(first posted 10/11/2011) Lee Iaccoca was obviously ahead of his time. He understood and embraced the concept of recycling well before any of us ever dreamed about hauling out our tin cans every week to be re-made into…more tin cans . Never really liking McNamara’s boxy 1960 Falcon, Iaccoca soon recycled it into the smash success 1965 Mustang. When it became obvious that the ever-bigger Falcon had made no lasting impact on the madly successful Volkswagen, Lee went back to the same well, as he would so many time in the future. Throw a stylish fastback bell-bottom suit on the boxy old Falcon, cynically call it Maverick, and advertise it as The Simple Machine. And then have it premiere on the exact same date the Mustang did, five years earlier. How hard can it be, to stop that pesky Beetle in its tracks, once and for all?
Well, we all know now that the Maverick didn’t make the slightest impact whatsoever on the VW, whose sales increased handily in 1969 and 1970. But that’s because Lee utterly failed to understand what was really driving the import market. Which was also changing faster than Lee’s ability to conjure up new ammunition against it. But who cared, in 1970? The Maverick was a smash hit, selling no less than 579k units in its extra-long first model year. That’s not much less than the Mustang’s miraculous 681 k units for 1965. April 17 really was a magic date for Lido.
Of course, sales came crashing back to reality in 1971, when the Maverick passed the import-fighting baton to the even smaller Pinto. But that’s another story (CC here). Ford’s one-two cow-punch, which so evoked the myth of the Mustang, certainly was colorful but hardly the knock-out expected of them. One could say that the imports were watching the show from the sidelines, rather than actually being in the ring.
Ford must have assumed that import buyers were masochists, who bought the Vokswagen because of its notoriously cozy rear seat. Why else would they have thought that crippling the original Falcon’s quite good space utilization by turning the rear seat into a torture chamber, thanks to a reduced wheelbase and that low, sloping roof, was a better idea?
Come to think of it, the Maverick was really a prophetic vehicle, decades ahead of its time. Its swooping curves, sloping rear, tiny rear window, and semi-gun-slit side windows presaged the whole trend that is being recycled again. Maybe these two Fiestas aren’t the best example, but you get my drift.
Let’s just say that the Maverick’s space utilization was atrocious. Road and Track did an analysis of the Maverick, comparing its interior space in relation to its exterior volume and also its “road area”, and then comparing those same stats with the Beetle and the Datsun 510. The Maverick lost both, hands down. Needless to say, the Datsun 510 won; the space utilization comparison, that is. Never mind driving dynamics.
One has to remember that back then, a decade still meant something in car time, unlike today. While the Datsun 510 offered a lusty OHC engine, a sweet-shifting stick, and independent suspension all-around, the Maverick was a time capsule back to 1960: a dull 170 cubic inch standard six strangled by smog controls, and a balky column shifter for the standard three speed manual. Steering was deadly slow, and handling was slowly dead. Or in R&T’s words: “sluggish, with great gobs of understeer, and slow, not-so-light steering that doesn’t return well.” Take your pick.
Admittedly, with the optional 200 CID six, straight line performance was decent, if not exciting. That would have to wait a year, until the 210 (gross) hp 302 (5 liter) V8 arrived as an option. You might think that that would somehow be associated with the Grabber, which was the “sporty” Maverick, and had power-suggesting bulges and fake scoops in its hood. Not so; the Grabber was strictly an appearance package, and for all I know, there’s very likely a little six under this ones protrusions (actually, the five-bolt lugs give this away as a genuine V8).
How come Niedermeyer’s so down on the poor little Simple Machine? I was a car jockey in 1970-1971 at a Ford dealership (story here), and let’s just say that Mavericks and ’71 Galaxie/LTDs were on the bottom of my driving pecking order; even below pickups. Well, how much stock can you put in the impressions of a crazed seventeen year-old?
But all that changed when the first V8 showed up one day; with its skinny little non-Grabbing tires, it became the doughnut vehicle of choice. Not for getting them; for making them. The light Maverick, a healthy 302, and those little tires; it was literally made for the job (this one is actually a Comet; close enough). Ironically, a little old lady ended up buying it, despite its worn rear tires.
In a move that would foreshadow Iaccoca’s wheel-base lengthened K-cars, the Maverick was treated to an elongated, four-door version; the Not-Quite-So-Simple Machine. Riding on the same wheelbase length as the original Falcon went quite a ways in restoring its rear passenger space, along with a proper roof-line. But that was just the start of the Maverick’s transformation.
