Thrift stores serve a dual purpose; they provide a place for folks to purchase items that still have some service left in them for a fraction of their original cost, and on the other side of the coin, provide a place for folks to get rid of items that are still a bit too nice to throw out.
This 1977 Ford Maverick falls neatly into both categories. Sales were flagging by 1976, but Ford needed something to tide them over until the new Fox-body Fairmont and Zephyr hit the shelves in 1978. Thus, the Maverick (and sibling Mercury Comet) were kept around for 1977, with virtually no changes, simply to fill a gap in the product lineup.
Some folks can do amazingly creative things with thrift-store finds, re-purposing them into clever “new” objects that breathe fresh life into someone else’s castoffs. The Maverick was no different; in fact, Lee Iacocca had created it by essentially recycling the Falcon (and for the second time!). The funny thing is, the formula worked–to the tune of 578,914 units sold in the extended 1969-70 first model year–at least for a while.
The recycling extended all the way to the taillights, which seem to have been shared on numerous Fords of the era.
One of 40,086 two-door Mavericks produced in 1977, our subject car has every appearance of having been owned (perhaps) by an elderly person who recently passed. The family is simply trying to get what they can for the car while letting someone else benefit from its remaining useful life. Some of its accessories (luggage rack, vent wings) even look period-correct.
On the other hand, a peek inside shows dashboard scars (modern stereo, roughly-drilled holes in the dash) more typical of a younger driver, perhaps a more recent owner.
But zounds! Look at those seats! Aside from the split seams common to Fords of this era, the material itself has held up remarkably well. When was the last time you saw such visually interesting fabric and materials, including in even higher-end cars?
Stepping back outside for a moment, let’s visually feast on that wonderful patina–people pay a lot of money to get this look artificially–and I’m positive at least one of our regular commentators will agree that painting over it would almost be a shame.
Although all the fun color names were gone by 1977, I wonder what they’d have called this patina back then…how about “Accidental Oxidation,” or perhaps “Righteous Rust?”
The patina extends right down to the pavement, too–the wheels encircling its classic dog-dish hubcaps show a rust pattern that indicates this car sat out in the open for a long time…
Still, it’s a fairly honest face, and one that would be marred by trying to turn it into something that at heart it is not. Hopefully, someone will see its potential and provide enough loving attention to give this old Maverick another go-’round–a second life, as it were–before it’s turned out to pasture for the final time.
I like this,one of those forgotten cars.Not as characterful as a Falcon or early Comet but still interesting,I hope who ever buys this doesn’t make a hot rod or racer out of it
The Maverick was simple and stylish, when new. An affordable and basic entry-level car when introduced, but it didn’t age well. The four doors were more practical than the coupes, but they seemed out of place in the brougham era. The Maverick and Pinto especially, did not wear their ‘cow catcher’ bumpers well. It really compromises the looks of this car unfortunately. Plus, Ford seemed to put so little investment into the Maverick once the Granada was announced. The styling and Interior scream late 60s/early 70s, even though this is a ’77. I don’t think the one pictured is worth $2,500. My brother owned a ’74 Maverick coupe, and by 1978, it was already rusting badly. I’m a bit surprised sales held up so well into it’s last year. Though I’m sure their pricing was very competitive.
I remember the hood weighed a tonne… it contributed to the false impression this car was very solidly built.
$2500.00? That’s about what this car cost new. I learned how to drive a stick (3 on the tree) on the Mercury Comet version of this. It’s a nice memory, but not a $2500.00 one
And not in this condition. If this were a clean, mostly rust-free car with a solid, decently maintained drivetrain, then maybe, but factoring in having to clean up all the surface rust and it doesn’t seem like a good deal.
The Maverick had a more pronounced life cycle than most cars. When it was fresh and new, it looked stylish, sprightly and exciting. When it hit middle age with the LDO package, it took on that look of mid-life affluence. Then came the malaise years with the big bumpers where the high trim levels migrated over to the new Granada. The Maverick sort of became like the old couple in frumpy clothes who sit on their front porch watching people go by.
From the time the Granada came out, I think that just about everyone was ready for this car to just go away. Sort of like the inlaw when you know the divorce is coming. I was really over these cars by 1975, and still am.
A lot of the ones in the midwest ended their lives with the back bumper mounts having rusted off. As bad as these look with the battering ram bumper, they look even worse with no bumper at all. I think I would still rather have a 76-77 Volare.
