I am the proud owner of a Ford Maverick, as I had recently written about in an essay I had posted on the First of this month. It is resplendent in red with black stripes, similar to today’s featured car. It is also only about eight inches long from stem-to-stern, and it sits on a shelf on the wall unit in my living room. It had been particularly fun to schedule an April’s Fool’s Day post using pictures I had taken almost a decade ago… and then a funny thing happened.
Many of us – among both the contributing writers and readers, alike – have written about the phenomenon of what we have collectively labeled the “CC Effect”, whereby a real-life sighting of another example of a rare or noteworthy vehicle has occurred after an article about one has run here at Curbside Classic. I had finished the final edit of my earlier Maverick piece and had ventured out on the same Saturday afternoon, when this example of basically the same car (albeit slightly worse for wear) materialized.
Seeing this citrus orange Maverick coupe seemed so serendipitous at the time that I contemplated scrapping my original article and spending part of my Sunday afternoon writing about this one. My better judgement prevailed, however, and weekends always seem so short – especially the warmer the outside weather gets. I decided there was enough ink in my pen to write about two Mavericks, so please indulge me.
The model name “Maverick” has always resonated positively with me. I had associated it with daring and controversy long before Madonna’s Maverick Records imprint appeared at Warner Brothers when I was a young adult. I think it was a miniature stroke of genius at Ford to choose a name for its new, youth-oriented compact that seemed to connote rebellion, a free-spirit, and counterculture – especially in light of everything I’ve read about the national unease that was setting in after the tumultuous mid-/late-1960s.
To be clear, I praise those mavericks who raised a ruckus in that decade who, either directly or indirectly, laid the foundations for many freedoms I enjoy today. Just the year before my interracially-married parents had tied the knot, the ban on such a union had been legally repealed in the state in which they were married. (This probably wouldn’t have stopped them, as they were both mavericks in love.) Also, on the 50th anniversary year of the Stonewall Riots, it’s not wasted on me that my life today would be very different if it wasn’t also for the brave GLBTQ men and women who, decades ago, had refused to settle for second- (or third-) tier citizenship, often at great, personal cost.
Getting back to the car and its name, Merriam-Webster defines a maverick (n.) as: 1.) an unbranded range animal, especially a motherless calf; or 2.) an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party. Ka-pow. I love both of these definitions, as I have invested much in creating my own brand and have enjoyed being able to try on different hats. I also tend to question a lot of things and dance to my own drummer’s beat. Immediate points from me for Ford Marketing.
I’ve often felt that a car bearing this name should have seemed wild, untamed, iconoclastic, and like a bad boy / bad girl. Perhaps this is why I could never quite connect the dots between the actual Ford Maverick and what it was called. Something about even the sportiest model, the Grabber fastback coupe, seemed to fall short of the promise of its model name. It always seemed like sort of a half-assed badass.
I was also never really crazy about the “Grabber” sub-moniker (what, exactly, was it grabbing?), and felt that “Maverick” sounded wicked enough without any modifiers. Equipped with a 302-cubic inch V8 with around 140 hp (net), the 2,800-pound ’73 Grabber was no barn-burner, but with decent performance, capable of going from zero-to-sixty in around ten seconds when equipped with the three-speed automatic.
The early Maverick coupe surely did look fine, though, especially in profile, where a visual kinship with the ’70 Torino SportsRoof and ’71 Mustang SportsRoof fastbacks was evident. The Maverick definitely looked like the rebel (before those big, chrome railroad-tie bumpers were applied, fore and aft). In reality, though, the Maverick Grabber was more like your previously Ford Falcon-like, unassuming algebra teacher who had gotten a few tattoos and started wearing a black leather biker jacket to class. Well, maybe that’s a little extreme, but you probably get the picture. I do also lament that the Grabber’s nifty, subtle decklid lip spoiler setup disappeared after ’73.
“Transporta” – A composite image used in a recent art show in which I was a participant, recycled here for your viewing pleasure.
I feel like a car called a “Maverick” should have had so much attitude. Instead of truly being “street”, the Grabber seemed to speak in butchered, inauthentic slang which convinced no one of its street cred. Our featured car, however, has attitude for days. I cannot positively identify its model year by any external visual cues outside of the small rear bumper, but the front grille looks like it was sourced from a ’76 or ’77 model. I suppose I settled on “’73” perhaps to split the difference between first-year 1970 and the end of the line.
This bruiser looks like it has gotten into a few “fistfights”, but it has clearly won most of its battles as evidenced by its mere presence in 2019. There’s something to be said for character scars earned as a result of resistance. And resist is what a true maverick does, after all.
Pilsen, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, March 23, 2019.