The Simple Car theme was too spartan to have any legs for American car buyers, and The Great Brougham Epoch was now well underway, so the Maverick got its own dose of Dearborn luxury. Volkswagen? Toyota? What’s that?
Anyway, Maverick sales were just so-so, once the initial mania subsided, and buyers were off chasing the next exciting and great automotive fad. Like Ford’s own Granada, which was based on the Maverick’s fine underpinnings. Hey; we believe in recycling, for as long as possible. Or until our buyers won’t buy it anymore. At least the Granada had a rear window one could see out of.
The whole premise of of the original 1970 Maverick, priced at $1995 and painted in Anti-Establishment Mint, was a very fleeting proposition, just like those crazy first-year sales numbers. Goodbye fashionable New Paint.
The Maverick evolved from the cool mini-skirt wearing secretary’s little coupe to Grandma’s dowdy and dull four-door faster than you could say Toyota. Or Honda.
Maybe one of the reasons I never cottoned much to the Maverick was because it reminded me too much of the ill-fated Henry J. Same basic fastback shape, wide-set eyes, bulging hood, and stupid grin. And although the Maverick was vastly more successful from a sales point, with over two million sold, ultimately it too failed in its mission to make a lasting impact on the small-car market. Recycling metal is one thing; recycling old ideas is another.
A neighbour had one of these – a 1970 stripper version – not even a glove box, just a shelf as I recall he showed me one day. It had a three on the tree shifter, and it got him from point A to point B – I think he only bought it because he worked at the Oakville assembly plant and he wanted to get into the ‘right’ parking lot every day. He told me he was truly a VW man, and I believed him even less when he bought a Lada in 1979 to replace the Ford Granada he bought to replace the Maverick.
Who could forget Jack Roush’s Tijuana Taxi?
ahh-the “Tijuana Taxi”! built to get around the drag racing associations rules designed to eliminate the 351 Cleveland Pintos and Mustang II’s that were beating up on the Chevys and Mopars in pro-stock at the time! rules required any vehicle with a wheelbase less than 105″ to run more weight per cubic inch(I believe it was 7 pounds per cubic inch where the longer w.b. cars were at 6.5 pounds per cubic inch). yes,it did make quite a difference! one unintended side effect was that it also eliminated the Vega-poor Bill Jenkins!
the rule kept the 2 door Maverick out too as it had a 103″wheelbase compared to the 4 doors 108″ wheelbase-thus the Gapp&Roush 4-door Maverick Pro-Stocker was created! weird lookin but cool and as fast as the Pintos,it turns out! it’s called ingenuity,and drag racers are full of that! other Ford racers were using ’70 Mustangs but another rule said that the car could not be more than 5 years old so that only lasted a year or so. I guess not too many guys wanted to try to make the larger,longer ’71 to ’73 Mustangs go fast in Pro Stock even though they looked to be sleeker and more aerodynamic than the other Fords being used!
Talk about recycling???? This post, from what I remember, is a Recyled Post. Can’t you do anything better than rewrite a two-year-old post that says the same thing in a different way. Cmon … Let’s get groovin’ here on something important for a change.
I think you just volunteered to write a new post on Mavericks. I am looking forward to reading it.
Having grown on the other side of the pond I am not familiar with this car. It may be bad but I think it looks extremely good.
The Maverick.
A friend of mine bought a Grabber new when they first came out. I6, auto & PS it was a slug. It wasn’t very comfortable and was noisy. I hated riding in it. The car he had before a ’63 Plymouth Fury Convertible wide block 318, pushbutton auto & PS. It was still in good shape and I still kick myself for not buying it from him. It was 3 times the car the Maverick was.
In 1987, a year after my arrival in the US of A a German student came to our university. I helped him select a car. At one dealership we drove a Citation and a Maverick, at another we drove a Beetle and a Maverick. Guess what he chose. He chose the second Maverick green on green. The first one made too many suspension noises. He declined the Beetle because he wanted to experience an American car. He knew Beetles all to well. There you have it: a Maverick won a sale over a beetle, albeit a few years too late.
I liked the Maverick too for what it is. A simple machine that is not a Beetle.
