Vintage PR Shot: What’s Wrong With This Picture?
– Posted on April 19, 2023
-
-
-
American Brands: GM 
American Brands: Ford 
American Brands: Chrysler 
American Brands: AMC, Jeep and All Others 
Automotive Histories and Misc. 
Asian Brands 
UK Brands 
Australian Brands 
European Brands 
Cars Of A Lifetime & Auto-Biography 
Buses 
Trucks, Pickups and Vans 
Design 
Trains, Planes & Ships 
Motorcycles, Trikes, Bicycles 
Engines, Transmissions and other Tech 
Tractors, Lawn Mowers, Off-Road Equipment 
RVs, Motorhomes, Trailers, Campers
The grill does not look authentic for a Maverick.
But it is authentic for a Comet.
It looks a bit flat to me, as though the picture was taken of a Maverick and then the Mercury nose airbrushed in.
This is a picture of a Mercury Comet, not a Ford Maverick.
Gender confused model ?
I noticed that too; was thinking the model would be perfect for the androgynous lead singer of a 1984 synth-pop band.
That’s because it’s not a Maverick, but the Maverick’s corporate cousin, the Mercury Comet, LOL!
Besides someone fawning over a 1971 Mercury Comet as if it were a desirable vehicle, I can’t see anything amiss…
The “Comet” appears to not have enough “schnoz”.
I think it may be a doctored photo of a Maverick. Those wheel covers look like the optional full wheel covers from the Mav as well.
The Comet grille does seem to protrude more than the one in this photo, though it may just be the angle. Also, it looks like there’s some body damage below the right headlight on the air dam.
Tree shadow shows sun located to the left of the photo.
Car shadow shows sun almost overhead.
Great observation.
The tree shadow would also be cast by its canopy though, which is overhead.
Are the rear windows pop out wings ?
Pop out wing windows were available, but an option. This car appears to have them.
Unless they were optional on the Maverick, but standard on the Comet. This car also has bodyside moldings and rocker panel moldings that would be optional or unavailable on a Maverick.
Over on “The Old Car Manual Project” website in the “Brochure” section, the 1971 Mercury sales brochures don’t say anything about flipper-style rear quarter windows being standard or optional on Mercury Comet 2-doors.
However, the brochures for the 1970 Ford Maverick have a sentence that says, “Flipper-type rear quarter windows offer a fresh idea in quiet ventilation.” in the middle of a paragraph listing other standard equipment, so it would appear that they were standard in the 1970 models (which began selling in April of 1969). The 1971 Ford Maverick sales brochure explicitly says they are standard equipment on Ford Maverick 2-doors, so I would assume they were standard on the Comet, too.
Wrong is missing a ‘R’, otherwise not too sure about the car.
Fixed now.
I was never good at the “Hocus-Focus” in the Sunday funnies. I’m dying to know now.
The car appears to lack seats, although the low-back, tiny-headrest seats of this era may not have been tall enough to be easily seen through the windows.
Were double-whitewall tires available on Comets?
The wheel covers look like Maverick full wheel covers, not Comet covers.
Hoo Ray – I was scrolling through the comments waiting on someone to notice that.
Noticed that as well.
That Comet has Ford wheelcovers on it.
Other than the wheel cover issue that has been noticed, I would say that the model is wearing the wrong pants. If you are going to get so close to the red paint with part of your outfit, it is mandatory to wear black pants to complete the matchy-matchy look.
The right hand touching the roof is much too long. It seems to be almost as long as the person’s ulna.
Probably not the answer but the red car has duel stripe Whitewall tires that where briefly popular at that time. The blue car in the comments doesn’t.
Is he/she unusually tall? Standing on a box perhaps?
Or more accurately ‘bizarrely long legs’. 🙂
It´s been said, but….Maverick wheel covers
Those door panel gaps are awfully tight.
It bumped into a concrete block or something similar, right front side, below the bumper.
Upon zooming in, I think you’re right!
OMG! That’s either my mom – or Cheryl Tiegs!
Either way, Lucky you!
You’d think they would have removed the dead branches right above the car.
The woman is not really a blonde, but only her hairdresser knows for sure.
Blonds have more fun in a Comet?
The model sports a wig, though in advertising that may be routine and not constitute deception. I don’t see a problem with the shadow.
Grille is too flat, should bulge out to match the hood.
I agree, it was probably airbrushed. How odd that a PR shot would be wrong.
At first glance, the model’s pants blend in well enough with the grass so that the model appears to be a floating torso.
The hubcaps look like they belong on a Maverick, not a Mercury.
Shoreline seen through Comet windows does not match up with shoreline outside car. Maybe one photo superimposed on another?
Girl or boy next to the Maverick?
Still no official confirmation of what’s wrong with the picture? Then I guess I’ll go with “an absence of tire marks in the grass”.
I notice tire tracks behind the lovely model, so I’m guessing that the car did U-Turn before being parked for the photo shoot. That’s just a WAG (Wild-Assed Guess, LOL!), as we used to say in Engineering School.
I’m still convinced it’s the model. If you extrapolate where her feet would be, her legs would be two or three times as long as the distance from her waist to her neck – if she were standing on the ground.
I think she’s standing on a riser, in order to make the car look lower.
Perhaps the model is Heino’s twin sister?
She was supposed to pickup her kids 2 hours ago and she’s so drunk that she has to hold onto the car to stand up. She also has 3 library books that are a month overdue and she has no intention of paying the fines. She’s just nasty!
The water and the land are on the same level. The car is basically standing on an algae bloom.
Or, let’s say it in short terms: The whole touch up work.
