I spotted this rare specimen as I was dropping my toddler at nursery school, and came back hoping for a nearby parking spot close to the express subway.
Completely, utterly unexpected fifty year old compact domestic coupe on a major street in Queens, NY. It’s just the second Maverick I’ve seen in thirty-five years. The other one was in front of a body shop in Maspeth, and an interloper from the Poconos.
I thought salt got them all.
The car was surprisingly clean, but I was wearing an expensive wool suit and could not kneel to check underneath for rust.
The label is accurate.
Curbside, but is it a classic?
Did they have problems with the hood latches?
That looks like it would hurt.
Author’s Subaru for comparison. Seven hundred pounds difference.
I never liked the Maverick. It was supposed to replace the Falcon (and shared some of it’s “bones”) but it had really poor space utilization that could barely seat 4 people, much less 5 or 6.
Much like Chevy did with the Vega, Ford favored “sporty” lines over space efficiency, to the detriment of practicality. That’s a dumb idea in a compact or subcompact.
When the Granada replaced the Maverick it was an incredible improvement.
There were many large families that used Mavericks as their daily rides and filled them with kids of differing ages. Being crammed into a back seat without a seat belt, was a daily occurrence. Parents cracked open the window to let their cigarette smoke vent out as they drove. Sure, it wasn’t optimal, but we’re talking about a sporty car that cost less than $2000 and was pretty dependable.
But why would you redesign a car that’s worse at its job? Ford was going for value here, and usefulness goes along with that.
When Ford designed the Maverick to reach this market, it didn’t matter to them whether the young ladies who bought it by the hundreds of thousands were mothers with children. Lots of young women in 1970 had children right after graduating from High School. Lots of young ladies loved buying small sporty looking cars like these. My mom still loves small sporty cars. I rode in the back seat of Beetles, Camaros, and Pintos. Few kids thought about getting their own captain’s chairs with a DVD player, or mobile phone like they do now.
It was a different time. In many ways, a better time.
The assumption was that anyone who used the back seat regularly, at least for medium-to-large size people, would get the four-door which offered actual rear headroom as well as the original Falcon wheelbase.
Or a Nova or Duster.
By the time I came along it worked, it seems by the early ’80s most surviving Mavericks belonged to grandparents who had the 4-door, like the elderly lady down the street from my childhood home (bright blue metallic, big bumpers) or the two-tone beige Comet my cousin’s grandparents had. And the pool of “sporty” 2-door ’70s-era compacts used as kid haulers was distinctly General Mopar.
But wasn’t there a gap (1971) until you could buy the 4 door? Unlike the Falcon, the Maverick was introduced as a 2 door only, though eventually the 4 door was available. My co-worker on my first job out of college had one of the 4 doors.
Likewise, didn’t it take a year (1972) for the Pinto wagon to debut? Think I recall even that the first Pintos weren’t hatchbacks, but had a small trunk, though I think the hatchbacks were still in the same year, just delayed. I think the Pinto had front disc brakes, but Maverick came with drums on all 4 wheels.
Never drove a Maverick…I worked for Hertz as a transporter the last year they were offered (1977) and at least my location didn’t have any Mavericks (nor even a Pinto as I recall). I found this odd since the next year when the Fairmont came out, I also worked for Hertz and the Fairmont was very popular rental at least at my location. We still had the Granada, the LTDII was popular, but no Mavericks. Thought it would have been an inexpensive offering to rent out.
I remember the launch…$1995.00 This one looks to have a grabber hood and the front blade bumper seems to have taken a low speed smash hit. Another sign that brought about the big bumpers of 74. They are rare, even here in salt free Phoenix.
This one has had a later 1973+ grille retrofitted to a car with a 1970-72 front bumper. From 1970 to 72, the turn signals were mounted under the bumper, inside the lower valence panel. The Federal 5 mph bumpers got fitted to the front only in 1973, the rear bumper got the 5 mph impact treatment a year later, in 1974. The turn signals were moved above the bumper in 1973, so the bumper would protect the turn signals as well. 1974 also saw the disappearance of the interior “package shelf” under the dashboard, as a proper “glove box” was finally fitted.
These were incredibly popular. They were priced right, shaped right, and perfect for the American market in 1970. It took the same parts that created the Mustang, and updated a more inexpensive version, as the Mustang itself became larger and more expensive.
The interior is mostly formed plastics which in 1970 appeared modern, safe and new. Most Americans at that time had learned to enjoy the variabilities of molded plastics throughout their homes and most new products were engineered using these same materials.