Oh, those Germans and their curiosity. In the ’90’s I worked for a large international insurance brokerage that handled some accounts for BMW, which has its North American headquarters in Northern NJ. They had an internship program of sorts whereby they’d “import” a slew of young folks from overseas to fill positions at their headquarters here in the states. Part of my job was to help these guys get set up with insurance products for their cars, apartments, etc while they were here on their assignments. Each and every one of those folks landed here and within thirty days was proudly piloting a big late ’70’s or early ’80’s American land yacht. Olds Delta 88’s were particularly popular. Keeping in mind that BMW was near the top of its game during those years, we had a lot of laughs in the office over the choices these guys made, especially in light of their employer and their credentials.
A ’72 Ford Maverick 4-dr. (puke green) was my FIRST CAR @ 16y/o! That was in 1978. I bought it for $200. It was a little old lady’s Sunday go to Church meeting car.
I- 6 cyl. 200, auto. I put wide mags on the back…. blew the motor, then tried to shoe horn a Mercury Comet (sister ship) 250 I-6 motor in. It did not fit. I went back to the Junk yard & swapped the 250 for another rusty old 200 I-6.
I removed the bench seat and installed some bucket seats on 2X4 blocks.
A rear door was slightly pushed in & was difficult to open, so I put a barn door type padlock clasp & padlock on the OUTSIDE of the door. Then, I put a piece of wood across the rear door armrest/handles to hold 2 large Advent house speakers. I strapped them in place with the seat belts.
With drum brakes all around, it had a hard time stopping. It had an even harder time getting up to any respectable speed.
I drove that car for the last 2 years of high school & the 1st 2 years of college.
On one trip to college, I drove down the interstate at about 70 mph. & opened the driver’s door & held my knee against it. I wiped out 1 mile of orange cones with the driver’s door. I looked in my rear view mirror, and saw orange cone’s summer-salting all over the highway!
When I retired the car for my first ’74 Opel Ascona (1900), I ran it in the woods & drove off a 12 foot vertical cliff in a gravel pit. I stuffed the nose (& radiator) hard into the ground at the bottom & SPIT the battery out! (we wore full face helmets off course). That was the end of it! I never looked back. I moved on to German cars from there on out.
Funny, the stupid things we/I did when we (I) were young! We were invincible! But we laughed a lot. 😎
I’ve driven several Mavericks and they never stopped reminding me that they were cars built down to a penny-pinching price. Sure they were simple and rugged, but that does not excuse them for their ever-present crudeness and cheapness. Back in the early 1970s a little more money would get you into a Plymouth Duster – a bigger, roomier, and better handling car even in base form. Plus the Duster gave you a glove box, temp and amp gauges, optional discs, torsion bar front suspension, and a huge trunk.
These cars were no better nor any worse than stripper Hornets, Darts or Novas of the same time. Millions of Americans (and tens of thousands of Canadians) were happy to buy and drive these things and asked for little else. That really says more about the low-brow North American tastes than anything else.
And that pretty much says it all. Case closed.
I worked with a tough punk chick back in the ’80s. I was the clean cut preppy kid. She used to regale me with stories of what she called “Maverick Hunting” it was her and her boyfriend going out after dark, finding a Maverick and bashing its windows. Nothing to brag about but apropos to this story.
I knew a kid in high school who did the same thing to Gremlins. As you might surmise, he became a low-life criminal in no time.
CC effect: I was recently in some touristy gift shop where there was the usual plethora of metal, model cars. However, the only one in 1/18 scale was a 1974 Maverick. Who the hell makes a 1/18 scale ‘collectable’ of a plain-Jane (complete with whitewalls and wheel covers) 1974 Maverick? It wasn’t even the Grabber version. As you might surmise, I suspect it had been sitting there for quite some time.
I’ve always liked the 2 door Maverick, just like the 2 door Comets of that era. There’s some definite Mustang touches to it….the grille, and the fastback roof in particular. It’s hard to say why, exactly, almost all of the cars have disappeared from the roads (even on classic car nights), but I’m guessing that so-so build quality and lack of resale value (even when hotrodded) are big factors. I’ve always thought that the 2 doors being pretty lightweight cars would have been more popular with drag racing and performance guys, but it’s possible that the “granny daily driver” image was too permanently ensconced in people’s minds for the Maverick to be taken very seriously. The Nova SS made the Nova be perceived as much more than just a daily driver.
Perhaps if it was offered with a 302 right from the start, and/ or a much bigger engine option, the car would be known as more than just basic transportation?
Ford was much more careful than Chrysler on making the Maverick a compact musclecar for fear of encroaching on higher-profit Mustang sales. That really explains why the Maverick never got anything bigger than the low-power, 2-bbl, single exhaust version of the 302.