LOL I have an immaculate blue/white 3a Hillman on a shelf in my lounge about six inches long and ta full size one not so immaculate in my carport
A half-assed badass who is a also grabber, in America? Why, such a type will never succeed, I tell you.
A very nice little reverie through various thoughts Joseph, and I’m also particularly taken by the composition of the second-from-top shot with that oddball oriel-windowed place just exactly on the car. How people like you see such things is quite unknown to a myopic dullard like me. (I would somehow have half a lightpole growing out of the car – and probably a garbage bin and a dead cat – and no house at all).
Thank you so much.
I’ll say this about this car’s placement that afternoon – it couldn’t have been any more perfect. I think the building in the background houses a barber shop, so I was halfway expecting someone to come out and ask why I was taking pictures of this car – but I got my frames, and went on my way.
Rebellion, free-spirit, and counterculture. These are the exact opposites of the ’71 Maverick owner I was familiar with, the only Maverick I’ve really known. Bought new by my then 50 year-old grandmother, she’s about as far from those three as can be.
But then thinking about it, at 98 she’s developed a highly confrontational and independent streak and looking back she’s simply being herself, only amplified. So maybe she does fit the mold.
At any rate it is one of the better names for a car, in that elevated pantheon of Charger, Magnum, and a few others.
MY younger sister owned a Maverick, a 74, with the Luxury Decor Option as it was called. And now that I think about it, Ford would be a bit of a Maverick by offering the Grabber model starting in 71 and then doing a 180 degree turn 2 years later with the very Broughamy (?) LDO package.
I kind of liked Mavericks, and even now am pleasantly surprised on the VERY rare occasions that I see one. However, if you are looking at this size of car to purchase as an occasional driver you have so many choices from competing manufacturers, that price and availability are probably a major deciding factor.
These used to be so ubiquitous on the California roads when I was a little boy in the ’80s. They’re all gone now and I haven’t seen one in years.
I’ve always liked the body styling of these Mavericks. They could look sharp as a coupe, and they could look sharp gussied up as a faux sports car. I’d never actually want one (because they are epitomes of Malaise-mobiles), but I think they’re good-looking.
Scott, I’ll say that the Mavericks used to be toward the bottom of the ladder among my favorite small(er) cars of the 70s, but their looks (particularly the early coupes, like this one) have really grown on me.
I think my Maverick turning point was back in the mid-’90s when a friend / acquaintance named Roxana G. used to drive her pristine, white-and-orange ’73 Maverick Grabber to the downtown coffee shop where many of us alternative subculture kids used to hang out.
Before then I had never seen such a great looking Maverick, and I used to tease Roxana about coveting her car. She had a great sense of humor about it.
The profile view you offered here helps me understand the design of this car. Its proportions look like it was a Cyclone or Torino that shrunk in the wash, but in a good way. The fastback roofline, the sporty appearing stance, the shortened greenhouse, and the front grille in combination with the front clip make for a pretty decent package.
When these were new, I experienced a study in contrasts; from both ends of the spectrum. My neighbour had a 1971 Maverick. It was completely stripped of any options, three on the tree, dog dish hubcaps, and it was in poo green. A fairly inoffensive car. At the other end, a friend had a 1974 or so, completely optioned with all kinds of stripes, power options galore, nice wheel covers, some kind of optional seats if I recall correctly, the whole bit. Just not a 302 engine. It was an example of how to overdo things.
These were a decent size car, a little more compact (shorter wheelbase etc.) than the other compacts out in the day, like Darts, Novas, and the like, yet bigger than the subs like Pintos and Vegas. I don’t think they were as successful as they could have been in the era of bigger was still better.
Thank you for this writeup. CC Karma for sure.
The fact that the Maverick paled in comparison to its peers was by design. Ford didn’t want the Maverick coupe to be any better than it was for fear of cannibalizing Mustang sales.
Chrysler learned this the hard way in how the popular A-body Duster crushed much more profitable E- and B-body sales. They had watched at how, over at Chevrolet, no one had cross-shopped a hot Nova SS coupe with a Camaro and figured the same thing would happen with the Duster. It was a costly mistake and, personally, should go down as one of Chrysler’s Deadly Sins.
Ford was definitely not going to lose the Mustang due to a cheaper, faster, sporty Maverick. Given to how the Mustang had moved up to aircraft-carrier size in ’71, it would have been a distinct possibility.
These are *great* points. Ford probably had to “build down” the Maverick for the very reasons and examples you shared.
The poo-green stripper actually does sound appealing to me in a spartan kind of way. I imagine cars like that one were just the ticket for folks who just needed a car, so that basic Maverick probably stayed very true to what the product planners envisioned.
