This shot could have been taken near any university or college campus in the past 40 years: a slightly beat-up Maverick in front of a tired old student rental house. I remember a girl down the street in Iowa City in 1976 whose parents sent her off to the U of I in one like this. And here it is 2017, and kids ares still driving them here at the U of O. What’s the appeal?
Beats me, as I was never a big Maverick fan. But there are explanations. Back then, it was parents who didn’t yet trust their daughters in one of them furrin’ jobs. Today, the Maverick is mighty cool in a sea of furrin’ jobs. Especially an orange one. What more is there to say?
It’s not the only one like this I’ve seen students driving recently. Two years ago, I posted another one, a yellow two door. But the color combination of this Mav’ and the house behind it is so…1974.
At least the four door has a semi-decent back seat, unlike the coupe.
The front seat shows a wee bit more wear than the rear. And both have a surprising little touch of Non-Anti-Establishment Di-Noc on their doors.
The orange highlight around the maverick badge is a nice touch. Wonder what spicy engine is hiding behind the plastic grille.
Makes for quite the contrast with the house (and cars) next door. A true time-traveler.
? Is that original paint ? .
.
If so, sweet .
.
These were sturdy and reliable if nothing else to offer .
.
I liked the mustard yellow color many fleet mavericks had .
.
-Nate
It runs. And it’s paid for.
In an Anti-Establishment way…today in many cases the Establishment is the Millenials…it shows the owner isn’t just another Sheeple.
Nope. The establishment is largely Gen X. I get to shake my fist at the Boomers above me and Millennials below me.
You can tell that much from just one of a person’s belongings? I’m skeptical.
Pretty sure I saw this vehicle when I was in Eugene last Sunday and it sure is neat in person.
I drove a few Mavericks back in the day and was endlessly reminded where Ford cut corners with this car. Sturdiness is the Maverick’s only real virtue, otherwise it was forgettable and dull. The only Mav that spikes my interest at all is the Brazilian wagon version.
What is the appeal?
Back in the day, they represented the cheapest transportation option. Cheap to buy and maintain. Plus, anyone with a couple of tools could fix it. If you took thrift seriously, this was your car.
This remained the case for a long time. The Mav has persistently resisted becoming attractive to collectors, hot rodders or enthusiasts. I presume that even hipsters are passing them over in favor of the Falcon. Maybe now as a result of their age and dwindling numbers, they might become collectible (?) Well, maybe not.
Anyway, I’m gussing that this specimen is a hand-me-down from someone’s grandmother. They got it free and it’s a runner. Drive on!
Actually, you are wrong about the Maverick not being popular. Rodders have taken Mavericks and made them into some pretty impressive street machines. Even if a Maverick is easy to work on, that is a virtue in itself. I have a four-door that is blue and was from Texas. It has no rust and was very easy to restore to show condition. At shows it is always the center of attention because it is a car that is rarely restored.
Hi Jasmine,
I accept your points, but I think that a definition of terms is in order. Your car attracts attention (is popular) at car shows because it is a rarity. It is a rarity because it is not popular (few people choose it for a project). This is my point.
Mavericks were produced and sold by the zillions back in the day, along with the contemporary Nova, Dart, Valiant etc. While I concede that you can make a dandy hot rod out of a Maverick, very people do so in comparison to the number of the other cars mentioned, all of which can be found in abundance at any car show or drag strip today.
Hope this makes sense.
The Maverick was marketed as an affordable car that was inexpensive to own and maintain. Magazine ads in 1969 even touted the ease with which an owner could replace a fender with everyday handyman tools, a la the Falcon or the Model T. Ford mightily tried to ignore the Rambler American, claiming the lowest price for an American car on the market…and sold thousands of them. (The American was the better, better-looking, less-expensive, roomier and better-equipped car – including a real glove box, too – but that’s beside the point.)
For first-time buyers, students, secretaries, and all kinds of other buyers this car was the bomb.
So, sort of a modern-day equivalent to the Model A.
Straight forward, honest and simple. It’s what sold a lot of Mavericks.