There were many compromises with Mavericks, but these are cars priced at under $2000 new. Cute, cheap and plentiful. Ford had not yet known how well the Pinto would be received, so it wisely hedged its bet with this vehicle. As the popularity of the Pinto, Granada and Mustang II absorbed what was once Maverick’s market, the Maverick production was ended.
It doesn’t look like much now, but it was a perfect product at a perfect time.
The Ford Pinto/Mercury Bobcat were sub-compacts, competing with the Chevy Vega, but it had the same $1995 base price as the larger Maverick. The Maverick was a compact, competing with the Chevy Nova and its BOP variants, along with the Mopar entries, the Plymouth Valiant/Duster and Dodge Dart/Demon. The mid-size step ups were the Ford Torino/Mercury Motego, competing with the Chevy Chevelle and its corporate cousins, along with the Plymouth Satellite and the Dodge Coronet. The full-size match-ups were: Ford Galaxie 500/LTD/Mercury Marquis versus the Chevy Impala/Caprice and its corporate cousins, against the Plymouth Belvedere and Dodge Polara.
Maverick production ended in 1977 when Fairmont was introduced for 1978 model year. A much more rational car, but quickly outdated when GM introduced the 1980 X body 18 months later.
…which fell apart 8 months later, like my Citation in 1981.
I had three Fox body Fords, from 1981 to 1993. I wouldn’t say that they were outdated.
I only say outdated because Fairmont sales dropped rapidly after X car debuted. I would prefer a Fairmont over an X car. Sometimes I think I would have preferred Ford to continue updating the Fox platform instead of introducing Taurus. I definitely prefer the boxy, austere Falcon over the Maverick.
Yes, it would’ve been great if Ford hadn’t completely flipped the market and built a game-changing car that proved Americans could produce a car equal to or better than anyone else in the segment. It would’ve been nice to watch Ford go down in flames, trying to sell a 1978 Fairmont against a 1988 Accord. Such a missed opportunity to destroy the company.
My folks bought used a ’70 with the 200 six, otherwise base, manual everything. It just reeked of ‘cheap’, although the powertrain was adequate. The budget was low… a car Dad passed up was a ’68 four-door T-bird… now that would’ve been something!
This one has had some minor upgrades, since grille-mounted front turn signals from a later Maverick (1973 to 1978) have been fitted, replacing the original below the bumper signal assemblies that a 1971 example would have had. We did the same thing on our 1972 four-door sedan, as the later signals are much nicer looking, and more visible to oncoming traffic, a nice safety upgrade. It’s a simple bolt-in swap, anyone who can turn a wrench can do it in under half an hour.
Also, the original front seat belts, with the “hook and eye” shoulder belts are gone, replaced by inertia-reel retractable three-point lap and shoulder belts in the front seats. New after-market replacement belts to perform this upgrade are available. You can also source replacements from a junked later model example, but I don’t recommend that, as the belt webbing weakens with age and fifty-plus year-old junkyard parts could fail in a crash. Not good, IMHO.
I may have made a slight error in my earlier post. Yes, the front seat belts have been replaced with inertia reel units (the originals were friction adjustable, without inertia reels), but it appears that the original shoulder belts are just hanging by their mounts beside the door, not folded up in the roof-mounted storage clips. The lap belts can just be seen in the photo, fastened to their latches on the front seat, so you can sit on the belts without wearing them. The new lap belts don’t have the “hook-and-eye” keyhole tab to attach the shoulder harness to the lap belt in any case, so the shoulder belts are completely inoperable and useless.
Another possible error was saying the grille-mounted turn signals were an addition from a later Maverick. If the hood is OEM, then it’s a Maverick Grabber.
IIRC, the Grabber got Mustang Mach 1-like dual sets of grille and below bumper turn signals.
Amazing how low and wide it looks in the lead photo in comparison to the Jeep and other modern vehicles. A great find in really nice shape.
I also just noticed that this example had the center vents and outboard “eyeball” vents that strongly suggest the presence of factory air conditioning, a very rare option in a car with a $1995 base price in 1970-72. Air conditioning was generally only seen in Southern cars, as it was a pricey $600 option in the early 1970’s, if my memory serves me correctly. That meant that A/C cost about 25% of the base price, about $5000 on a $20,000 car in today’s money! Southern cars generally needed it, due to the long, hot summers south of the Mason-Dixon line, but it really sucked the horsepower out of the base six-cylinder engine. As a result of the power penalty, the 302 V8, which was another rare Maverick option, may have been fitted, to compensate for the drag of the A/C compressor on the engine. I wish I could get a look under the hood of that example!
In that shot, you can also see the el-cheapo lack of glove box and open under-dash package tray. How Ford got to $1,995.