Yeah, they might have sold more Mavericks with a hotter V8 (or two), but the profit margin was lower and they would have made less money than the Mustang. The Duster, although it was a sales hit, was not really liked all that much within the Chrysler executive ranks for just that reason. It went a long way to killing off the rather expensive to develop E-body Barracuda and Challenger.
FWIW, Bill ‘Grumpy’ Jenkins did campaign a memorable Pro-Stock Maverick.
Ah yes, the Ford Maverick. Brings back memories of my teen years.
Had a neighbor who had a 1972 or 73 “sporty” Grabber in orange with the black stripes and fake hood scoops on the hood. His wife didn’t care for the car, preferring the more elegent Ford Galaxy.
My mother’s first car was dark blue 1974 Maverick 2-door with the Luxury Décor option, fancy wheelcovers, side moldings, 302 V-8, automatic transmission, power brakes, power steering, air conditioner, AM radio. It wasn’t a bad looking car at the time.
She looked at the Chevy Nova but noticed the Maverick had all the headlight, windshield wiper, heater, airconditioning controls clustered together on the left side of the steering wheel, which was convenient for her as she could only use her left arm and hand. That was the major reason she bought it.
The 1974 model year, as I recall was the last year before catalytic converter and using leaded gas, which was cheaper than unleaded gas. Then there was the sturdy 5mph front & rear bumper and the annoying ignition-seatbelt interlock which forced you to buckle up before starting the engine.
The car, with the 302 V-8 had quick acceleration at the expensive of economy. Rearview visibility was poor because of the fastback style rear window. Otherwise the car had a sporty look.
Had the car for 13 years and it had its share of mechanical and body hardware problems. For a car that was advertised as “simple”, do-it-yourself maintenance work wasn’t easy; the V-8 was a tight fit and engine compartment was crowded as I recall. Finally got rid of it when the transmission started showing problems It served us well during those years.
Granny’s yellow 70 Grabber was the first one sold in the Chambersburg PA area. Turned heads in front of a line in front of the movie theater we passed bringing it home.
200″ six, auto, white walls and no power steering or brakes. She drove it for many years and it caused no problems for her.
The package shelf was less a “cheap out” than it was mimicking Euro small cars which had package shelves under the dash. Even the Gremlin and Hornet had them, though they also came with a glove box. IIRC the base two passenger Gremlin had no glove box door, but I could be mistaken.
The Simple Machine: honest, inexpensive, easy to repair. Ford going back to it’s roots. Very appealing to me. And to many others when it came out.
The base Gremlin not only lacked a glove box door, it also didn’t have a rear seat or an opening rear hatch!
No doubt your grandmother bought her Maverick from Hal Lowry Ford, which is now gone, replaced by a Ryan’s Cafeteria along Lincoln Way East. The new Ford dealer is Keystone Ford, and is visible from I-81 near the Lincoln Way exit.
McKnight Motors, the old AMC-Jeep dealer, is long gone, too. It’s now an auto parts store. My grandmother’s gentleman friend lived one block away from the dealership, and when we went to his house for Sunday dinner, I’d walk down to McKnight Motors and look at the new AMCs and Jeeps.
My mother’s 1974 Maverick had a glove box. Don’t recall whether it was because the car had the LDO package, but do remember earlier model years had shelf only.
The glove box was added to all Mavericks midyear 1973.
Like with SO MANY American cars of the 1970’s, one had to “work the options list” to get a decent car.
The later 4 door Mavericks, optioned with the 302 V8 engine, 3 speed automatic transmission, power steering, Factory Air Conditioning and the LDO (Luxury Decor Option) gave you a peppy, almost-upscale small car. (Well, “small” for the American market time period.)
Quite a pleasant change from the low class “penalty box” base model that the bench seat, manual steering, “six-in-a-row-that-don’t-go”, 3 speed collumn shifting manual tranny that the under two thousand dollars model was.
A high school friend’s Father bought an early Maverick for the family’s second car/back up car. The small six engine, 3 speed on the column, manual steering, bright plaid patterned bench seat that was as uncomfortable as it was colorful. The only option the car had was an excellent, in dash Factory Air Conditioning system (a nod to the perpetually Hot & Humid New Orleans climate).
Over the course of the 10 years of ownership it became a low mileage penalty box pig. Looked good, as it was always under the carport attached to the house, because NOBODY wanted to drive it; even my 17 year old best friend at the time (the owner’s son.)
