1970 Ford Maverick / Ford Motor Company
Introduced midway through 1969, the 1970 Ford Maverick was Ford’s budget-priced import fighter, offering very basic transportation at a low, low price. The early Maverick had few real virtues, but it was a huge hit, selling more than half a million copies in its first extended model year. Why? Whether by foresight or luck, this mediocre compact managed to be the right car at the right time in a recessionary U.S. economy.
1970 Ford Maverick / Classic Auto Mall
Whenever I go to the grocery store, I inevitably stop in the deli section, which offers a variety of prepackaged, ready-to-eat sandwiches, salads, soups, burritos, etc. Most of this stuff isn’t very good, uninspired and inevitably under-seasoned, but it can be worthwhile if it’s marked down enough. If you need something meal-like that doesn’t require a lot of DIY, but you only have a few dollars in your pocket, a $3 turkey sandwich from the grocery store deli can be awfully compelling, even if it’s a little stale.
1970 Ford Falcon (U.S.) four-door sedan / Ford Motor Company
Speaking of stale sandwiches naturally brings to mind the 1970 Ford Maverick, a compact sedan that more or less took the place of the U.S. Ford Falcon. (The outgoing Falcon was still available during part of the Maverick’s first year, but it was on its way out.) In mechanical terms, the Maverick was essentially an early (1960–1964) Ford Falcon with all the crusts cut off, dressed up with new, Mustang-ish styling and the various updates required for compliance with federal safety and emissions standards.
1970 Ford Maverick / Ford Motor Company
Ford was quick to insist that the Maverick wasn’t actually a cut-down Falcon, but rather a new platform on which the company had spent a reported $100 million. However, the Maverick certainly had a lot of Falcon pieces in its new and notably less space-efficient package, and it broke absolutely no new ground in engineering or chassis design.
1970 Ford Maverick / Ford Motor Company
This lack of novelty had an upside: The Maverick was cheap. In fact, it was significantly cheaper than the original 1960 Falcon. When the old bird launched back in late 1959, it had a rock-bottom base price of $1,912 in two-door sedan form. In 1969 dollars, that was equivalent to about $2,370. When the Maverick debuted in the spring of 1969, its sticker price was just $1,995, which was about 15 percent less on an inflation-adjusted basis.
The 1960 Ford Falcon had been developed with singularly rigid cost and weight controls, overseen and frequently micromanaged by the Bean Counter Supreme himself, Ford group VP (and briefly Ford president) Robert S. McNamara, and it had actually weighed about 150 lb less than the smaller Maverick. (The final 1970 iteration of the compact Falcon, pictured above, had grown in the interim, and weighed about 400 lb more than the original Falcon.)
1960 Ford Falcon Tudor sedan / Mecum Auctions
In other words, Ford had taken a package that was already pinching pennies hard enough to flatten them and somehow managed to squeeze 375 additional inflation-adjusted constant dollars out of it. That was rather remarkable, and it went some way to explaining why the Maverick was such an uninspired car to drive, ride in, or live with. At such prices, it was hardly surprising that Ford expected you to supply your own mayonnaise.
But what about that price, huh? Just $1,995 FOB, at a time when the average new car cost around $3,400. (According to the CPI inflation calculator, the base price of the Maverick was the equivalent of $17,582 in April 2025 dollars, which is approximately the base price of a 2025 Nissan Versa sedan.) For comparison, the cheapest Mustang started at $2,618 in 1969 and $2,721 in 1970.
1969 Ford Mustang hardtop with the 200 cu. in. six and three-speed stick / Bring a Trailer
Talking about economic statistics, this seems like a good time to mention the state of the U.S. economy in the period when the Maverick arrived. The leading economic indicators in this period were not good: The U.S. was burning huge amounts of money on its adventures in Southeast Asia, and things at home were getting economically shaky even by the end of 1969. The average person was feeling the pinch: Personal income growth had slowed, while the cost of goods and services had risen. Unemployment also grew considerably between May 1969 and the first half of 1970.