Still valuable virtues today. But even harder to find.
Well, a Mitsubishi Mirage manual comes close. And in the 90s, the Saturn S. The Cavalier up to 2005.
It is written : Those days are gone.
The Maverick was previously skinned as a Falcon, and next as the Granada. I still remember how disappointed I was when I finally saw my buddy’s “Comet” and it was just a Maverick with funny tail lights.
My high school auto shop teacher had a nice 2 door version. Back then in the early 90’s it was just a used 70’s car. How he managed to keep the rust from eating it away was quite a feat given the winters in southern Alberta it was exposed to. Back then the Mustangs and camaros were the students preferred choice. He was a cheapskate and hated imports so it seemed a good choice. If memory serves it had a v8 and a 4 speed but I could be wrong. I haven’t seen one in the metal for a long time, even here on Vancouver island where old people and their old cars come to retire.
For anyone not in on the reference: the first-year Maverick colors included “anti-establish mint,” “hulla blue,” “original cinnamon,” and “freudian gilt.” That debut brochure also boasts of it being a “great little first car—great for newlyweds—for the campus—for senior citizens too—a great second car—suburban car–city car–fun car.” Which role it served for many Americans, young & old, including brand-loyal folk who wanted something bigger than the Pinto for not much more money.
Because a good number of these were “mom’s” or “senior” cars, you could always find a lowish-mileage one well into the 1990s, even in the rust belt.
I thought that Ford had marketed a “Do It Yourself Manual” of basic repairs for the thrifty Maverick owner, but I see memory was faulty–that was a Pinto thing.
The Maverick market has heated up around here lately. At least for two doors. Now that early Mustangs are so expensive, Mavericks make a reasonable replacement. Anything you can do to a Mustang you can do to this car. There are still original V8 cars out there. The sedan seems to have decent space in the back, it could make a nice little runner. I would guess that this has the 200 six, not a bad motor, just slow and thirstier than you might expect.
The advertising spin on the Maverick at the time was that it was supposed to be “a modern Model T” in that it was billed as basic transportation that was deliberately designed to be easily serviced by the owner. This was a gambit to make the car more appealing than the foreign competiton – why not only were those things weirdly engineered (some of em didn’t even have radiators and their engines were in the trunk!) but they required special wrenches because they all had odd sized nuts and bolts. They called them metric or something. Anyhow you didn’t need em for your Maverick. Uncle Fred could fix ‘er up easy.
Those first year Mavericks were definitely stripped down to the bare essentials to get the price down to compete in the subcompact market until the Pinto was read for production. They sold pretty well, too, with numbers right up there with the first year Falcon, Mustang, and Mustang II. But they were ‘very’ basic in a way that cannot really be comprehended in today’s world where strippos come with A/C, power windows & steering, AM/FM/CD, and a raft of other stuff once reserved for luxury cars.
And if the Maverick wasn’t to your liking, there was an ever more rock-bottom Hornet over at the nearest AMC dealer.
spicy motor on the cheap? 250 ci i6, aftermarket carter yf carb and a free flow muffler!
302 or nothing!
Nope. Integral intake manifold, and little room for headers. Like roger 628 said, 302 or nothing. The 302 wasn’t much heavier and had the potential for a lot more power.
These were aimed at the same market served by the AMC Hornet, Chevy Nova and Chrysler’s Valiant/Dart duo – ie. people on a budget who wanted basic transportation and weren’t too fussy about foreign cars or FWD or anything newfangled, for that matter. But, by the mid-’70s the market was changing after the gas crisis of ’73-’74 and people suddenly wanted more in their smaller cars, hence why Ford came out with the Luxury Decor Option package for the Maverick.
Actually, the LDO was introduced in the Spring of ’72, predating the gas crisis by 18 months.
A six cylinder sedan with an automatic sounds pretty luxurious to me!