My grandfather bought a Maverick in 1971 as the family needed a second car to complement the ’68 Impala Custom Coupe. Mom remembers that he *hated* that car and that it had all manner of problems. In fact, it was his last Ford vehicle after having good experiences with two previous ones. They kept it until sometime around ’75 when it was traded on a Dodge Coronet, but it was not remembered fondly in the family.
The coupes do have an undeniable style, though, that belies the pedestrian underpinnings. That red one in the lead photo shows off the lines nicely, handicapped as they are by the 5 MPH bumpers. Very attractive house behind it too!
Agree with you that the coupes do have an undeniable style due to the fastback and yes the 5 mph did ruin the flowing lines, but they were sturdy.
I liked those heavy 5 mph bumpers. I remembered back in the 1980s when my mother’s car was rear ended by a fairly late-model mid-size sedan. Her rear bumper and body was undamaged, except for a minor tweak to the bumper guards. But the other car’s front end, which didn’t have the 5mph bumper, was heavily damaged.
Speaking of bumpers: I remember in the early 70s Reader’s Digest magazine ran advertisements about the need for stronger bumpers due to expensive body repairs and rising insurance costs. The result was federal mandate of bumpers withstanding 2-1/2 mph collisions, later raised to 5mph.
On cars nowadays a 5 mph “tap” will cost thousands of dollars to repair. Funny nobody nowadays protest the high repair rates of collisions.
Mr. Niedermeyer, how about an article on the evolution of bumpers, I.e., when first added to cars (which resembled leaf springs) during the 1920s to “stylistic” body attachments during the 1950s and 1960s, to where we are now with the energy-absorbing type bumpers integrated into the car bodies?
My brother, Terry’s Maverick, when new. Not a bad shape, and has that je ne sais quoi of a base model with blackwalls and dog dishes. A single person could find this body very useful.
Absolutely gorgeous!
Very sharp looking car.
I do not agree with the criticisms of the Maverick here at all. It is not a bad looking car at all. I would say the rear overhang is a little bit too long and the front needs to be stretched out a little but that is true of almost every American car of that era.
I modified the pic at the top of this article to be what I think it shouldve been.
sorry John! I’m glad that your idea never made it to metal! my ’74 is my idea of how a Maverick should look-with a well built 302 4-barrel,C-4 automatic,9″ Ford rearend with 4.11 gears and a Trac-Lock. bumpers were cut down to a more reasonable size and lightened,though they would not deal well with a 5 mph impact anymore-I just try to avoid that scenario! taillights from a ’64 T’Bird were fitted to the rear panel with a sequential unit mounted in the trunk. makes the car unique among Mavericks-one guy thought it was a Shelby Mustang!
I have had this car since 1992 and I’ve always thought the styling just begged for hot-rodding! took me all these years to finally realize a dream I’ve had since I first saw the Maverick back in late ’69-it was meant to be a performance car!
I never heard rumors about a 351 Cleveland being planned for the car but I do know it would have been easier than the Boss 429 Mustangs were and probably a lot quicker! definitely would have needed some pretty crazy looking headers! and changing plugs would be a nightmare-my 302 is not the easiest plug change I’ve ever done! I have heard of a car in my area that has a Cleveland in it-my son knows the guy and I’m trying to get him to arrange a meeting with the guy to see the car. he says the spring towers are uncut to which I said”does he hafta pull the engine to change the plugs?”
anyway,I’m attaching a pic of my car-I think it came out beautiful! looks kinda like Barkos post but a little more “pumped”! it never ran on the street under it’s own power(the original 250 cube I-6 was just resting on the crossmember when I got the car) until 2014,but when it did it was SHOCKING!
@ john ; Yes, you did modify it!
Funny lookin’ front door seam!
Agreed. It’d be fantastic to find one of those bare-bones, $1995 strippo specials in ‘survivor’ condition. Apparently, much like the original Mustang, there are a couple of ways to differentiate an early 1970 Maverick from a later one. The early ones have a horn ring and a dash-mounted ignition switch. Thanks to safety regulations, later 1970 Mavericks omitted the horn ring and the ignition switch went to the column.
Further, did Ford really have three completely different entry-level cars in 1970? There was the original Falcon, then the Torino-based Falcon, and finally the Maverick.