You’re a little high on the cost of A/C for these cars. Here’s the window sticker for my 1972 LDO: A/C was $362.73
Guilty as Charged! That’s what happens when you get old, the memory is the first thing to go! LOL! In my own defense, that’s still a lot of money in 1972 dollars. It’s still the equivalent of about $3600 in today’s money.
I’ve seen one Marti report where out of the 579K 70’s built, only 34k had factory AC. I don’t think I’ve seen a 71 or 72 Marti with that info yet, but I’ll look. I’ve been downloading online Marti’s for years making a engine/transmission chart and collecting other data on them.
I love the script on the badge. So ’70s!
Great find. This may be the nicest one left.
I’ve always thought the tail lights on both the Maverick and the Pinto looked like they raided the Ford pickup parts bin and just turned them 90 degrees. Sure beats making a new design, given that both cars were so basic…?
The bumpers, side marker lights gas tank and door handles also seem to be recycled first-generation Mustang parts. Note the plastic shelf along the bottom of the passenger side dash that substituted for a proper glove box in the early 1970-73 versions. Later models were equipped with a proper glove compartment, a nice upgrade over the cheesy plastic shelf that rattled and allowed all of your paperwork (owner’s manual, registration card etc.) to slide all over the place in turns, until it all fell off of the shelf and onto the floor, LOL!
Actually in the 70-mid 73 package tray Mavericks the owners manual and vinyl envelope fit into a clip that was part of the front seat frame on the passenger side.
My Mom’s 1972 Maverick Four-door was purchased used from a dealer. It was a dealer demonstrator, and we never got an owner’s manual, let alone the little poly bag and clip to hold all of your paperwork!
The tail lamps were unique to the Maverick, and later the Pinto and Mercury Bobcat… with the Bobcat getting extra reflectors on the inside that mirrored the tail lamps. The general shape does look similar to the Ford trucks (especially the 1973-79 F-Series), but they are quite different when placed side by side. Brazilian produced Mavericks got slightly more decadent tail lamps (pictured below).
^ The side markers were new for 1970, incorporating both a light and a reflex reflector as was required starting January 1, 1970. The side markers on 1969 Mustangs (and many other Ford products that year) were smaller, and used an amber bulb behind a clear lens up front. As with ’69, the 1970 side markers were used across much of FoMoCo’s lineup that year. They appeared again on 1971 Torinos and T-Birds, but were used all the way through 1977 on Mavericks and Comets. Also, these side markers (both front and rear) were wired to flash with the turn signals on many, but not all 1970 Fords that used this particular lamp. This seemed to be deployed halfheartedly, and was mostly given up after the 1970 model year… though I have seen 1971 and 1972 Mavericks with them wired as such. The next time Ford had side markers that flashed with the turn signals was on the 1986 Taurus (front only).
Those taillights are from the Lincoln-Mercury sister to the Maverick, the Mercury Comet! The Comet predates the Maverick, debuting at the same time as the Ford Falcon (1960), but from 1970 on, the Comet and Maverick were essentially the same car, only the taillights and grill were changed, to give the slightly pricier Mercury a more “upmarket” appearance, to justify the higher price.
Ah, the Maverick: it’s an anti-Vega! No it’s an Anti-VW Beetle! Wait, it’s both! No suspiciously new technology like aluminum engine in the Vega*, but good old reliable American iron! Simple to repair as a Bug – you can do it all yourself- but roomy and comfier than the VW.
As VanillaDude says above, the Maverick really hit a sweet spot. I knew several people in their early 20’s who bought them as were happy. The Vega buyers -not so much after a couple years anyhow.
*The Vega was still at least theoretically wonderful in 1970, but suspicious none the less. In 1970, Americans were most familiar with aluminum as foil, not car parts. Seemed like a bad idea, and in the Vega anyhow, turned out it was.
A car I hated when it came out; it seemed so impractical as a two door coupe to replace both the Falcon and (in the US market) Cortina. But for a 50 year old coupe the styling looks pretty nice now. Unfortunately, my only brief drive in a three-on-the-tree 6 cylinder Maverick in the mid-seventies was a pretty miserable experience. Soggy controls, 5 or 6 turns lock-to-lock of vague steering, and a bench seat so low that trying to see over the dash made 20 year old me feel like a shrunken old person peering over the dash of a sixties Buick.
Amen Brother! Do I hear a witness? Don’t forget the “wonderful” run-on engine feature, where the engine would Diesel for twenty minutes after you turned the key off, courtesy of the primitive early emission-control systems on all 1970’s-era Detroit iron! Add in four-wheel manual drum brakes completely devoid of any feedback from the pedal and enough body roll that you felt like the door handles were scraping the pavement in every turn, made driving one only marginally better than walking or riding a bicycle. The fact that those were my only choices in 1975 made me put up with the horrible driving experience simply because I was driving and not walking!