Officially we never got Mavericks, probably true Ive only seen a few and they were V8 models and no doubt brought in privately, We got Falcons during this era the large British Fords so loved for many years were gone their last effort the MK4 was a disaster and Ford leaning Kiwis embraced the Australian effort from 66 onwards, kind of a pity the MK4 was a quite advanced design V6 motor 4wheel disc brakes 4 wheel independent suspension, just a bit under baked.
My folks bought a 75 Comet 4 door sedan, brand new, their’s was the ubiquitous 250 6 cylinder with automatic transmission. It was a basic car with “dog dish” hubcaps but came from the factory with whitewalls. It was their first brand new car in 15 years, replacing a 69 LTD with a 390 engine….a real gas guzzler. About halfway through their ownership, I invested in new factory carpeting and a set of Granada/Monarch hubcaps…the old girl looked nearly brand new.
My younger sister had a 74 Maverick with the Luxury Decor Option. A few days after I got it out of the shop with a new paint job and “touch-up” to the vinyl roof and moldings some dimwit hit me in the rear and shoved me into the car in front of me.
Maverick/Comets were fairly reliable cars, if my family is any judge. But the instrument panel made these cars look dated. And the seats, if you had the bench front and rear seats were as flat and inviting as church pews.
An interesting alternative to the same year of Mustang when they are equipped with the same engines and transmissions. However, the 70s Valiants/Darts are more….”charming” and the GM compacts are just plain better cars all around.
I’d say the Valiant and Darts were better than either the Fords or GMs, but especially the Fords. The orig Maverick was so cheap that it has a tray instead of a real glove box. Like the orig Falcon it was underneath, it was just inferior.
An uncle and aunt and both, the 1970 Valiant and 1972 Maverick. The Maverick had a steering wheel that appeared to be installed canted to the right. The Valiant lasted well into the 1990’s w/ little to repair while the Maverick was disposable and lasted just a few years. The Maverick’s success was extremely short-lived.
Never liked these and nearly 50 years hasn’t changed much. The swoopy styling seemed a step back, functionally and aesthetically from the Mk II Cortina and Falcon that it replaced in the US, and the later 4 door version wasn’t much better … though I’ll say that the wheelwell detailing may have presaged the look of current Mazda 3’s, the latest Chevy Cruze, some Hyundais and probably more. Also, unlike most cars of the time, there never was a sporty version of the Maverick, so no replacement for the Cortina GT or Falcon Sprint. The vinyl-topped Luxury Decor Option, LDO, was a poor attempt at broughamization. And finally, I did drive one, a friend’s mom’s 6 cylinder with three-on-the-tree, and it was not only dynamically abysmal, but the driving position and visibility were awful; you sat deep in a dark hole, barely able to see over the dash or over your shoulder. Such a contrast to my sister’s Cortina. Nevertheless, good to see one still on the road and being used. And I like this color.
The “sporty” Maverick was the Grabber, replaced by the Stallion in 1976. Visual effects only, although certainly available with the 302. https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/mus/2009/09/1971–75-Ford-Maverick-Grabber/1932911.html
Mavericks were cool enough as a small car for the time, although the Nova handled better. The interior quality seemed more basic yet sturdier than our family ’75 Dodge Dart.
Woodgrain on the door panels, which of course were different between body styles. I guess the thought was that a four-door buyer would be less Anti-Establish Mint than coupe buyers.
This car is equipped with the Interior Decor Group, which was a mid-level option between the base and the LDO.
I’ve always said that the options make the car in this case. Take a 4-door, check every box including the LDO option, V8 and AC, and it was a passable car. Anything less, not so much.
It also has to be a 1974, the first year of the big bumpers and the last year of that steering wheel.
if this is a ’74, God have mercy on the owner!!!
My Dad had a ’74 four door Comet with the identical black interior with a 302 V8. That car would hesitate, stall, hiss, surge….everything but run!!. Also, 1974 was the year of the dreaded Interlock system which required you to buckle up before starting the car. My duty as the “youngest” son was propping the hood and pressing the interlock button whenever Mom failed to buckle up prior to Dad turning the key.
Based on the above, Dad’s next three cars in the driveway were Toyotas or Nissans.
