Good news! I'm moving to a place with a garage and an outside tarp cover. So I can continue wrenching. I've been thinking about buying a smaller car. Read through a Corvair service manual, looked at Falcons, and considered Mavericks. I know nothing about Mavericks though but I mentioned it to a friend and he made a face like he smelt a fart. There's a dude here locally who flips Mavericks and Comets in garage nice condition for about $3-$4k dollars. I've been considering it. It would be a weekend sweetheart while my daily driver is a Crown Vic LX Sport.
People look down on them for some reason. I don't know why. I think they're awesome and i want one.
I'll take mine like this, please and thank you.
That car is proof they can at least look awesome.
I can't quite dig them wholeheartedly because my impression is that they basically took mechanical design unimproved from the Falcon era, smogified the engine, malaise-era'd the design and packaging (seriously, my dad's old '76 4-door had no more useful room inside than my BMW 2002), and at least with that '76 as an example, built one of the most vague and unpleasant handling cars ever... It had overboosted steering, and understeer but without a feeling of stability.
But it's certainly simple enough to put in a healthier engine, urethane bushings, springs and bars that don't let the suspension do stupid things... Should be a cheap way to a pony-car-like experience. And again, the car above looks awesome.
I've always liked them. I think they look Australian.
Like all '60's-70's Fords, it's overshadowed by the Mustang. That's where some of the snobbery stems from. The early Mavericks with the thin bumpers were the best looking ones. Chassis wise, as Ransom pointed out, it's the same engineering as the early Falcon and Mustang. Same fixes for them can be applied to the Maverick. I'd take a Maverick over a '71-73 Mustang.
The early small bumper Mavericks and Comets are slick looking.
The later impact bumper cars are just nasty. Almost AMC level of bad
.jpg)
They are truly spartan inside. The early cars don't even have a glove compartment, just a shelf. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Ransom wrote:
That car is proof they can at least look awesome.
I can't quite dig them wholeheartedly because my impression is that they basically took mechanical design unimproved from the Falcon era, smogified the engine, malaise-era'd the design and packaging (seriously, my dad's old '76 4-door had no more useful room inside than my BMW 2002), and at least with that '76 as an example, built one of the most vague and unpleasant handling cars ever... It had overboosted steering, and understeer but without a feeling of stability.
But it's certainly simple enough to put in a healthier engine, urethane bushings, springs and bars that don't let the suspension do stupid things... Should be a cheap way to a pony-car-like experience. And again, the car above looks awesome.
Exactly right. A good friend of mine's Dad bought a new Maverick back in the early 70s and hated it so much he ended up giving it to my friend's brother, which was a bit of windfall for the brother since he was only 17 and a car was a car. Wholly bland, uninspired, and boring. So what's an auto company to do? Make a Mercury version of it, the Comet. Might as well spread around the pain. They did end up dropping in a 302 V8 in it at some point but by then maybe the writing was on the wall. The car pictured above looks cool but is probably a full on restomod which would not be cheap to replicate.
The Maverick is one of the best examples of why I love malaise era cars so much. It's the potential they have, and all of the cars from that era have huge potential. I find pleasure in taking cars like that and building them into what I want. I don't get the same satisfaction when buying a late model car that would outperform a 70's car in every single category as I do in taking a car like that and coming close to what a modern car can do. They are a blank canvas.
nicksta43 wrote:
The Maverick is one of the best examples of why I love malaise era cars so much. It's the potential they have, and all of the cars from that era have huge potential. I find pleasure in taking cars like that and building them into what I want. I don't get the same satisfaction when buying a late model car that would outperform a 70's car in every single category as I do in taking a car like that and coming close to what a modern car can do. They are a blank canvas.
That is very true. But the problem with that is even if you can do all the work yourself, the cost just doesn't make sense. You would have the initial cost of the car and the better the car the higher the cost. Also, in order to do it right you would need to upgrade virtually every aspect and system of the car including paint, suspension, motor, interior, brakes, wheels/tires etc. What might that cost? I don't know but you would probably have more into the car than it's worth. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be very cool to do a Maverick but to do the same thing to a Mustang you would likely end up with a car that's worth 2-3 times the value of a Maverick. I have always preferred the Corvairs, Mavericks, Darts/Valiants etc. but you just have to do it for the love of the car.