I can certainly relate to the seating position as well, as I was about 4’11” (59 inches) tall when I took my driver’s test in Mom’s 1972 Maverick at age 16-1/2 in 1975! Dad had special brackets made to raise the front seat and bring it forward so I could drive this POS, but it put the seat so far forward that the RMV examiner almost wouldn’t let me use the car for my driver’s road test! You see, the examiner had to be able to reach the brakes in case I did something stupid during the test, and he wasn’t sure he get his leg over to the brake pedal with the small gap between the seat and the dash. He took pity on me when he saw the crestfallen look on my face and said: “Well, if you don’t mind a few mashed toes, I think we can do it!” I said I could live with that and proceeded to pass the test with flying colors.
Wonder what driving examiners do nowdays with cars with central consoles? Even back then, the car I took my driving test in (actually twice, we moved to another state the next year and because of my age, I had to take a behind the wheel test again to get my license in the 2nd state) a 1974 Datsun 710, which had a pretty big console with shift lever…be pretty difficult for anyone in passenger seat to reach the brake pedal even with individually adjustable bucket seats set for their inseam.
Our driver’s ed cars had a remote brake pedal fitted (at least the ones we took out on the road….I remember driving some “on the range” at my high school that didn’t have them). We lived in Virginia at the time, and I remember being disappointed that my driving lesson at school was cancelled due to the ambient temperature being too high (they cancelled school for everyone; our high school building built in the 1950s didn’t have air conditioning, it was often hot but maybe it was extra hot). I took my next driving test in Vermont, way different driving conditions.
It’s always bothered me that the Maverick “2-door sedan” model was a coupe, and Ford never made a proper 2-door sedan with as much room as the 4-door.
With the high inflation then, by 1971-73, Maverick’s base price wasn’t $1995 anymore. Was spring 1969 when the low price was promoted.
Also, the 4 door Maverick was longer and more like a Falcon.
Someone mentioned the four-door? Here’s the one I said was from the Poconos – I’d misremembered – it was a city car originally. A ’75? This was taken in the summer of ’19, in Maspeth, Queens.
This one has a vinyl roof, courtesy of the Luxury Decor Option (LDO), perhaps? Note the slightly upscale vinyl interior, with the high-back seats.
My last picture, of the interior.
The “Interior Decor Group” vinyl was money well spent, it’s not only held up very well over 45 years but the wear it shows makes it look almost like well-cared-for real leather would. That being said, LDOs were all bucket-seat cars and this is one step down, with both the Interior and Exterior Decor Groups plus additional freestanding options; the vinyl top was one, in fact the ’75 brochure cover car was identical to this one except sans toupee.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Ford/1975_Ford/1975_Ford_Maverick_Brochure/slides/1975_Ford_Maverick-01.html
Hind view with badging.
My eyes hurt from the largesse of those bumpers.
Great shots, a friend of mine had one of these new, all dressed up, it was red with a white vinyl roof. Whitewalls and everything, I think a glove box too if I remember right. AM/FM/Cassette deck, they put everything they could into that car. I think they had the 250 CID engine.
As for the ’71 above, a neighbour had one in just about this colour, standard stripper model, right down to the three on the tree. I don’t think he ever had a problem with it.
That is an extension to the chrome bumper which looks to be of normal size.
I am actually more bothered by the fact that the car is a Molotov Cocktail waiting for a light.
Yes, the rag plug in the hole. I wondered when someone would notice that. This ’75 was sitting in front of a transmission and body shop on Borden Avenue in Maspeth for…I would say four months? There were signs that it had belonged to a retired NYPD officer and had lived in the Poconos for some time.
Ineffficient space-use by today’s standards, for sure. But “a lot of car for the money,” and a cheap way to get into brand-new basic transportation, with Ford promoting all the do-it-yourself upkeep that could be done.
There must be more of these “out there’ if there’s a market for a repro Grabber hood—in steel, no less: https://maverickman.com/collections/maverick-specific-parts/products/ford-maverick-oem-reproduction-grabber-hood.
It’s always worth keep in mind how much slimmer Americans were fifty (or even twenty) years ago when evaluating packaging:
That average weight gain is troublesome, especially when you consider if that’s the average, how many people would have gained much more than that 7-8 pounds. No wonder the weight loss industry is doing so well.
That’s merely overall average. But it’s much higher, as the percent of young adults (18-25) that is obese is now 33%; it was 8% in the late ’70s. The percent that are merely overweight is 24%. Total: 57% are either overweight or obese. And that’s not likely to get better as they get older.