Boy, once Lido had a platform he liked he certainly got a lot of mileage out of them. Falcon-Mustang-Maverick-Granada, then all the K car permutations over at Chrysler. He figured that most buyers cared little of the underpinnings and bought cars on style, and was basically right. Just drop on a new body, advertise the hell out of it and rake in the profits. For all his faults, the man was a marketing genius.
The Maverick was a huge hit when introduced. Even though the Beetle was at its sales peak around this time, I knew a few people (mostly girls) who cross-shopped both and bought the Maverick. It looked sporty for the time and was priced right. It was available with a reliable automatic (as opposed to VW’s awful Automatic Stickshift) and you could get factory A/C, which by 1970 was becoming a must have option for many.
Am I the only one who likes the 4-door Maverick? I like the proportions and the flowing, curvy lines. Maybe I’m just fond of it because it takes me back to my childhood. My grandma drove a 1976 ivory 4-door Maverick, with the big bumpers (plain, no bumper trim) that was absolutely basic, except for air conditioning. It had dog-dish hubcaps, tan vinyl seats, bench in the front, basic AM radio, non-power brakes, and 250 CID straight six with auto transmission. Surprisingly, it also had manual steering, which I remember everyone in the family wondering why grandma chose a car with such heavy steering. In the mid eighties my uncle fitted a power steering conversión which helped. By the time I was old enough to drive it, I was surprised by the enormous on-center slack, and of course, its total lack of road-feel. I also remember it being very sluggish off the line, but apart from all that, it was a pretty tight feeling car. The doors slammed shut with a nice, solid sound, and the interior trim felt firm and didn’t rattle too much, or fall off. I liked that car, but was always a bit embarrased to admit it 🙂
No Cesar, your not the only one who likes the 4dr’s. I love my 71 4dr. Tu-tone white/Grabber Blue. Owned it since July 88.
Here’s the Marti Report.
The 71 is not here, ( pics are at home) but this is me from 96 with my 74 Comet, 70 Maverick ( which I still own) and a 73 LDO parts Maverick.
The Maverick sedan wasn’t bad looking for a 4 door from the 1970s. It was certainly better looking than a lot of contemporary sedans.
My first car was a green 1974 4-door Maverick sedan. It could have been a cardboard box on roller skates painted green – I loved that car. And it was definitely better than a cardboard box. 🙂
Just happened across this article. My 1970 Maverick is one of the base models; Anti Establish Mint, black plaid, 170 CID engine and three speed on the column.
Beautiful. Very nice original condition, and I like that little blush of surface rust on the bumper.
“… little blush of surface rust on the bumper.” = Patina!
😎
Outstanding!
Same color & same wheel covers as my ’72 4-dr (200CID Auto) , I had when I was 17 y/o back in 1979 .
Paid $200 for it.
I don’t recall that gas filler cap in the center of the tail panel though?
And no glove box IIRC… just a shelf beneath the dash?
Careful… drum brakes all around! They will fade if you push the envelope!
Thanks for the memory!
My father bought new three speed Mavericks in 1969.5 and 1973. I learned to drive on the ’73. Driving this one will bring back memories. Not sure how “fun” it’ll be, but it’s been many years since driving a manual column shift. As for the gas fill, they were all this way. And no glovebox until 1973.
I always thought “Speed McQueen” is a Maverick. The roof line is the same.
I find it interesting that the 1960 Falcon’s base price was $1912 for a bottom feeder 2 door sedan while the 1970 Maverick’s base price was $1995 for the 2 door fastback coupe. 10 years, same platform, bigger engines (using the same basic design) and all the new technology that had come along in 10 years. According to the information I found, the curb weight of a basic 1960 Falcon 2 door was about 2400 pounds while the Maverick’s curb weight was around 2500 lbs. The wheelbase of the Falcon was 109.5 inches while the wheelbase of the Maverick was 103 inches. Overall length of the Falcon was 191.2 inches while the length of the Maverick was 179.4 inches. So basically after a decade, Ford’s compact shrunk by a foot and gained 100 pounds and cost $83 less. Both were primitive, spartan, crude and underpowered. The 3 speed manual helped a lot with acceleration. It’s amazing that Ford could build a similar (but smaller) car 10 years later that was less than $100 more. I wonder how they did it.
Incidentally, the 1971 Pinto’s base price was $1919, the curb weight was 2015 pounds, the wheelbase was 94 inches and the length was 163 inches. The Maverick’s base price in 1971 went up to $2175. For only about $250 more, you got a lot more car. The Maverick was bigger, more powerful, better looking (in my opinion), and more substantial. You got 2 more cylinders but 1 fewer gear.