Department of Labor, Council of Economic Advisers, July 1970
This period was also shaped by certain relevant population trends. A significant number of Baby Boomers were in their early 20s by 1969–1970: U.S. Census data estimates that in 1970, about 12 percent of the U.S. population — some 24.7 million Americans — was between the ages of 18 and 24. Some of those Boomers had now kids of their own (Generation X began around this time), but in general, they didn’t yet have much income, especially young women. (In March 1970, median income for a family headed by a woman under 25 was only $2,454.) They also didn’t have an abundance of credit, forcing them to set their sights lower when it came to large purchases.
In a country as dependent on the automobile as the United States, there are always people who need a new car even when the economy is awful. Much like the marked-down grocery store sandwich, the cheapskate car takes on an added appeal in such conditions that it doesn’t have when times are flush, and so it proved for the Maverick. In 1969–1970, the price of a new Maverick would have bought a nicer late-model used car, but buying used meant doing without a new-car warranty (for however much THAT was worth in this era), it risked inheriting someone else’s problems, and credit terms were usually less favorable on used cars than on new ones. So, in those respects, a basic car like the Maverick seemed like a safer bet.
1970 newspaper ad for Wilmington Ford in Wilmington, Mass.
Judging by the sales trends, the priorities of relatively low-income domestic car buyers in this period were “cheap” and “at least sort of sporty-looking, so I don’t have to be completely mortified to be seen in it,” not necessarily in that order. Of course, some buyers coveted pony cars or hot intermediate Supercars, but it was hard to get into the former for much under $3,000 by this time, while the latter could run to $4,000 or more, and the cost of car insurance would really break the bank even if the payments didn’t.
A six-cylinder 1970 Plymouth Valiant Duster started at $2,172
There were several domestic choices that met these criteria: the Chevrolet Nova (which I’d personally be mortified to be seen in, but seemed to go over well at the time); the new Plymouth Valiant Duster; and the Maverick, all of which became big sales winners at this time. Of the three, the Maverick was probably the least competent as an actual car, but it was also the cheapest, and it was very aggressively marketed, so it sold the best for 1970.
Ford Maverick Versus Rivals, Model Year Production
| Model Year | Ford Maverick | Plymouth Duster | Chevrolet Nova |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 578,914 | 217,192 | 307,280 |
| 1971 | 271,897 | 186,478 | 194,878 |
| 1972 | 254,964 | 228,012 | 349,733 |
| 1973 | 291,675 | 264,974 | 369,509 |
| 1974 | 301,048 | 277,409 | 390,537 |
| 1975 | 162,572 | 118,210 | 272,982 |
| 1976 | 139,687 | 34,681 | 334,728 |
| 1977 | 98,506 | — | 365,264 |
Ford gave themselves a head start by launching the Maverick about six months early, in the latter part of the 1969 model year. Despite that, all early Mavericks were certified as 1970 models, which Ford claimed “keeps trade-in value higher, longer.” Judging by contemporary Kelley Blue Book values, the trade was not persuaded — initial Maverick residuals were lower than Nova or Duster — but it let Ford rack up an impressive model year production total of 578,914 cars.
The Maverick had no gauges except speedometer and fuel / Classic Auto Mall
Because Ford pushed the $1,995 price tag so hard, early Mavericks were very sparsely equipped. According to Automotive Industries, 50.6 percent of the cars sold during the 1969 model year had the standard three-speed manual transmission; among American cars of this period, only the Corvette and AMC AMX had higher manual transmission installation rates. By the time the normal 1970 model year began, 71.9 percent of Maverick buyers were ponying up (sorry) for either the semiautomatic transmission (available only with the base 170 engine, for about $121) or SelectShift Cruise-O-Matic (at about $174, later raised to $201). You could replace the standard 170 cu. in. six with the 200 cu. in. version for an extra $26, or later the 250 cu. in. version for $84. Other options were few: an AM radio, various tire choices, and some minor dress-up stuff (including the obligatory vinyl roof and some paint colors with silly names like “Anti-EstablishMint”).