I wish everyone wore a 24/7 glucose monitor like I have since 2018. I have never been fat, and jogged daily for 30 years, so I thought I knew how to eat. My god was I wrong. I rarely overeat, but that supposed healthy food is sheer garbage.
The problem is sugar. I lost 20 pounds without trying in Germany even though I wasn’t running daily. Key difference – no car and no sugar-filled foods. No diet foods. Germans love fatty tasting foods, which satisfies appetites. Diet foods are high in sugar to give fat-free foods flavor, making them toxic waste. Germans eat real food made fresh daily and we eat cheap food filled with whatever keeps it from rotting on the shelves. Instead of fast food restaurants on every block, Germans have food stores where you buy real food. Germans eat lots of sandwiches, but their bread is completely different from our nasty spongy soft garbage. I miss German food.
Our modern culture is killing us. I worry about future generation’s health.
That’s still how we mostly eat. Sugar and refined carbs = death. The common American diet is a perfect formula for an early demise. How did this happen? Don’t ask…
There’s even HFCS in sausage. Why does sugar need to be in sausage I dunno, but look at the nutrition labels, especially the cheaper brands.
That stuff is everywhere.
Just had a patient in today who I haven’t seen since 2017 but started with me in 1995 when 34. As always I look you over as you walk in for your eye exam and then get you seated. I can be blunt, and all patients know I am looking after their overall health. If you lost weight I ask what happened and if you gained weight I ask what happened.
This fellow gained obvious weight to the tune of 225 lbs. His height and build would be 165 lbs. so 55 lbs. over or technically obese. High blood pressure med increased. Last physical done a year ago but not sure if A1c done. Discovered he has obstructive sleep apnea where increased weight is no help. Ocular pressures up to 20 mm Hg vs 16 mm Hg previously.
So I tell him having HBP and diabetes at the same time is bad vascular combination. Combine that with the issue of sleep apnea which starves the brain of oxygen while sleeping and can mimic glaucoma, which doesn’t respond to glaucoma meds, is another problem. I asked that since I intend to practice till 78, another 10 years, do you intend to be able to see me when I retire? He got the picture lose the weight.
Paul, is right in the dramatic increase I have seen in the weights of people in now my 41st year of practice.
Last Friday, I had lunch with four male coworkers, ranging in age from 34 to 53. One made the statement of how all five of us could stand to lose some weight. He then ordered something greasy with a Coke.
So Monday I challenged all of them to have a weight loss competition, starting January 11. To up the ante, I sent them a BMI calculator as a starting point (I somewhat struggle with BMI given the differences in build, but it’s a baseline). I disclosed my BMI as being 26 and change – not horrible, but certainly not great. I’m 5’11” and, last I looked, 192 pounds.
The others have significantly higher BMIs. One gentleman who I invited to join us is 30 and has a BMI of 38.
A while back I found a ’37 Chevrolet which I still need to write up. For some time I’ve been thinking of approaching it from the angle of “they don’t build them like that any more – they can’t, as it would be too tight”.
That data seems to indicate that the rate of increase is declining which is heartening.
1960-2002 = 42 years for 24 pounds, albeit with an inch of height gain, somehow shorter people got the wrong end of the stick there.
1999-2021 = 22 years for 8 (or 7) pounds without any change in height. Can it be correctly assumed that it’s harder (less likely) to gain overall height once a certain level is reached?
Or maybe we’ve just reached Critical Mass. It doesn’t seem to address other societal changes though, especially the makeup of ethnicities etc.
The $2000 base price is around $14-15k today. This year is obviously off, but there are usually some pretty efficient cars available for close to that price with oodles of extra, mostly desirable, features (AC?) that cost extra on the Maverick.
I took my driving test in one of these back in 1975… a few months ago I spotted one in a local grocery store parking lot and went and looked at it… I was surprised how small it seemed… the one I drove all those years ago didn’t seem that small…I guess time changes our perspective…
When Ford got wind of GM’s XP-887 (aka Chevy Vega), they knew they had to respond and began work on the subcompact Pinto. But, for some reason, they decided to try and get an early jump on the Vega and created an ersatz Beetle-fighter out of the Falcon.
And thus was born the early April, 1969 release of the $1995 1970 Maverick. Of the Big 3 compacts, it’s the reason the Maverick is the smallest of the group. Also why those early cheapo Mavericks were real strippers. Besides a rock-bottom 170cid six, column 3-speed, and light-duty Falcon suspension components, there are other tell-tale signs of those early Mavericks, like an ignition switch on the dash and a steering wheel with a horn ring.
The most interesting thing was in, what seems to be an almost Chrysler-like panic, Ford didn’t know if they’d have the Maverick ready before the Pinto and after the stodgy Falcon ended production. So, they came up with the 1970.5 Torino-based Falcon 2-door sedan to bridge the gap just in case.