An interesting comparison.
*The source for data is automobile-catalog.com. If I have any data wrong, please feel free to correct me.
I have often pondered the fact that the early Maverick was a sporty looking car with modern, contemporary looks and a rakish roofline but it didn’t have a performance option. Nova had the SS 396 which could be ordered with a brutal 402 cubic inch 375 HP big block V8, Duster had a performance package complete with a lively 275 horsepower 340, but Maverick only had a lowly 2bbl lopo 302 that could muster only 210 horses, and it wasn’t even offered until the 1971 model year. Plymouth and Chevrolet offered 4 speed manuals in their V8 compacts, but Ford only offered a 3 speed on the column, The 302 wasn’t slow (0-60 in 8.4 seconds isn’t bad) but compared to the Nova and Duster, it was rather pedestrian. Sure, Maverick had the sporty Grabber package, but it was mostly for show. I always wondered why Ford didn’t drop a 351 Windsor 4bbl and a 4 speed into the Maverick Grabber. The 351W wasn’t much wider than the 302 and it would have likely have fit with little to no modification. A 351W will barely, and I mean BARELY fit in a ’65-66 Mustang, so it would have probably fit in the Maverick with little modification. It would have been a contender and a worthwhile competitor to the Duster and the Nova and quite possibly a world beater. I had never heard the story about the Maverick being originally designed around the 351 Cleveland, but it doesn’t surprise me. That would have been a little rocket. The Maverick coupe doesn’t look like an economy car, it looks like a sporty performance car. There was no doubt that the 1960 Falcon was an economy car but the Maverick was much more muscular looking. My source says that the 351C was about 40 pounds heavier than the 351W, which would have affected handling negatively. The Maverick is a good example of could-have-been-should-have-been. A 351 Maverick, C or W, would have transformed the Maverick into a bottom feeder car to a full blown supercar. As far as taking sales away from the Mustang, the Mustang had a 109″ wheelbase and was 189.5″ long and weighed over 3100 lbs with the 302, which put them in different classes and they were not direct competitors with each other. They would have complemented each other quite nicely. Such wasted potential.
And now, in the 2020’s no new Ford compact/mid/full size car is for sale in US. However, they have a compact Maverick pickup, which is sold out for model year 2022.
Who would have imagined?
I was glad when the more sensible Fairmont replaced the Maverick in 1978. Hard to justify purchasing a Granada or LTD II when the roomy Fairmont debuted.
I remember when I was 16 y/o (1978), visiting San Diego & was pulled over in a NEW 1978 Ford Fairmont Rental car. A CHip’s pulled me over for expired registration tags.
My brother owned a Fairmont station wagon for years, brown.
CC-in-scale will just park this here.
Doesn’t every Maverick need a dual-quad Boss 429? .)
A coworker loaned me a Maverick in ’74 while on a job a couple of thousand miles away from home, too young for a company rental car. A 302 with auto it was a quick little car. Of course my frame of reference was a VW bug, although by then it may have had a big 1600 in it. But it got around 20 MPG and trust me, not every V8 I’d driven in those days felt like it was quick. Horrible space utilization, but a single guy for a weekend? Who cared.
Referring to an earlier post on size regarding it and the Falcon, it was indeed shorter than the early Falcons, but only by 2 inches, according to my research.
Could have, should have, been better, but it was built for a price and reflected that price.
The Maverick had the cool front and rear side markers wired in conjunction with the turn signals. Ford used this setup on the Maverick, Torino, Mustang and Mercury equivalents in the early ’70s. It was distinctive because the red rear markers also flashed (not just the front amber ones), requiring extra wiring from front to rear. This setup has only appeared on a few production models, including some circa 2000 GM full-size pickups/Escalades and the Cadillac Catera.
Flashing side markers? no such thing on my ’74 Maverick! the wiring in my car is as it came from the factory and nothing has been changed! the side markers are just that- simple single filament bulbs(#194 I believe)that have no capability of flashing with the turn signals! I know of no Ford car or truck that has side markers that flash in conjunction with the turn signals except maybe Lincolns(?). I see some car customizers eliminating the side markers to “smooth the sides of the car”? Not me! I think the effect of the Maverick side markers at night highlights the beautiful lines of the car and I wouldn’t want them to flash anyway!