1970 Ford Maverick with aftermarket Hurst shifter / Classic Auto Mall
There was no V-8 option at first, although the buff books, salivating, noted that a 302 or 351 would drop right in, making for a potentially Supercar-killing bomb. (Motor Trend installed a Boss 302 engine, four-speed, and 3.91 axle, creating a Maverick capable of running the quarter mile in the low 14s at more than 100 mph.) However, Ford wasn’t in any hurry to do that officially — the point was low-cost transportation that almost anyone could afford. Ford marketed the Maverick as “a great little first car. Great for newlyweds. For the campus. For senior citizens, too.”
The cloth inserts in the early Maverick’s cloth-and-vinyl upholstery were available in red, blue, or black Tartan print / Streetside Classics
Ford seemed to have been thinking of senior citizens in the Maverick’s chassis design, which was soft and flopsy in the same manner as the early Falcon. Road & Track called the Maverick’s shock damping “watery,” and with slow manual steering requiring more than 5 turns lock-to-lock (power steering wasn’t offered until late in the 1970 model year), any quick maneuver required a lot of flailing arms. So long as you didn’t bruise your elbows on anything, the Maverick wouldn’t do anything very treacherous other than lean precipitously and run out of grip early, but it couldn’t be called “nimble” with a straight face. It was yet another product of Detroit’s near-religious conviction that all buyers really wanted a car that drove like an LTD, regardless of size, price class, market segment, or sporty-looking decals.
The sporty Maverick Grabber package was introduced late in the 1970 model year / Barn Finds
Now, if you subscribed to any car magazines, you might have been aware that for very nearly the same price as a Maverick (just $1 more in 1969), you could have a Datsun 510 four-door sedan, which was a substantially better car with fully independent suspension and front disc brakes (not yet offered on the Maverick at any price). Unlike the Maverick, the 510 was actually fun to drive, while also returning better gas mileage and straight-line performance that was comparable to a Maverick with the optional 200 cu. in. six.
Maverick had no vent windows; power windows weren’t offered / Classic Auto Mall
However, the Maverick wasn’t really a car for buff book subscribers (unless they were scheming to drop a V-8 under the hood). For shoppers who DIDN’T read a lot of car magazines, the Maverick just drove like a car. If the main point of comparison was your mom’s battered 1962 Ranch Wagon six, the Maverick was practically a sports car.
The Maverick had no glove box, just a package shelf under the dash / Classic Auto Mall
Such undemanding buyers might still complain about the Maverick’s uncomfortable bench seats and cramped interior. The Maverick was way down in passenger room and luggage space compared to the original Falcon sedan, a consequence of the shorter wheelbase, long-hood/short-deck proportions, and faster roofline. Trunk space was meager, and there wasn’t even a glove box.
Maverick trunk space was was modest, although with stock tires, the spare was a little less obtrusive / Classic Auto Mall
On the plus side, Maverick looked pretty good, if you squinted a bit (Motor Trend aptly described it as “a $1995 Mustang for people who can’t afford a $2600 Mustang”). It wasn’t too costly to feed (over 20 mpg on regular, decent for a domestic compact with a 2.8-liter six), it was easy enough to maintain even in the hinterlands (a point of reasonable concern for import buyers of this time), and did I mention it was cheap? In a rotten economy, that was enough for a lot of people, and there was a big pool of potential buyers.
1970 Ford Maverick Grabber / Ford Motor Company
In the long run, cars like the Maverick would cost Detroit very dearly. A Maverick buyer in 1969–1970 might not think of comparing it to a Datsun, but sooner or later, many customers began to grasp that imported compacts offered more for the money and weren’t always dismal penalty boxes, setting the stage for the imports to encroach on segments Detroit actually considered “real cars.” The domestic industry was ultimately never able to mount a credible defense for long, and they’ve now retreated almost entirely to trucks.