Yes, the Aspen/Volare felt substantially more sophisticated than the concurrent Maverick/Comet. I do think the Maverick’s personality changed dramatically whether an owner chose between the sixes or 302. But it still felt very basic.
302 all the way.
“From the time the Granada came out, I think that just about everyone was ready for this car to just go away.”
That makes sense, because the Granada was intended as a replacement for the Maverick. I suppose Ford kept building it for fleet buyers and skinflints, in an attempt to position the Granada as a premium compact.
And then came the often-discussed ads comparing the Granada to the Mercedes and Seville…
Yes the Granada was intended to replace the Maverick, but when sales of the Maverick climbed significantly after the first energy crisis the choice was made to solder it on and market the Granada as the premium compact Ford and they were rather successful at it. The Maverick still sold in reasonable numbers and there was no stripper, rubber floor mat, dog dish hubcap’ed Granada and it sold very well, well enough to be the 2nd best selling car in 1975 while the Maverick held on to 15th place.
“Yes the Granada was intended to replace the Maverick, but when sales of the Maverick climbed significantly after the first energy crisis the choice was made to solder it on and market the Granada as the premium compact Ford and they were rather successful at it.”
This is absolutely correct. Ford also groomed the Granada to ultimately take over the mid-size spot in its lineup, reasoning that in an era of downsizing, midsize customers would be looking for a car of the Granada’s size and price (the downsized 1978 GM A-bodies had exterior dimensions that were very similar). Ford then put a new lighter model into development to ultimately take over the compact slot (the Fairmont). Once those decisions were made, the Maverick essentially needed to stick around until the Fairmont was ready, to avoid having a big hole in Ford’s lineup.
I think if Ford gave these models an ‘Endura’ style stylish nose and rear, it would have really helped their appearance. Rather than heavy chrome bumpers, I think body coloured noses and tails would have really helped the Maverick/Comet. The bumpers on this one look somewhat like they’ve been hung on like scaffolding.
Great memories of the first car I drove, a ’74 that was literally covered in rust…rust-colored paint, that is (Medium Chestnut, code 5M). Growing up where actual rust wasn’t a problem, ours soldiered on through six years of trouble-free use, alternating between my Mom and three teen drivers.
Back in those days, a six-year-old car was OLD. These were literally everywhere in the mid-70s, but by the time I came upon one at college in 1983 (mine had been traded in three years earlier), it was a rare sight.
While reliable, the two-doors had pitiful space utilization: Cramped interior, a huge transmission tunnel, and a shallow trunk where an awkwardly-place spare ate up what useable room there was.
$2,500 is too much right now, but it’d go fast if they’d written $1,999 on that sale sign.
The Maverick got stepped on by nearly every other Ford product during the time it was produced. Its first year’s sales numbers clearly show that by itself – the Maverick was on spot within the Market. Then Ford got very sloppy and walked all over the Maverick.
The Pinto cribbed the Maverick style, so the Maverick lost its own look. The Pinto had a practical hatchback, a lower price and better fuel economy. If the Maverick came with a hatchback, there wouldn’t have been a need for a Pinto. Remember, the Maverick was smaller than its class competition and size-wise, sat between compact and subcompact.
The Granada was larger than the Maverick. It had the Brougham look the Market wanted. The Granada was a practical four door compact. While the Maverick was sportier and more inexpensive, between the Pinto and the Granada, there wasn’t a reason for the Maverick to exist.
By 1977, the Maverick hadn’t received any refreshing. It was a dated design made uglier with Federal bumpers. Instead of staying with the time, the Maverick got uglier. The four-door sedan was not a natural fit for the Maverick style. While it may have added usefulness to the model, the Maverick never looked right as a four door. The only thing going for it was its value.
The Maverick had, by 1978, evolved into such an unattractive and dated vehicle, Ford really couldn’t call the Fairmont a Maverick, even if it could. The Maverick image had taken a beating. Had Ford not stepped all over the Maverick’s market within the Ford showrooms, Ford would have had a stronger presence within the compact market. If Ford had concentrated on the compact market by giving the Maverick a Granada-esque upgrade in 1974, the company would have had better distinction between its subcompact and compact markets. Ford screwed up badly. So badly, that by the end of the 1970s, Dearborn was facing ruin.
I’m not certain why Ford put the Maverick out to pasture so early in its model cycle, but considering where Ford ended up by the end of that decade, it was not a good decision.