BTW, that low $1995 Maverick base price only lasted as long as it took to get the Pinto into Ford showrooms. At least for the extra money the Maverick’s parts got upgraded a bit.
True, the first year ’70 Maverick was aimed at sub-compacts in spring 1969 with $1995 price tag. Popular Mechanics had a road test called “Maverick vs the Mob”; against 3 imports, VW Beetle, Corona and Renault R-10 [yep].
When ’71 Pinto came out, then Mav was pushed as compact, with 4 door added and LDO package, too. No more “Only $1995” commercials. [from hazy memory]
And, I remember the “1970 1/2” Falcons at Chicago Auto Show. Only sold for 6-8 months and gone. Was really a filler model.
Although it’s Popular Mechanics, still would be an interesting read to see how the Maverick fared against the subcompacts.
As to the ’70 1/2 Falcon, I have no doubt that one of the things that factored into the decision was the elimination of what had been its main competition, the Chevelle 300 Deluxe 2-door sedan. For 1970, while Pontiac and Oldsmobile kept their intermediate Tempest and F-85 2-door sedans, Chevrolet eliminated theirs with all 1970 and later Chevelle 2-doors being Malibu hardtops. When Ford caught wind of this, at the last minute, they eliminated what would have ostensively been a bottom-tier 1970 Fairlane and renamed it Falcon, with all other intermediate models being called Torino.
That way, until the Pinto showed up, Ford could say they have a quasi subcompact/compact/intermediate line-up as Maverick/Falcon/Torino. Theoretically, they would have beaten GM by one year with a more complete model range. And by 1971, when Chevrolet had Vega/Nova/Chevelle, Ford would be going mano-a-mano with Pinto/Maverick/Torino.
It fits in with the whole Falcon/Maverick/Pinto thing but only as a secondary plan, considering how much sooner the Maverick made production then has been speculated. There really was no need for an intermediate-sized 1970 1/2 Falcon, but Ford had already invested in the tooling for the 2-door sedan, and they figured they’d just finish out the year with it as a Falcon, then eliminate the model for 1971 and move the Maverick up to full compact status when the Pinto arrived.
It’s also worth noting that, while there was a 1967 Fairlane 2-door sedan (famously using the Falcon’s center section), there was no 1968-69 Ford intermediate 2-door sedan. It’s like the Ford and Chevrolet product planners were exchanging 2-door sedans with each model cycle.
“… all 1970 and later Chevelle 2-doors being Malibu hardtops…”
Not entirely true. There was a base/plain ‘Chevelle’ trim under Malibu, no name given anymore. But, Chevy did drop the ‘post-coupe’ solid B-pillar body, while B-O-P kept it. So all 2 door Chevelles, base, Malibu and SS, were hardtops, 1970-72.
Yep?
At the time my father owned a 1968 R10, he bought it new. He wasn’t one to follow trends in general, so he owned some unusual cars. Prior to the R10 was
a ’59 Beetle, which got totalled parked front of our home by teenager down the street…by then the ’59 was pretty rusty (this in Vermont) so he’d likely not have kept it too much longer.
He wasn’t adverse to domestics; our “main” car was at that time a domestic wagon, but he’d gotten used to the beetle driving them when he was in the Army in Germany (guess in the place of jeep). He also drove REO trucks. He bought the R10 after going on several trips to France (company had a location there) to help with problems, he was impressed enough to buy the R10. Probably wasn’t the best choice, especially in retrospect, but it was a 4 door (he did have a family though we seldom all rode in the car at same time, but being small at the time we could), with 4 wheel disc brakes and radial tires (his first car with radials…after that he also got them on the wagons).
Otherwise, don’t know why he didn’t buy a Ford Falcon nor Maverick…our wagon at the time was a ’69 Country Squire….right before that we had a ’65 Olds F85 (when he bought the Renault). Neighbors had a Falcon, didn’t know anyone with a Maverick (until much later 10 years hence a co-worker had a 4 door he brought from Maine).
Maybe this shows the problem with domestic makes and small cars…they really thought price was the only issue, and if they could get the price down, wouldn’t you really rather have a Falcon sized car (as a compact, a bit bigger than subcompact)? Guess they soon figured out with options like LDO that some wanted something a bit better than a stripper, but I think it took the longest time for them to figure that some people preferred a smaller car, not necessarily the least expensive car. However, of course there were still lots of people who instead preferred the largest car they could get, even if it was a stripper, at similar price to a smaller car that wasn’t a stripper…but later fuel mileage requirements by the government kind of caused the latter group to go away (or to start buying trucks instead).