No headrests?
Possibly. They may have been removed temporarily for the photo shoot, or they may just be hard to see with the black interior. They’re easy to remove and replace, they just pull out when you release the locking mechanism to adjust the height. BTW, when did the Feds mandate head restraints in cars? My Mom’s 1972 Maverick had them, but her 1967 T-Bird did not. If they weren’t mandatory until 1972, then the 1971 example may not have had them yet. I thought that they were mandated in the 1970 model year, but I could be wrong! It wouldn’t be the first time, and it probably won’t be the last time, LOL!
Headrests where required for cars in the US as of Jan 1st 1969.
Thank you for the memory refresh! That would make sense, since the 1970 model year could begin anytime in the Calendar Year (CY) 1969, but typically started in the fall, September or October of 1969.
Nobody that good-looking ever drove a Mercury Comet?
I’m guessing that if they did, they didn’t want anyone else to know about it, they were so ashamed, LOL!
How appropriate .
I like these Comets, I know they were never very popular with GearHeads but for the times they were fine little runabouts for Middle Class Moms .
-Nate
True, up to a point. For people who only wanted to get from Point A to Point B, they were economical cars, but the quality and handling were subpar, even compared to their mechanically similar competition, GM X-Bodies (Chevy Nova, Pontiac Ventura, Oldsmobile Omega and Buick Apollo), and the Chrysler A-Body cars (Plymouth Duster/Valiant and Dodge Dart/Demon). The base cars, with the Ford “straight” six-cylinder engines and manual drum brakes were awful handling cars with almost no power. Checking the V8 on the option list helped both power and handling, with front disk brakes and better springs, but cars equipped that way from the factory were as rare as hen’s teeth. The 302ci/5.0L small-block Ford V8 made the car handle and drive much more like the Mustang and Falcon it was derived from, sharing many suspension and exterior parts (door handles, bumpers and side marker lights) with its ancestors. Unfortunately, thrice-used designs often perform like reheated pizza tastes: not good.
You’re reply is typical GearHead ~ these weren’t sold to go anywhere quickly nor handle twisty roads .
Easy to drive, easy to park, cheap to buy and maintain .
Maybe I just like “hair shirts” =8-) .
-Nate
The Chevy Straight-Six and the Mopar “Slant-Six” were both superior base engines to the Ford offerings, with more power and better reliability than the Ford 170-250 cubic-inch offerings. For a start, the exhaust manifold on the Ford sixes was cast as part of the head, so if the exhaust manifold cracked (and they often did), you had to replace the whole cylinder head. Not one of Ford’s better ideas, IMHO. The Maverick/Comet twins didn’t even offer a proper glove box, for crying out loud, just a cheap plastic shelf, with a little vinyl pouch Velcroed to the shelf for your owner’s manual and registration/insurance paperwork. I never could get the Carter one-barrel carb on ours to run right, no matter how hard I tried, I finally scrapped it for a Holley Economaster. The four-wheel manual drum brakes and power steering were completely devoid of any road feel whatsoever, both the steering and the brakes felt like they had been shot full of Novacaine. The Pinto, by contrast, had good steering feedback, and the front disc brakes were easy to modulate, and the 2.3L four was reasonably peppy, especially compared to the boat anchors in its bigger brother!
Oh, BTW, the “permanently lubricated” ball joints and tie rod ends weren’t, and when they failed within two (2) years, my Dad cut holes in the shock towers with an acetylene torch, so you could get a grease gun onto the grease fittings for the replacement ball joints without jacking up the car and removing the tires. The body roll at anything faster than brisk walk felt like the door handles were scraping the pavement (the lack of anti-roll bars at either end of the car probably had something to do with it).
Don’t get me wrong, to a newly licensed high school boy, it sure beat walking, but the Maverick/Comet twins were definitely inferior to the competitors from GM or Chrysler for about the same money.
My bad, did I say ball joints? I meant control arm bushings! My Bad!
I hear you Robert but again, the folks who bought these cars (! not me !) didn’t mind as they just wanted cheap transportation .
FWIW, in the late 1970’s GM’s Chevrolet Division decided to try the integral manifold on their extremely popular i6 light truck engine and they all cracked without ever overheating, at that time I was parts supplier for a large municipal fleet and GM ran out of the crappy original heads and we had to wait close to a year for the re designed one to arrive so I had something like 30 two year old pickups sitting ’round waiting on new heads….
Darn bean counters .
Other than $aving a little bit on initial manufacture I see no benefit to the integral intake manifold .
-Nate
True, all most of the Maverick/Comet owners (including my Mom) wanted was cheap and reliable transportation. My point was and is that as bad as all of the cars from the Big Three were at the time, the offerings from GM and Chrysler in the compact and sub-compact market segments were at the time, the offerings from Chrysler and GM were significantly less bad than the Ford offerings at the time. The Chevy 250 I6 and the Chrysler 250 “Slant Six” were significantly more reliable than the base engine offerings from Ford, and offered a slightly more upscale interior than the Ford compact products.
In the sub-compact segment, however the roles were reversed, with the Chevy Vega suffering a much worse reputation for poor quality than the Pinto/Bobcat, despite the Pinto’s well-publicized issues with exploding fuel tanks (which were overblown anyway, IMHO). Chrysler was MIA completely on the subcompact front, as their only competitor was the Plymouth Cricket, an otherwise forgettable Japanese captive import that only lasted here for about three (3) years, until the Omni/Horizon twins showed up in 1981.
Oops! My bad again. The Omni/Horizon twins debuted in 1978. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!