1970 Ford Maverick / Ford Motor Company
However, in the short term, the Maverick sure looked like the right car at the right time. Overall, the weak economy did a real number on new car sales during the Maverick’s first year: Retail sales of new domestic cars fell by more than 15 percent from 1969 to 1970, and total U.S.-Canadian production for the 1970 model year was down almost 20 percent. However, thanks in large part to the Maverick, Ford managed to hold onto 97 percent of its 1969 volume, not a bad showing in a recessionary year.
1971 Mercury Comet two-door sedan / Ford Motor Company
What the Maverick lacked in inspiration or flavor, it ultimately made up in volume — Ford sold 2,099,263 of them through 1977, plus 487,222 of the similar Mercury Comet.
Ford Maverick and Mercury Comet Model Year Production
| Model Year | Ford Maverick | Mercury Comet |
|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 578,914 | — |
| 1971 | 271,897 | 83,000 |
| 1972 | 254,964 | 82,359 |
| 1973 | 291,675 | 84,691 |
| 1974 | 301,048 | 125,695 |
| 1975 | 162,572 | 53,858 |
| 1976 | 139,687 | 36,074 |
| 1977 | 98,506 | 21,545 |
1977 Ford Maverick four-door sedan / Ford Motor Company
Related Reading
Vintage Road & Track Road Test: 1970 Ford Maverick – “…They’ve Got To Be Out Of Their Minds” (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1970 Ford Maverick – The Car To Send Your Kid Off To College In, 1969 Or 2015 (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: Ford Maverick – The Simple(ton) Machine (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1971 Mercury Comet – Not a Baby Lincoln (by J P Cavanaugh)
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1968 Datsun 510 – A Legend Is Born (by Paul N)
Vintage R&T Mini-Review: 1969 Datsun 510 Two-Door – “Fewer Doors, A Smaller Price Tag, And Bigger Performance” (by Paul N)
IIRC, 1972 was the first year for both the four-door sedan and the V8, although the V8 might have been available in 1971. Our family bought a 1972 Maverick in 1973 that was a dealer demonstrator and to this day, I consider it the worst car Ford ever made, including the Edsel! The Edsel was uglier and I never drove one, but the Maverick was quite possibly the worst handling car ever made by the Ford Motor Company! That car survived until 1980 only because we were constantly wrenching on it. It finally went away on a flatbed after the second engine, a 200 I6 that replaced the 250 I6 the car was born with, threw a connecting rod! Only the fact that it threw the rod while idling at a stop light kept the engine internals inside the block!
In the US and Canada, it seemed many of us knew, a Maverick or Comet owner.
My brother owned a red ’74 Maverick, with the 250 six, and automatic. There was an extended family member, who owned a four door Comet., with the 302 eight.
The Maverick was an unusual car, in that certain parts, like the doors and hood, were heavy. Lending the false impression, it was a solid, and robust car. Perhaps if you lived in a dry, rust-free region. By the mid 70’s, it looked and felt dated, and near obsolete. My brother’s Maverick electrical system was notoriously vulnerable, to damp weather. With plenty of starting issues, when it was wet out. It also suffered from serious severe premature rusting. It was off the road, by the early ’80’s.
Many other on-going issues with this car, made it an excellent representative, of a malaise car. Cheap to buy, while in need of chronic, regular maintenance. The type of ongoing unreliability, that drove many owners, to makes like Toyota. A list of once top-selling domestic cars, besides the Vega and GM X-Cars, that pushed millions to the Japanese brands. This list would definitely include the Maverick and Comet.