It’s a 1975 or 1976. Ford punched twin holes in a lot of their cars’ front bumpers those years. I had a 1974 Coupe, it did not have the twin holes in the front bumper.
It looks like the front bumper may have been replaced, the filler panel on the front is silver rather than matching the body color like it should and does have in the rear.
Scoutdude: It seemed to vary. Mine had an argent filler panel in front, but it was a cheapo 1974 six cylinder coupe in light blue originally. My buddy’s 4 door 1974 Comet had a matching green front valance. Another friend’s dark green LDO 1975 Maverick 4 door had the argent filler panel. Yet another friend’s 1976 cheapo 4 door brown Maverick had the brown filler panel. Just take a look at Google Images and you can see what I mean.
I don’t know if it was a year to year difference or possibly a plant or supplier issue, but there seems to be no easily discernable pattern with those valances.
You may (or may not based on history) be happy to know that there are still a shocking number of clean Mavericks (mostly sedans too) bumbling along in the Dubuque tri-state area.
Not a Maverick, but.. I had the dog out for our Sunday ride & hike today near New Vienna, Ia. We got to see a mint 1975 Dart sedan being driven by what I’m assuming were the original owners.
Really, is a Maverick any less dull than a Corolla, Yaris, Cruze or Cobalt? And now it’s so old that it’s cool.
Nope, not at all.
I’ve noticed seeing a lot more of these at shows recently. Theres also a red 73 coupe And a brown sedan I see around here.
I bought a ’72 Maverick two-door new. It had the 170 six and a stick on the column. 120,000 miles later it was still running like new.
The Maverick replaced a 1969 Saab 99, which was a wonderful car to drive when it wasn’t in the shop. The Saab had that wonderful “freewheeling” where you could let off the gas and shift without the clutch. It was also my first encounter with radial tires, and if you haven’t experienced bias-ply tires, you won’t understand how impressed I was.
However, that Saab had a triumph 4-cyl engine and other issues that were COSTLY to fix, and frequently needed fixing. Ultimately, a mechanic at the Saab dealership took me aside and pointed out his old Mustang sitting in the parking lot. “For the cost of that transfer gear you just replaced in your Saab, I can buy the entire drivetrain of that Mustang.” I got the hint.
The Maverick was an inexpensive car and the small engine worked just fine with the stick, which has always been my preference. I drove the Maverick all over the country, sailing along comfortably at 80 mph and getting mileage probably as good as a VW bug — upper 20s or whatever.
I good car in my opinion.
Wow…last year for the 170. Do you still have the VIN somewhere, like a old insurance card? I’m making a engine/transmission chart off Marti Reports. I’d buy the Marti for yours so I could add those figures to the chart. Pretty sure the 170 was very rare in it”s last year. But probably not as rare as the 200/3-speed in my 75 Comet…out of 31,060 built that year only 388 had that drivetrain.
The appeal then was that it was an inexpensive Ford sedan at a time when brand preferences were much more set than they are now. For those who wanted (or could only afford) a small Ford, well, this was the car. After the Pinto came along there were still some folks out there who considered it too small or didn’t want a 4 cylinder engine. The Maverick was the compact for Ford people. I never saw much to love about it other than this.
Now, they are cool. Just like all cars of their era are cool. I think the Maverick was a better looking car than the contemporary Nova and more sporty than the Mopar A body cars. Maybe these have become popular with kids now because they have been the least loved and thus probably some of the least expensive cars of the 70s.
I’d say the Maverick looked sporty but the Mopars dusted it – like the Falcon it was, the Maverick was not a handler.
The Duster did both – it looked sporty and out-handled.
I had a neighbor years ago that owned a Maverick Sedan (that was canary yellow) and coupe (that was light blue with a vinyl top) he loved them. The sedan was in great condition and had been Maryland(home of the rock salt extravaganza) owned since new.
When I started at my current job back in 2008, there was a guy that I worked with that owned 7 of them. He loved these things and was a diehard Maverick fan
If I could find a nice sedan version of it, I would drive it.