I suspect an unusual find, and very period in that colour.
But what’s going on with those scoops on the hood?
Also, there’s a strong visual similarity to the Aston Martin DBS and V8, externally only, from 1967.
“But what’s going on with those scoops on the hood?”
Maverick “Grabber” hood.
Interesting observation about the similarity to Aston Martin. Foreshadowing the Ian Callum era Ford/Aston family look by a few decades.
I wish I could have been there to see the Maverick introduced rather than through the jaded lens of subsequent years when they were cheap junkers that high schoolers drove. Would I have been won over by its sporty lines or would I have seen that parcel shelf in lieu of a glove box and recognized its cheap-but-not-thrifty pedigree? It’s better than a Pinto in any case.
I would debate that last point about the Maverick being better than the Pinto. It was bigger, yes, but bigger in this case isn’t necessarily better, IMHO. The driving school where I took my driving lessons bought brand new Pintos when I was there, with manual rack and pinion steering, no less! Having driven both the Driver’s Ed Pintos and my Mom’s Maverick, the Pinto was far and away the better handling car, IMHO. Yes, the Pintos had that reputation for spontaneous combustion, but I think they got a bad rap in that department. They were only marginally worse than many other cars of that era before Ford fixed them, and probably slightly better after they were fixed, but by then, their reputation was damaged beyond repair.
The point has been made before. The early 1970 Maverick was essentially a brand-new 1960 Falcon. In 1960, something as miserable as the Falcon was given a pass, but 10 years later, it was way past its use-by date.
The Pinto, OTOH, was the latest thing. Compared to a 170-six, 3-speed, column-shift, bench seat Maverick, a 1600cc, 4-speed, bucket seat Pinto was a sports car.
“The Pinto, OTOH, was the latest thing. Compared to a 170-six, 3-speed, column-shift, bench seat Maverick, a 1600cc, 4-speed, bucket seat Pinto was a sports car.”
With the 2000cc engine and 4-speed, with some engine tuning and larger tires it WAS quite the little sports car in 1971.
The 2300 cc model fitted to later cars was even better, and that meant that an engine swap from a wrecked T-Bird Turbo Coupe or Mustang SVO Turbo was possible. Adding that Turbo four motor to a Pinto or a Mustang II might have made them sell better or hold on longer in the marketplace. Of course, if you want to do the whole resto-mod thing, an Ecoboost 2.3L four cylinder might fit as well. On the other hand, I’m not sure you want 300 hp in a Pinto chassis, at least without some serious upgrades, so maybe it’s just as well, LOL!
And then the Falcon platform lasted another 10 years, to 1980 as Granada. And in Australia…
But was it damaged beyond repair? FWIU the timeline is that the scandal broke and the recall happened during 1975-6, early enough that some late ’76s and all ’77s and up shipped with the fix installed at the factory.
The Pinto was sold through 1980, by which time it was fundamentally obsolete and the small-car world belonged to the Rabbit clones.
The Mother Jones story broke in late 1977. An analysis of the data later showed that the magazine overstated the actual number of fire-related deaths in Pintos, and that the car’s safety overall safety record was actually slightly better than that of its competitors. The infamous Pinto “memo” had nothing to do with the Pinto…it was simply a standard cost-analysis of proposed safety regulations that had been requested by the federal government. It was not a “smoking gun.”
The Pinto continued to sell reasonably well through the late 1970s. The main problem was its age. By 1978, it was outdated compared to the Honda Civic, VW Rabbit and Chrysler Omni/Horizon. Even the rear-wheel-drive Chevrolet Chevette was more livable for daily use, thanks to a more upright seating position and available five-door hatchback body style.
The Maverick was highly styled, like the first Mustang was (not arguing the success of the styling, but the fact of it). But it was specced out like the first Falcon (straight six engine, feeble brakes, etc).
The first gen base Mustang was amazingly close to the Maverick, but the Mustang offered all sorts of sportier engine, brake, and handling upgrades. The Maverick did not (not even a V-8 option, initially).
So while the Mav collected a lot of base car/minimalist car buyers, the sportier crowd was left cold by the thing. The original Mustang sold into many buyer categories, that the Mav completely ignored.
So the take on the Maverick, initially (I was there and witnessed it as a car-obsessed kid and a big Ford fan), was that it was filler material for the compact class, but nothing more than that. And it had no strong points about the specs of the thing, other than the price, and that some people liked the exterior styling and the smaller size.
Are the doors sagging ?
All of the Maverick emblems are in the wrong place. The rear one should be on the rear edge of the decklid, and the side ones are too low.