A dismal car indeed. Other than low price, it has no strong points, and lots of weak points. Amazing to think that the Lincoln Versailles sat on the same platform; put the two cars side-by-side in a showroom and sit inside, and I’d never suspect they’re closely related. (driving them, now that’s another matter).
The Duster sales figures come out last vs. the Maverick and Nova every year, but it doesn’t seem fair to compare sales of a car that was only sold as a coupe to two cars that were also sold as 4 door sedans (starting in ’71 for the Maverick). Even if only comparing coupe sales, Plymouth also sold the closely related Scamp in that size/price segment, effectively offering two distinct Valiant coupe body styles whereas Ford and Chevy initially only had one (a Nova hatchback debuted in 1973). I never did understand the intended market for Scamps vs. Dusters, but both qualify for the “cheap but wouldn’t be mortified to be seen driving one” criteria. The Duster looks a bit sportier to my eyes, but I’d certainly wouldn’t consider a Scamp an old person’s car, and it was better looking than a Maverick coupe by far IMO.
I think the only way to make sense of the Duster & Scamp combo is that the Scamp’s body already existed in the Dodge Dart hardtop from 1967. That 111 inch wheelbase car had been a Dodge exclusive from 1967-70. But when Dodge wanted a version of the 108 inch wheelbase Valiant Duster, Plymouth got the Scamp in trade. It was a fairly elegant solution that provided two versions of essentially the same car with two very different styling themes. I always preferred the Scamp/Dart Swinger, myself, but I think I was in the minority.
One of my favorite little tidbits of the 1971 Scamp/Demon switcheroo is how the front and rear side marker lights of each do not match, owing to front ends from the different divisions. IOW, the Scamp used Valiant front fenders on a Dart Swinger body, while the Demon used a Dart front end on a Duster body.
This anomaly went away for 1972 when all Chrysler products (except the full-size C-body) used cheaper, stick-on 3M lenses for the side marker lights.
If I recall correctly, the Duster easily outsold the Scamp, but the Swinger was far more popular than the Demon/Dart Sport.
Although sales were not stellar, I doubt there was much cannabalization going on among the secondary A-body variations and it seems like the Scamp/Demon/Dart Sport was an easy and cheap way to capitalize on the popularity of the Duster and Swinger to garner a few additional sales.
In effect, it was a bit akin to the way that GM would eventually expand the Chevy Nova, first with the Pontiac Ventura, then to the Oldsmobile Omega and Buick Apollo. Something of an anomoly as it was one of those marketing moves that Chrysler jumped on first.
Ford made money off the Maverick & Comet during its entire life cycle.
Yep, the initial run were stripos with manual transmissions, six cylinder engines, and not much else. Yet, Ford was able to amortize the tooling cost with the initial high volume of units. Past this point, the true cost was material & labor.
As time progressed, we saw the Mini-Me LTD syndrome with A/C, V8, four door sedan, power steering & brakes, Luxury Decor Option, white wall tires, etc. The Comet had its own Mini-Me Mercury Marquis moment with the Custom Decor option and the above luxury features.
Give Lido credit, he pulled another rabbit out of his hat with minimal expense. And he did it again with the Granada/Monarch. In the auto business, cash is king!
DISMAL only begins to adequately describe Maverick the car as opposed to Jim Garners Classy Maverick .I reluctantly agreed to a road trip with a friend (c. 74) in his bumpy bare boned Maverick. After the first fifty miles, I wanted to turn around and get my Caprice. But we boldly went where NO man should go traveling on over smooth Interstate, while small bumps resulted in my butt hitting the floor due to lack of seat padding. And my legs were cramped even with the seat back as far as possible. No radio! No Air Conditioning. So open windows brought hot air roaring in preventing any conversation. 1250 miles of torture 😫. I NEVER rode in one again. I agree, it’s impossible to understand how Maverick and VERSAILLES could be related, but Vive Le Difrence! The Peasant Maverick was so revolting, I’m on to VERSAILLES in my Town Car! 😉
Excellent analysis Aaron, as usual. The VW Beetle was at its peak in 1970 with sales of 380,000. Detroit had to respond and it did – with the Maverick, Duster and Nova. All three were perfect examples of how Detroit did business at the time. Give the public a cheap, pleasantly styled car, with ancient, woeful underpinnings. Add in millions in marketing a you have a winner.