While it’s true that the Pinto and Granada both intruded on the market space occupied by the Maverick before they were introduced, I don’t think the introduction of either model represented a screwup on Ford’s part. In the case of the Pinto, there was a logical plan to what Ford was doing, and I think it was a sensible one. (Whether Ford screwed up in the actual execution of the Pinto is of course another matter.) In the case of the Granada, the Maverick was originally supposed to go away and be completely replaced by the Granada, so any sales the Maverick generated after that point were a plus.
The Pinto effectively took over the Maverick’s original role as a low-end import fighter, which is why Maverick sales were so much higher in its extended 1970 model year than in any subsequent year. Most of those sales gravitated to the Pinto from 1971 onward. As successful as the 1970 Maverick was, Ford concluded that it would need a smaller four-cylinder car to compete in that space over the long haul, in light of rising import sales and the coming of GM’s Vega. I think Ford’s thinking that they needed a smaller four-cylinder car was correct (again, whether the car they introduced to fill that role was well-executed is another matter), and the Pinto sold well, at least during its first four years on the market. If Ford had stuck with the Maverick as its entry-level model and been caught without a four-cylinder car when the 1973-74 energy crisis hit, we’d all be talking about how dumb they were not to have introduced one when GM did.
Once the Pinto was on the scene, Ford didn’t simply throw the Maverick away. They repurposed it as more of a mainstream compact, filling the spot in Ford’s lineup previously occupied by the Falcon. A four-door sedan appeared, on a longer wheelbase, along with two larger engines. In its role as a mainstream compact, the Maverick was a medicore seller. I think the fact that its two-door version was so small was a liability, in an era when compact sales were slanted heavily towards two-door models. The Maverick’s origins did not lend it well to the broughamification trend that was sweeping the upper end of the compact market. Ford had also kind of let this market segment go towards the end of the ’60s, and the Maverick had that to fight against as well.
As discussed upthread, the Granada was originally supposed to replace the Maverick. After the 1973-74 energy crisis caused an upward surge in Maverick sales and drove some upscale carbuyers into smaller size classes, Ford decided to position the Granada as a premium compact, keeping the Maverick around to cover the low end of the compact market. The Granada was ultimately groomed to take over the midsize slot in Ford’s lineup, leaving the Maverick to stick around until a new compact design was developed. I think Ford’s strategy worked pretty well. The Granada was a strong seller, and given that the Maverick was originally supposed to go away after 1974, any sales it generated after that point (in addition to the sales the Granada was racking up) were a bonus. By the time the Granada had transitioned to competing primarily in the midsize market, the Fairmont was ready (and was also successful). It wouldn’t have made any sense for Ford to try to give the Maverick a Granada-esque upgrade around 1974 or 1975. I don’t think the Maverick was well suited for that, and in any event, that’s what the Granada was there for.
It’s also worth mentioning that when the Maverick was introduced, Ford made a big deal out of how they were only going to make minor continuous improvements and not change it for the sake of change; it was supposed to be an antidote to planned obsolescence. They also took pains to limit options in an effort to keep as-delivered prices close to what Ford was advertising and avoided adding a performance version beyond the Grabber (which was mostly a tape-and-decal thing), presumably to avoid cannibalizing Mustang sales.
All of these things were pretty sound decisions at the time (given what happened at Plymouth with the Duster and Barracuda, any concerns about not letting the Maverick compete too directly with the Mustang were undoubtedly well-founded), although they did leave the Maverick and Comet rather static in a changing marketplace. I think that was as much by design as neglect.
Also In 1975, the Chevy Nova was revamped and looked more modern than the Maverick and the rebadged Mercury Comet.
I lived this era, and truthfully I’ve never been a fan of these. I find this one particularly ugly—not “period correct” silver color, luggage rack, dog dish equipped stripper.
Christ, I would paint it something other than rust.
Surprised that the younger owner didn’t just black primer the hell out of it.
Am I the only person who is not into “patina?” This thing is a rust bucket, plain and simple.
It’s a dreadful car. I get clinically depressed just looking at it. Those taillights are so bad. This is a car for the most down-on-their-luck person in 1977.
This has gone beyond patina I’m not a fan either,try as I might I can’t see $2500 worth of car.
For me, it’s less that I’m into patina and more that I’m not into shiny show cars.