IM (less than) HO the ’74-’77 Maverick had by far the worst of the worst 5 mph bumpers. It’s like no one gave a sh*t and just threw on whatever was lying around. “Hey, we got these old guard rails here, why not throw them on that Maverick over there?” “Sounds good to me!” … sheesh.
Ford in general. The Pinto and Torino were equally bad
My first car was a ’74 Pinto and IMHO the bumpers on it weren’t nearly as bodacious as the battering rams on the Maverick and Comet. YMMV, of course 🙂 .
mom had a 73 mav clean as a pin nicely equipped bought from a used car lot
35 thousand miles disintegrated from rust as it sat in the driveway
literally broke in half
I had a ’73 Pinto that did that, it was all of 8 years old at the time.
I had a ’72 coupe that i bought in ’74 strictly for transportation purposes. Which it did quite well until I totaled it a few years later.
My previous comment was pretty critical, but I can’t resist sharing one more Maverick memory that just sprang to mind. In December 1976 I was a soon-to-be-degreed senior Mechanical Engineering student. Ford flew me out to Dearborn from California, for a full day of interviews. One of the engineers drove me to another site in his nearly new, but already rusty, Maverick and told me about the great employee discount that Ford offered. I don’t think there was a single Ford I would have wanted to drive, let alone own, in model year 1977, though I did see Fox prototypes that day and was pretty impressed. Ford made me a good offer but I turned them down. Footnote: my own car at the time was a Vega (GT hatchback, 4 speed).
My dad had a ’72 Pinto followed by a ’74 Vega GT. He said the Vega was far more fun to drive than the Pinto but the Pinto was far more reliable. That Vega just plain disintegrated after only 5 Cleveland winters! Heck, I got my license in the spring of ’79 and by then the Vega was unsafe to drive and had been junked!
The LDO versions of this and its Mercury sister the Comet were luscious Euro-Broughamed hybrids with their vinyl roofs, leather-like reclining buckets and faux woodgrain dashboards.
My mom had a 1976 Mercury Comet that I drove when I got my license in 1978. Blue paint with a White top 4-door. I’m 6’3″ and I could ride ok in the rear seat. Much more comfortable than our old 1971 Pinto 2-Door she got when she divorced dad. I got pulled over for speeding and the cop said, ” Did you know you were doing 98 in a 55 m.p.h. zone?” I said, ” No. The speedometer only goes up to 85 m.p.h.” Oops. He wrote me up for 64 in a 55 which was an ‘Energy Speed’ Violation which carried no points on my license.
I had a 1974 Maverick 2 door that I lavished a lot of attention on back in the early 1980’s. It was a fairly rust free car with super low miles. Grandma owned it before I did; I bought it in 1981(?) it only had about 50K miles on it. I’ve written about this particular car before; I did an engine swap (six to V8) and a nice paint job on the car.
I drove plenty of these compacts back in the late 70’s; my favorite were the A body Mopars. A year before I had the Mav, I had a 1975 Dodge Dart Sport (mit 360!) that I summarily totaled after six weeks of ownership. Several friends had Novas (or clones) and Hornets. Most of the kids I knew had six cylinder Novas, but a couple of my friends had SS Novas. Fast, even stock. The Maverick was seen as an old man’s car.
But the intervening years have changed everyone’s opinion on those cars and now there’s something of a resurgence in popularity of the cars. Maybe they’ll get some respect.
»gurgle« Much as on the Mustang II, I cannot find a single angle from which the Maverick looks good. That upswept rear door beltline makes me want to rinse my eyes with plenty of water; same reaction no matter what car Ford whacked with that particular uglystick (and there were many).
Grandma had a ’71 coupe she bought new. Grabber blue, bucket seats, 302 with auto. I don’t think it had any other options, unless full wheel covers were an option. Definitely no air conditioning or power steering.
My dad was never quite sure how she ended up with the 302. It had a very touchy throttle that made smooth starts difficult. I recall it being solid transportation that lasted until she was no longer able to drive in the early 80s. By then the Iowa winter salt had eaten up most of the panels.