The Maverick was a huge hit in 1970 and did offer several perceived advantages over the Beetle, that it marketed aggressively. It featured six cylinders, a fully automatic transmission and true factory A/C. There was also the huge Ford dealer network. A college friend graduated in 1970 and needed a new car. It was either the Beetle or Maverick. His fiancé couldn’t drive a stick and as his new job was in Florida, he wanted A/C. He got the Maverick. Even with automatic, A/C, radio and a few other options it was under $2,500. It was basic, American transportation, nothing more, nothing less. He replaced it around 1977 with a Toyota and never bought American again.
The Nova wasn’t introduced in response to the VW Beetle. It was the evolution of the 1962 Chevy II/Nova, and was a cut above the Maverick in terms of available equipment and overall refinement.
A properly optioned Nova could be a decent, all-around driver. People sought out used Novas in the 1970s.
GM’s response to the late-1960s success of the VW Beetle was the Chevrolet Vega.
Terrible highway car, sure, but that’s not what the car was designed for. It was best strictly as a runaround. I’m sure lots of folks used them for long trips, much to their regret. Those that did on any regular basis would have been much better advised to get a more substantial used car, like a three year old Caprice.
I think that’s being too genereous: Ford made a big deal out of how it was “designed for American driving conditions and greater peace of mind on high-speed turnpikes,” with “ample zip for any size trip, extra margin for safe passing when needed.” It was designed for it (and really there was no earthly reason a car that size, with a 2.8- or 3.3-liter engine, shouldn’t have been capable of highway cruising!) — it just wasn’t very good at it, which summed up a lot of aspects of the Maverick.
Another interesting car in Ford showrooms when the Maverick debuted was the Ford Cortina. The Mk II Cortina sold in the low 20ks in 1968 and 1969, but then sales dropped in half when the Maverick came out. The base Cortina had been priced at around $1850, and I wonder if the Maverick was intended to split the difference between the Falcon and Cortina in both size and price.
Another economic trend was that because of the falling dollar at the time, cars from Germany and Japan started to see their prices go up faster than inflation because of currency valuation issues. This is another point that added to the Maverick’s temporary appeal.
I agree, these cars were grim. And boy did they rust in the midwest.
Exchange rates were not yet a factor in 1969–1970. The exchange rates of the Deutschmark and yen were fixed until late August 1971, at the start of 1972 model year production. Once that changed, the falling dollar became a factor in import car prices, but 850,000 Mavericks (about 40 percent of total production) had already gone out the door by then.
A popular fleet vehicles when the four doors came out .
I rode in, drove and worked on them and still think they’re rubbish .
As mentioned they filled a purse and purpose plus made Ford $ .
-Nate
Ford was in a hurry to get a Beetle-fighter to market beforre GM, and the result was the smaller-than-usual compact Maverick. The uncertainity of that ability is the reason the Falcon continued through the 1969 model year.
It’s worth noting that, like the 1964 1/2 Mustang, there are early 1970 Mavericks and late 1970 Mavericks, with the easy tell being the steering wheel and ignition location. Early 1970 Mavericks retained a dash-mounted ignition switch and a horn ring; later 1970 Mavericks have the government-mandated column-mounted ignition switch and no horn ring.
With that said, the Maverick was a surprise hit for Ford, particularly considering that the arguably better (but smaller) 1969 Beetle was cheaper by $200.
Of course, Ford would later have a problem when their true subcompact Pinto arrived for 1971 and the Maverick had to move upmarket against the larger Chrysler and GM compacts.
By “74-5”, at least some of the noise/rattles of the early on,models was worked out.