Not to mention the mirrors-there’s something about incorrect non-stock mirrors that sets off my inner Mr. Hyde. If you have to replace them, at least get factory correct ones. These are particularly hideous, and a closer look reveals that are not of any D4 design that I know of, so they were likely sourced from J.C. Whitney or similar.
FWIW I feel the same way about wheel covers, although that’s not an issue here.
Agree on the wheelcovers. As a teen, my best friend and I would ride our bikes all over and would always stop and pick up a stray wheelcover to take home and add to our collection. There was always this wonderful lottery as we approached it – something really old? Really high end? Really unusual? But there was no worse feeling than picking up a face-down wheelcover and finding that it was a J.C. Whitney knockoff that looked sort of like the factory one for a given car, except really, really cheap. We always threw them back into the ditch.
Delmet made just about all of these — they were made out of “triple chrome plated” (LOL) cheap steel which rusted about a half hour after they were installed on their host. I remember the Chevy knockoffs used parallelograms instead of the actual bowties.
I can’t imagine paying over a thousand for this car, and I’m a bit of a Maverick fan. Frankly, the best case scenario for this car IS to be adopted by a would be rickety racer. While a hot rod aesthetic may offend many here, most hot rodders do their best to maintain and/or improve all the systems of a given vehicle. Otherwise this thing will likely end up in the hands of the lowest common denominator, complete its transformation to dust, and be scrapped. A stock, restored Maverick has NO value beyond its meager functionality.
I will be the the dissenter here. I think the Comet and the Maverick were loads better looking and better driving then the first gen Granada/Monarch. The 1975-1980 Granada/Monarch was so butt-ass ugly. It looked like a brick and drove like a brick and I really really mean no offense to anybody on this esteemed web site when I say this but, I have always scratched my head when I read folks waxing nostalgic on this forum about ether owning one of these foul cars or riding in one as a child. My folks had a 1976 monarch they bought brand new. I was born in 1977 and I got to ride in that POS up until 1986 when it was replaced by a 1986 Dodge Aries K station wagon, which incredibly was so so so much better then the Monarch(and it was a POS also)
Getting back to our featured car, if there was no rot underneath to the flooring etc and it ran well then $2500 is good price for it and one I would pay for it. It would make a good daily driver in the condition it is in or make it a weekend project in your garage and sand it down and primer it or get a cheapy paint job and go on about your day. Or use it for parts for a restored Maverick.
I agree that with a small investment, you’ve potentially got a good daily driver/second car on your hands. As long as that rust is just surface deep , a good sanding & priming followed by a tasteful shade of blue paint to the body and cleaning up those wheels would make for a pretty decent ride.
I agree with you. For a northern car, this one looks quite good, with no big rust holes where these usually got them. All of the rust is on the surface from the wretched 1970s-era silver paint that couldn’t take the elements. Actually, I kind of like this car in silver, and there is something about dog-dish caps and whitewalls that I like. It’s no Valiant, but with that solid body, I could see it being worth in the low $2ks if everything else is of good quality.
Leon – I have t disagree about the Granada. It took the market by storm when introduced in Fall, 1974. The faux LTD styling cues were perfect for the times. That it was a wallowing mini-LTD in the handling department was rather unfortunate for those of us who liked decent handling cars, but it was spot-on to the targeted market. Besides, they brought the ESS model out as the canyon carver…what more could you want?
I had one of these, a 1974 version. It was a six cylinder coupe, I did the whole “hot rod” thing on it, swapped in a 289, repainted it, aluminum wheels, the whole nine yards.
As a six cylinder coupe, it was awful to drive. The six had no power (there was nothing wrong with it, that’s the way they were!) and the V8 really woke up the car. However, the steering and brakes were early 1970’s generic compact car versions, which is to say, lousy.
In a way I’d like to have something like this again, but this time swap in a SBC and Mustang disc brakes, maybe sway bars, too…
But that still wouldn’t override the lousy interior and bad seating position. I think I’d hold out for an AMC Hornet…
Since it’s essentially an early Mustang platform, it wouldn’t be too difficult to give it ’65 Shelby Mustang type upgrades to the suspension. one of my MM fantasies is to take one like this (a 5000 mile temp controlled storage Estate Sale creampuff, naturally! ) and do just that. And yes, I want a 4-door In fact, I want it exactly like this, right down to color.
Export brace, Monte-Carlo bar, Konis or similar good shocks,
add a rear bar, some stiffer springs, Versailles rear end, athe whole 9 yards, brake upgrades are possible, too. You could even relocate the upper control pivot ala ’65 Shelby, and that mod is free, just a little work.