I had one of these as my first car, a hand-me-down from Dad in 1975. The 200 six was wheezy at best, and liked to stall at idle no matter what we did with the carb. That led me to shift into neutral at traffic lights, and drop it into gear simultaneously with giving it some throttle, which eventually lunched the transmission.
That C4 automatic was susceptible to failure. Ours also failed, requiring an expensive rebuild. The C4 was the “go to” automatic transmission for all small-block Fords of this era, appearing in cars with engines up to 351 cubic inches of displacement. Big blocks (390 cubic inches or larger) got the C6 automatic, a much stouter design, IMHO!
One of my sister-in-laws bought a new, blue ’70 Maverick 6 when I had my ’69 Nova 6. I did not care for the Mavericks’ looks or mechanicals. My sister-in-law, NOT a car person, decided she didn’t care for her Maverick either and in @ 2 years traded it for a new Dodge Challenger.
I was a ACCD ID student then and the recently hired ID Dept. head had been a executive at FoMoCo. His last position was Design Mgr. for………….the Maverick! One day during morning break I was in line and DISScusing cars with a fellow student. My mouth was busy knocking the Maverick and praising my Nova. Behind 6’4″ me in line was the slight (@ 5’6″) former Maverick Design Mgr. : open mouth, insert foot! OOPS! Oh well, I’ve never been PC!! 🙂 DFO
I remember the debut of the Maverick, the ads touted the 1,995 price and the ones that stressed the DIY nature of maintanace. There was a little fix it book available from the dealer. The Mustang had gotten a bit bigger and more macho starting in 1969 and I thought the Maverick was kind of weird and bloated looking. I would never have one over any Mustang. Though they were really popular, a girl in my class had a red one that her parents had bought her. Later they were like an old Nova or Duster, a compact car that either already came with a small block V8, or could easily have one transplanted into it. These type cars were the favorites of the low buck street racer set.
The 1995 price was again touted years later for the intro of the Pinto, a car that I had absolutely no interest in. As a young guy I never drove a compact, I just paid more for gas and my self esteem!
As I recall, one of the commercials for the Maverick touted it’s apparent simplicity by showing a group of six (6) airline stewardesses (yes, we called them stewardess, not the more PC flight attendants back in the day) changing the hood and both front fenders in a time-lapse video. The claim was that anyone could do it using basic hand tools in under an hour! Maybe on a brand new example with six people working together, after several practice attempts, perhaps, but on a well worn example, with rusted fasteners, working solo, never!
O.k., I was wrong, it was five (5) flight attendants, from American Airlines, or at least it was in front of an American Airlines hangar! They put the car back together after it had previously been disassembled! Here’s a link to the commercial on You Tube:
All this talk of the original Maverick really makes me think Ford should’ve called their new small(ish) pickup Ranchero.
Even as a sedan the Maverick was half a size smaller than its’ direct competitors who of course had no qualms about the comparison as this ’71 Chevy video shows starting at the 3:50 mark;
Interesting how circumstances color your opinions.
Back in ’74 I was working out of state, long story. All expenses paid, but I was under 21 so no rental car. So a coworker lent me one a couple of times, most generously, even if I can no longer remember his name. Which was of course a Maverick. As someone who was driving aircooled VWs at the time, the 302 V8 was an absolute hot rod. Might have even been a 4 barrel, but I don’t recall. This was in Michigan and I was just wandering thru Detroit, and I think I found myself on Woodward Ave. I was in put put mode and people were wanting to race me! In a borrowed car, I declined. But it was quick, and I think got near 20 MPG. Yeah, it was no sports car, that was clear even without pushing it, but again, likely in part due to the kindness of it’s owner lending it to me, I was impressed. I’d driven Falcons and Fairlanes and Galaxies, yawn, but the Maverick was better.
Sidebar. A guy up the street has 2 as project cars. One’s up on jack stands, and has been for a while. So I do see at least on very regularly.
Surprisingly, I agree. While the six-cylinder versions, particularly with drum brakes were wheezy, slow, awful cars, the V8 probably made it drive and handle more like a Mustang, especially since the disk brakes were a required option with the V8. Although the Maverick was fitted with the two-barrel carburetor V8, cheap bolt-on upgrades were only a junkyard away!
I love Mavericks. I’ve owned 17, which includes 4 Comets, and I still have 7, including one Comet, among those I own are a 72 with the Sprint Package and a 76 Stallion. I also bought my own parts cars back in the day and have a building full of parts for them. Plus tons of factory literature.
I’m washing my 72 right now
The Ford Maverick has always been in my top 2 or 3 favorite cars. What’s not to like about a 2800 lb car with a V8?
The same 2800 pound car with an anemic straight six and four-wheel manual drum brakes, LOL!