Severe rust has a way of fusing parts and fasteners together. 🙂
For those who like nostalgia. I shared this, with an earlier Maverick-related article.
Henry Fonda’s police department member father, and family man, drove an early mustard yellow four door Maverick. In the short-lived, early ’70’s television series The Smith Family.
I’ve marked the YT video to start, when the Maverick makes its appearance.
https://youtu.be/8q7lLwZx5EY?t=162
I think I watched that last time you posted it, what an artifact of its time! The liberal-minded cop vs. the neighborhood hippies, peace and understanding while driving a Maverick. Good times.
Very good brief show summary, Jon! It is interesting how weak ratings, likely affected the show’s basic premise, and themes. Noticeable, from season one to season two.
Season one emphasizing family life. While season two, featured more scenes of active police work.
Hey, I have to say that the lead picture of the red Maverick isn’t a bad looking car shape to my eye. Of course I have never driven one much less ever sat in one. The only compacts, if one calls them that, that I actually sat in and drove for a time were a 74 Duster and 75 Nova company cars. Both sixes and both automatics and I had zero complaints.
In terms of nickels and dimes a Maverick was a good car. There wasn’t anything that would break in normal service. Mine was a 71 Grabber 250 auto. Just drive it – replace a light bulb once in a while – that’s about it.
Apt description. I bought a ’74 with six and stick when it was ten years old. I didn’t really choose it; my Beetle was totaled, I needed a car, and a neighbor was selling it for $600. It had no special qualities. Not comfortable, not fun, not lively, just cheap and reliable.
It certainly is “Right Dismal”. Although I will admit that the first image, of what seems to be a very base car manages to look a LOT better than the same trimmed car in Ford’s official studio publicity shot that you used further down where it looks a lot sadder.
Having driven a new current generation Nissan Versa that this seems to be the equivalent of budgetarily, I know I’d take a Versa every day today over a Maverick back in those days; while not overwhelming in every regard, the Versa was/is perfectly decent and significantly better than expected transportation on a serious budget.
Back to the Maverick however, every iteration after the first pictured here turns me further and further off. The four door looks just mis-shapen, the later bumpers are horrific, and the fact that it needed a 6 for starters and then an 8 to be competitive is just laughable. Detroit’s eventual 4s only served to generally keep people thinking 4s sucked for two decades more than was necessary, when the reality was that everybody but Detroit had fairly good offerings offering more power with lower displacement, better economy, as well as better reliability.
And of course, nowadays Ford doesn’t offer anything in this class (car) at all in its home market. Reap what you sow indeed.
Nice mention of the Nissan Versa and I had wondered how it faired as the cheapest new car for 2025. Nothing great but it seemed to have the quality and basic equipment one would expect of a modern, new, small sedan with nothing that screams “this is all I could afford!” like, say, the hoary old Chevy Cavalier or Cobalt. IOW, not quite a Corolla, but close.
Sadly, the rumor is the Versa will soon be discontinued with no replacement.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/new-car-review/curbside-review-2020-nissan-versa-sr-orange-you-glad-i-finally-drove-something-reasonably-priced/
I realized the first paragraph of the linked review is just as relevant today as it was five years ago, eerily enough.
It’s still the same basic car as it was then, the cheapest base trim has the same powertrain even if the base price is now almost where the loaded one was five years ago.
Yes, cancellation is my understanding also, too bad, although the Sentra (as well as the Kicks) are only a little more and I enjoyed those as well. However I realize that “only a little more” may well be a mountain too high or a river too deep for some.
Fortunately, all is not lost for a cheap, decent, new entry-level vehicle in the Chevy Trax LS. Yeah, it’s a few grand more than an automatic Versa, but reviews have been very positive.
The only potential negatives are no AWD option and a somewhat underpowered 1.2L turbo 3-cylinder engine. But, otherwise, a very good buy, at least until tariffs increase the price (built in South Korea).
