, probably named “Looks Like Gub-Mint” in Ford brochures. It was a very early 1970 model with the ignition switch in the dash instead of the column, and completely devoid of anything that wasn’t standard equipment. A prior owner had installed an 8 track player in the underdash tray, which was of little use to us in the early 1990’s. A 170 or 200cid six connected to a 3 speed manual provided the motivation, so it eagerly started every time and was ready to roll, albeit at a cadence that made it near impossible for even the most determined teenage boy to get into trouble.
Am looking at a 1971 Maverick Grabber in Hemmings right now. It’s painted in “Grabber Green Poly”, a MUCH happier shade of green, and contains a 302. Still not a stellar performer outta the box, but could be made quite more entertaining with a few bolt-ons. I definitely would not be ashamed of having that one in the carport.
I read that the Maverick and the Pinto had the same taillights. But I think one car had them mounted upside down to look different. I wonder how many people knew in 1970 that the Maverick and the Mustang rode on a Falcon chassis. I certainly didn’t know it then.
Yes, Maverick and Pinto had the exact same taillights. I learned to drive on a ’70 Maverick with a column shift 3 speed and 200 cid six, drove it for a few years. My impression remaining after all these years is that it was reliable but depressingly cheap. Uncomfortable seats, blah driving manner, relentlessly dull interior, didn’t even have a glove box.
And IIRC, the Econoline or F-100 had the same tailights mounted vertically.
Mavericks also used the first generation Mustang rear bumpers .
-Nate