I, too, am a fan of those early, $1995, poverty-spec 1970 Mavericks, simply because they’re so extreme in their cheapness. The original intent was they were to be Ford’s Beetle-killer but they must have found out, too late, that GM was going to have a subcompact-sized car and had no choice but to move the smallish Maverick up the ladder to make room after the release of the 1971 Pinto.
So, the Maverick would ultimately end up on the short end of the Big 3’s compact offering stick and really was never competitive with the Nova or Valiant. That’s why I like those early, Model T-like Mavericks, particularly the ones with the partial horn ring and dash-mounted ignition switch. They were true, elemental, basic cars, with little more than seats and a steering wheel, along with the wheezy 170 six and column-mounted 3-speed manual. In my dream garage, I’d love to have one in survivor condition, along with the similarly equipped $1994 (undercutting the Maverick’s price by exactly one dollar) 1970 AMC Hornet.
I spent time in both a very late Falcon and one of the relatively early Mavericks. The Mav was cheaper/lighter/flimsier in every way. The Falcon may have been a little oversized, sharing as much as it did with the Fairlane – but the Maverick was a little undersized compared with Nova and Valiant/Dart. Or maybe the Maverick’s disability was that it was introduced in 1970 instead of 1967-68 like the competition. There was a huge change across the industry in that short time span in terms of what was coming out of Big 3 factories.
When my late brother’s ‘71 Vega seized its engine in the summer of ‘73 – between his sophomore and junior years of college – he ended up buying a ‘73 Grabber in orange and white, with the forged aluminum wheels, and Interior Decor Group with bench seat. He had to sit out one semester to work full time to pay for his Vega mistake, and avoided GM until purchasing a Pontiac Solstice in 2006.
Alas, while many younguns are inclined to believe that all Tempests were GTOs and all Grabbers were V8s, his was an unexciting six-cylinder automatic that served reliably for eight or nine years.
I can’t even imagine the amount of rage I would feel if a car I had purchased new, just two years prior – with my hard-earned money – was toast and I had to go out and purchase another one.
Your brother’s ’73 Grabber sounds ideal. I love those forged aluminum wheels.
The CC Effect is real. Finding a Maverick parked at the curb in salt-loving Chicago is proof. These really were good-looking cars in their early years. Was there anything that changed its character so much with the 1974 bumpers as the Maverick? Other than the Pinto, I mean. The 74+ cars were oafish dullards compared to the earlier versions.
But all those good looks evaporated once inside the car. Until the LDO came around these were cheap-looking even in the nicer ones. I mean – a shelf under the dash instead of a glovebox? Really? The pre-70 Falcon had been a nicer car inside.
And “Half-assed badass” is another phrase I need to work into my vocabulary. Brilliant!
I’m sure that Keith Teter-were he still here-would thank you for the glowing words of praise about his last design project at FoMoCo!!! To demonstrate his “loyalty”, he even drove his to Art Center College of Design many times from his abode up on the PV Penn. in LA area.
One of my sister-in-laws probably would agree, too. She was a early owner of the then new Maverick.
Now the fastback look is back…AGAIN! DFO
Dennis, the fastback look is indeed back. I had this same thought when I passed a late model BMW five-door hatchback looking thing on my walk to the train after work and thought to myself how much it reminded me (visually) of a 2019 update of a Chevy Citation.
I did not care for the Maverick. For a Falcon-derived vehicle, it felt so small and cramped inside. And it felt cheap, cheaper than a bare-bones ’60 Falcon.
This.
That was ultimately the Maverick’s issue, it was a cheap throwaway car that just happened to look incredible in that very role – at least until they rolled out the inevitable 4-door model and the thing gained the ungainly safety bumpers in 1974.
BUT, they made a great hot rod – especially if you were willing to sort out the suspension issues…IIRC many Mustang parts would bolt up as they shared the Falcon platform.
If I were a Ford guy, I could see owning one before I’d buy a Mustang.
A neighbor in the next village over owns a ’71 or so Grabber and it sees a good deal of street use. I’m happy for him.
Yes they were cramped, and yes, they were cheaply made.
But they were cheaply made out of time-tested components, which made them damn near impossible to break. And when they did break, parts were cheap and plentiful.
The Maverick, like most early and mid 70s Fords, were highly susceptible to early and severe rust if you lived in a region that used road salt.
I don’t know if there is any relation between the two but there was a successful TV series called “Maverick” that ran for several seasons in the late fifties/early sixties. It starred James Garner as Bret Maverick, an itinerant card player who sort of took the path of least resistance through life. Jack Kelly played Bret Maverick’s brother Bart and, after Garner left the show in a contract dispute, Roger Moore was added to the cast as a third brother, Beau Maverick. My grandfather loved westerns (a TV staple in the fifties and sixties) in general and “Maverick” in particular; I can remember him getting irritated when the football game ran long and the start of “Maverick” was delayed. I’ve watched parts of this show on the tube of You and it holds up much better than many of its contemporaries.