My folks bought a bright yellow ’70 near-stripper (had 200, radio) around 1975 as a 2nd car about the time I learned to drive. This was chosen over a 4-door Thunderbird and a Volvo 144. I was glad to be allowed to drive something, but the experience has shadowed me & my quality of career & life since has been about comparable to the quality of the Maverick as a car..
My parents were one of those drawn in to the 70 Maverick’s price, buying one in Anti-EstablishMINT with auto and full wheel covers in summer 69. That was the car they had when I came along. I rode in the back with a 70s style baby seat for the first couple years, then was released to roll around free back there as my parents philosophy was that seatbelts weren’t needed in the back since you had the soft front seat to bump into.
They had that until 1977. I think they considered it a good car until the last couple years when it was getting pretty rusty and breaking down some. We lived in South Bend, IN and that winter parked on the street it got hit twice, really making it a pathetic hulk. They traded it on a Vega, which was not a smart move. Way worse car for them than the Maverick.
I’d take a 1960 Falcon over a 1970 Maverick any day of the week. The taller roof and airier greenhouse made the inside of a Falcon a much nicer place to be, especially for rear seat passengers.
I was only six years old when these came out but still remember than a playmate’s mom had one. My opinion regarding cars at the time were rather simple: GM good, Ford bad. I heard this from my dad all time, so of course I followed along.
I remember the interior was like a black hole of darkness. My opinion of cars was based how roomy the backseat was. I didn’t like the cramped rear quarters and the small windows.
Now I see the Maverick as a cynical exercise to use an ancient platform yet again.
The basic car may have been out of date but it was a know commodity that was reliable and inexpensive to produce and thus sell. That made it a safe if unexciting purchase.
In the July 30, 1971 I found a base Maverick with V-8 offered for $2094 and what must have been a loaded on stickered for $3175 offered for $2800. There were numerous 1970 6 cylinder/stick shift cars offered around $1500.
btw Let us all remember that today is D-Day.
Mavericks and Comets were very popular in this neighborhood in rural Minnesota, not sure why other than “cheap!”. For some reason the orange color was also popular. Economy was pretty bad in the mid-late 70’s and basic transportation fit the bill. My parents replaced a 73 Buick Electra (a victim of a drunk to the trunk) with a red 1975 four door Maverick, Let me tell you that was a downgrade. Us kids learned to drive in it, local mechanic made bank on replacing clutches as that miserable six seemed to have no low end torque -which wasn’t helped as we normally went everywhere with all five of us stuffed in it. The single barrel carb was prone to frosting up on cool high humidity days so we got used to pulling over when it started to act up and letting it sit for a few minutes so the residual engine heat would melt the frost. Cheap to buy, cheap to run (sort of) and cheap to fix.
Fortunately, all is not lost for a cheap, decent, new entry-level vehicle in the Chevy Trax LS. Yeah, it’s a few grand more than an automatic Versa, but reviews have been very positive.
The only potential negatives are no AWD option and a somewhat underpowered 1.2L turbo 3-cylinder engine. But, otherwise, a very good buy, at least until tariffs increase the price (built in South Korea).
+1 for D day!
Around 1998 bought a ’72 Comet 2 door for $500. 302 auto with PS and AM radio. Manual drum brakes, base interior bench seat, oddly had deluxe exterior trim and bumper guards.
It had carburetor problems and ran rich, got about 15 MPG at best. Only kept it about a year, it didn’t give any other problems in that time. Served its purpose until I sold it for what I paid.
Family friend bought a new ’68 Nova 4 cyl 3 on tree stripper, totaled it after a year or so, I rode in the back seat a few times.
Dad bought a new ’74 Duster stripper, 225 and 3 on tree. I put a AM/FM cassette radio a door speakers in it, he put about 100k miles on it in about 3 years time and it gave him no problems. He paid around $2500 for it.