Some 15×7 steelies with factory dog-dishes, a
boneyard 5.O HO and you choice of 5-speed or AOD, and Bob’s your thrifty, low budget uncle.
I would also swap in a LDO interior, those Euro Ford-sourced seats were comfy in their day.
This would occupy shed space with a Mustang GT-ized Fox Futura or possibly ’83-’86 Aero T-Bird
There’s a lot of good ideas in your post, not that I haven’t thought about revisiting my Maverick from days gone by. There’s so much more that I could do to it now, 30 years later. There’s so much more available for the cars now, 30 years later.
But I think I want a different car. I already had a Maverick. Maybe I will try something else… 😉
I’d enjoy freaking-out a base 2-door Fairmont sedan personally but I agree..a Hornet would definitely be a step above this poor thing.
If I were to do a four-eye Fox, I think I would like to rock an old Futura or Z-7 Zephyr. I’ve seen a few folks do a couple of really nice ones and I think that could be a lot of fun. Otherwise, I’d be looking for an 85 or 86 Mercury Capri 5.0 again…
That’s precisely what I’m doing Junqueboi… and mine’s complete with a broughammy red vinyl top too!
Awesome. Are you documenting it somewhere/somehow?
I love the hood, but that’s where it starts and ends. Sad sack.
I’m as hard-core a Ford guy as you’ll ever find, but this, well, ain’t no way I’d be caught dead in that car. I’d rather take public transportation…
No it doesnt, the windows have frames.
So is it unanimous, then?
Are we calling the late Maverick a deadly sin?
Ford was definitely on a roll in the 70s. Unfortunately for them, it was a downhill roll. But you know how some things grow on you over time? These things haven’t.
A girl next door to me, mid-80s, had a ’74 Comet. You could look at one side of the car and see daylight through it. I have seriously never seen a rustier vehicle still licensed and operating on public roads. A minor fender bender would have turned it into a pile of rubble.
There’s one too many zeros in that price.
For reasons I have been unable to discern, my grandparents bought this exact version in the mid-late 70s. My grandfather was driving Continentals at the time, and my grandmother had Country Squires. The Maverick (which I remember being in a dark green) was her car, and I suspect it replaced the Country Squires since no school aged children had lived in the house since 1963.
Fast forward to the mid-’80s and “Old Greenie” was still sitting around as a third car. By then, my grandparents had an ’83 and ’86 Grand Marquis. My parents’ Chevette broke down with alarming frequency and “Old Greenie” was therefore pressed into service in our family. Dad was a professor and was also working a study for the state, so he had a state car to drive around. Mom was not so lucky. During that era she had the “pleasure” of switching between a frequently-serviced Chevette with iffy everything and an aging Maverick with iffy brakes. I’m not sure what I would choose….
I was trying to answer your question in my mind (Chevette or Maverick) when I suddenly remembered one of the Maverick’s most irritating traits: Do you remember the way that the two windshield wipers were never quite in sync? There was always slop in the linkage so that one wiper always followed about an inch behind the other one. Mustangs and Ford pickups also suffered from this design that drove me absolutely crazy.
you know, this is a car I never can generate any feelings for, it is utterly devoid of attraction for me.
For half the asking price might give it a whirl depending on what all is broken on it.
Such names for the colors….AntiEstablishMint….Hula Blue….Freudian Gilt…was Statutory Grape available?
Just wondering…
Seeing this made me smile a little. Thanks, Ed!
There were loads of the Maverick / Comet twins around when I was growing up. Of course, I was more into the GM brands, but I actually kinda liked the looks of these Fords. Back then, there was no mistaking a Maverick for a Nova or a Valiant. Not like today’s jelly bean cars.
Here’s hoping this old girl finds a good home. (And a half-decent paint job!)
I read alot of CC from Friday and the weekend on Monday morning because I am off every other Friday. I wanted to buy a two door Comet in 1980, but found out that I would have to sit behind the wheel on the base of my spine. 6’9″ tall.
This was a seriously old car when it was new, They were fleet specials (my Dad dreaded getting these as rentals), loss-leaders and strippers from the moment the Granada hit the dealers, and weren’t much liked by anybody even back in the day. ‘Tis not holy, ’tis merely old….
I WILL MAKE OFFER 700 IF YOU STILL HAVE THE CAR