I liked this show. Right around the early Aughts, I was watching a lot of “Nick At Nite”, and “Maverick” was one of the shows I would watch. What’s funny was that I would watch “Maverick”, and then catch more Garner on another channel for “The Rockford Files”.
Nice find Joe!
I had a long comment, but I got the “you’re commenting too quickly” message and it disappeared:(
Thanks, Jon!
I hate it when that happens. I’ve gotten into the habit of “selecting all” and “copying” when I’ve written a long comment, so that in the event I get that same “posting too fast” error message, all I have to do is go back and re-paste the comment I had already written.
This method has reduced my occasional frustration with posting comments immensely. 🙂
Great find, and excellent article Joseph. Thank you for this second look at the Maverick Grabber.
I like how the owner has styled his (or her) Maverick. The beefier wheels and tires really add to the muscularity of this one. I also like the blacked-out B-pillar. I think this cleans up the profile somewhat, and freshens the design. The later Stallion package featured blacked-out trim, and I think concealing the B-pillar really improves the looks of the roof line. I thought the Stallion had the best paint scheme of any Maverick package. Minus the gaudy ‘Stallion’ graphic.
The AMC Gremlin was another 70s era car that would have benefited from a blacked-out B-pillar. At least on an optional ‘sporty’ package. Gives the overall design and profile, a more modern and cleaner look IMO.
Thanks again for this!
Here’s a link to a sample ‘blacked-out’ Gremlin. As I cannot attach a pic to this comment.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1977_AMC_Gremlin_X_-_Hershey_2012_d.jpg
Thank you so much, Daniel. I do like the ’76 Stallion package offered on the Pinto, Maverick, and Mustang II hatchback. In fact, the same company that made that ’74 Maverick Grabber scale model I wrote about at the beginning of the month also made a ’76 “Stallion” edition model, which I also purchased. Those fender decals are a bit cheesy, but I really don’t mind them within the context of the rest of the decor.
My current 76 Stallion. Previous owner repainted over the fender emblems. Which I dont mind.
The very first car I ever bought from a car dealer (in 1974) was a ’72 Maverick coupe. Blue. Black interior, automatic transmission, 6-cylinder engine. I think it had about 37,000 miles on it. I can’t remember how much I paid for it.
It was a great car until I totaled it in 1978.
I like the color, and stance, and wheels on this one!
Joe, your Transporta image is outstanding. I can’t fathom how much effort went into making that, and blending the various images just right. I hope the folks at the art show were likewise impressed.
Eric, thank you so much, and last Saturday night’s event was a success. I’m part of a small, four-person collective, including another photographer and poet, a sculptor, and a DJ. Our event ran from 6:00 to 10:00 PM, and if you had seen the weather forecast in Chicago, it snowed for real.
I was panicking that people weren’t going to show on account of the weather, and I’m sure the forecast was responsible for a few, previously-committed cancellations, but the snow didn’t stick and it was bumpin’ in our little storefront.
I was able to feature large prints of a few cars I’ve written about here on CC, and it was a car-themed event, so I took total ownership in my part in it. So thankful for the experience.
Until I read this article, I never knew that Madonna’s Maverick record label was a thing. The name Maverick, to me, conjers up images of Brett Maverick riding around the old West in his Firebird on The Rockford Files, with Mariette Hartley taking Polaroid pictures of their adventures.
Maverick Records was totally a thing! I think the second-most-famous artist on its roster (after Madonna, herself) was Alanis Morissette. Maverick hit pay dirt when “Jagged Little Pill” from 1995 eventually went RIAA Diamond (10M+ sales).
I was a college freshman when Madonna’s “Erotica” was released as the first album on the Maverick imprint. I still bump her cover of “Fever” (second track) pretty regularly. I guess I’m dating myself with that one (LOL), but it’s still one of my favorite songs she’s ever recorded.
My grandma’s last car was a 70 in Grabber blue. A complete stripper, save for the 302, automatic, full wheel covers, and high back bucket seats.
The dealer must have given her a deal to move it, as I’m not sure why else she would have bought something so light with a V8.
The lack of a glovebox was weird, but I thought the interior was otherwise pretty decent for the 70s. Certainly sportier than the beige fabric bench in our 70 Cutlass.
Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to read this and for your thoughtful comments.
It’s funny – I had first-drafted this piece while waiting at the airport two Fridays ago. It’s why I normally always have paper, pen, and my camera with me at all times.
Have a great end-of-April.
I love my 73.