In reply to nicksta43:
I remember my dad saying something about those being a poplar cheap speed platform in the 70s and 80s.
In reply to Feedyurhed:
Oh I understand that, it's also the reason I've lost my ass on almost every car I've ever had. I don't care about the value when I'm done. It's not even a consideration. I get more enjoyment out of building the car than I would having that money sitting in a bank.
Would I put $3000 seats, $5000 paint, $3500 wheels and tires, $2500 in suspension and $4500 in an engine in a $1500 car? Why yes, yes I would. And I would enjoy every minute of it. If I could afford it in the first place that is.
They're one of the those designs that looks good as a 2-door and horrible as a 4-door.
I've never played with one but always hear they had good potential once you get a decent engine into them.
I thought they were mustang parts underneath, I could be wrong though.
Shawn
They are light cars, too. The weigh about the same as a last-gen WRX.
I had a 74 with a stock wheezer 302 in it, and that thing scooted.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 2 door Maverick or Comet, especially the early small bumper models. As someone already mentioned, they are a blank canvas. In fact I'd take one over almost any 'stang.
My first car was a 76 Maverick "stallion". It had a two tone black and white paint job with horseheads on the front fenders. The 250 ci six was smooth, but not a speed machine.
Swank Force One wrote:
People look down on them for some reason. I don't know why.
Perhaps people look down on them as a remnant of the derision those cars earned when they were still DDs. In high school a friend had one, beige two door with a three-on-the-tree. It was 10+ years old by then, sure, but it was still a punchline to many jokes.
However, many many weaknesses can be overcome with cubic inches and cubic dollars and cubic man-hours. That photo above looks mini-Aston Martin, in a very good way. :-)
David
I had the great misfortune of inheriting a '70 Maverick from my mother as a teen. I learned to drive in it. It was olive green metallic with olive green vinyl interior & carpets (sexy!) 
. It handled like a hinge. It had the 6, which like many Fords of the era, ran but always ran like it had a slight cold. And it was automatic :(
I got it into a ridiculous tank-slapper once that went on and on and on... Eventually I got bored with the left-right-left, locked the brakes and let it slide into the kerb. These are not good cars. I was always convinced that my Maverick was going to try to kill me. I was very relieved that light contact with the rear axle of a 70's Chevy-half ton was all it took to kill it. Happily, I survived.
If you're able to get your nostalgia juices worked up to the point where you actually want one, may I suggest you get a Pacer instead? A Pacer is at least funny. A Maverick is a cheap car that got no respect 40 years ago. The only positives I see are: They're cheap. In 2 door form, they're not the ugliest car of the era.
Anyone who thinks there's "nothing wrong" with these should spend 2 years dailying one...
Gotcha. Lots of stuff to consider.
Sorta off topic but I've been considering a '77 Chevelle too. I'm weird and a fan of some of the cars from the later 70s like nova, chevelle, and Malibu. The car in drive was pretty badass, and I can see in a few years these increasing in price.
Something like this, obviously talked down on the price a bit.
http://images.craigslist.org/00W0W_jk5Knkb3f8W_600x450.jpg
$2,500 all day
http://images.craigslist.org/00z0z_kTNDo7rVOF7_600x450.jpg
Those Chevelles need an early/Laguna nose or I'm not interested. The Buick Nova looks VERY clean and interesting. Add Buick Rallyes ( I HATE Chevy rallys on anything but a Chevy), tint windows, done.
Being a GM guy I would take that Buick Nova over any Ford product ever made
In reply to nicksta43:
I would take a Festiva over any Nova ever made 
Flight Service wrote:
In reply to nicksta43:
I would take a Festiva over any Nova ever made
Really?? I am no GM guy either but a Festiva over a 66 Chevy Nova with a 396 or a Yenko Nova or a..............you must really like Fords......or hate Chevys. A Festiva?? Wow.
Feedyurhed wrote:
Flight Service wrote:
In reply to nicksta43:
I would take a Festiva over any Nova ever made
Really?? I am no GM guy either but a Festiva over a 66 Chevy Nova with a 396 or a Yenko Nova or a..............you must really like Fords......or hate Chevys. A Festiva?? Wow.
Of course the true irony here is that a Festiva is really a Mazda.
