The same way they stuffed a 426 Hemi in a Dodge Colt.....
Ford Maverick
- Thread starter parimento1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: rszappa1
The same way they stuffed a 426 Hemi in a Dodge Colt.....
I thought Dodge Colts were FWD, so whole new list of things would be required that would not be required on the Ford big block Maverick.
The same way they stuffed a 426 Hemi in a Dodge Colt.....
I thought Dodge Colts were FWD, so whole new list of things would be required that would not be required on the Ford big block Maverick.
No the Dodge Colt in the early 70s...1973 and on were rear wheel drive with a 1600 cc engine...with a hemi head....Sox and Martin...**** Landy....Mr. Norms to name a few raced them.....
In high school, a friend had one with the inline six and ( I think ) a three on the tree.
I don't recall it being a bad car in any way. It had bench seats front and rear. Everyone thought that was a useful feature.
I still see one a few times a year. I haven't seen a 70's Honyota since the 80's (thankfully - except for the original Z car and Celica those early asian rust buckets had to be the absolute, make you want to gouge your eyes out, ugliest cars ever built). Every once in a while I still see a 70's Datsun.
I don't recall it being a bad car in any way. It had bench seats front and rear. Everyone thought that was a useful feature.
I still see one a few times a year. I haven't seen a 70's Honyota since the 80's (thankfully - except for the original Z car and Celica those early asian rust buckets had to be the absolute, make you want to gouge your eyes out, ugliest cars ever built). Every once in a while I still see a 70's Datsun.
I had a 1973 Dodge Colt GT that I purchased new.... It was a great little car.....I did add some of the C2 performace stuff that was sold through Dodge. I installed a cam and the sidedraft Solex carbs along with 3.91 rear end gears...It ran very wheel for a small 4 banger back then....
I was thinking maybe a Henry J might have been the first subcompact. In HS, one of the student coaches had one that could pull the front wheels off the ground.
Regardless, I always thought the Gremlin was kinda neat. And at some point, AMC made it available with the 304.
Regardless, I always thought the Gremlin was kinda neat. And at some point, AMC made it available with the 304.
Originally Posted By: labman
Ugly, how about the Honda element?
Ugly, how about the Honda element?
if anybody thinks the Maveric/Comet was the ugliest car ever made, what's your thoughts on the Pontiac Aztek?
the Maverick/Comet pales in comparison to the Aztek. Blah!
the Maverick/Comet pales in comparison to the Aztek. Blah!
Originally Posted By: Win
In high school, a friend had one with the inline six and ( I think ) a three on the tree.
I don't recall it being a bad car in any way. It had bench seats front and rear. Everyone thought that was a useful feature.
I still see one a few times a year. I haven't seen a 70's Honyota since the 80's (thankfully - except for the original Z car and Celica those early asian rust buckets had to be the absolute, make you want to gouge your eyes out, ugliest cars ever built). Every once in a while I still see a 70's Datsun.
I still see 1970s Hondas and Toyotas on rare occasions, but then in Florida there is no snow and therefore no road salt.
The early Japanese cars were ugly because the engineers made functionality and low cost priority #1.
The reason more Ford Mavericks are still out there is probably repair cost. Many of the 1970s Japanese cars had Macpherson strut suspensions, whereas the American cars had regular shocks. Many Japanese cars used timing belts and American cars usually did not. 1970s Hondas used FWD, leading to more costly repairs than a solid rear axle found in the Maverick.
That, and the Ford I6 was a very tough engine, so that wasn't an issue either.
In high school, a friend had one with the inline six and ( I think ) a three on the tree.
I don't recall it being a bad car in any way. It had bench seats front and rear. Everyone thought that was a useful feature.
I still see one a few times a year. I haven't seen a 70's Honyota since the 80's (thankfully - except for the original Z car and Celica those early asian rust buckets had to be the absolute, make you want to gouge your eyes out, ugliest cars ever built). Every once in a while I still see a 70's Datsun.
I still see 1970s Hondas and Toyotas on rare occasions, but then in Florida there is no snow and therefore no road salt.
The early Japanese cars were ugly because the engineers made functionality and low cost priority #1.
The reason more Ford Mavericks are still out there is probably repair cost. Many of the 1970s Japanese cars had Macpherson strut suspensions, whereas the American cars had regular shocks. Many Japanese cars used timing belts and American cars usually did not. 1970s Hondas used FWD, leading to more costly repairs than a solid rear axle found in the Maverick.
That, and the Ford I6 was a very tough engine, so that wasn't an issue either.
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
The Maverick was the replacement for the Falcon. An inexpensive "small" car positioned above the Pinto and below the Mustang. The Maverick took some styling cues from the Mustang and wrapped it in a basic package, initially just a 2 door but later a 4 door was added to the lineup.
It was marketed to a younger crowd who wanted something sportyish without being expensive. I'm sure you can think of cars today that fit that definition. One of the cool things about the Maverick were its paint colors; names like Anti-Establish Mint, History Onyx, Original Cin-namon, and Hulla Blue.
First year sales of the Maverick were over 500,000, rivaling the first year sales of the Mustang in 1964.
I didn't think its ugly, certainly no Pacer or Edsel in looks.
I thought that the '71-'73 "Grabber" cars were pretty sharp. Me, I was cursed with having to drive a 1974 Maverick like the one pictured(4 door LDO) through much of high school and college. By 1980 it was thoroughly rusted out. No great loss.
The Maverick was the replacement for the Falcon. An inexpensive "small" car positioned above the Pinto and below the Mustang. The Maverick took some styling cues from the Mustang and wrapped it in a basic package, initially just a 2 door but later a 4 door was added to the lineup.
It was marketed to a younger crowd who wanted something sportyish without being expensive. I'm sure you can think of cars today that fit that definition. One of the cool things about the Maverick were its paint colors; names like Anti-Establish Mint, History Onyx, Original Cin-namon, and Hulla Blue.
First year sales of the Maverick were over 500,000, rivaling the first year sales of the Mustang in 1964.
I didn't think its ugly, certainly no Pacer or Edsel in looks.
I thought that the '71-'73 "Grabber" cars were pretty sharp. Me, I was cursed with having to drive a 1974 Maverick like the one pictured(4 door LDO) through much of high school and college. By 1980 it was thoroughly rusted out. No great loss.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
They were saying the Gremlin was six inches wider than normal because of a planned turbine engine. That didn't work out but it sounds like there was plenty of room for a V8 compared to other compacts.
I think you're thinking of the 1975 AMC Pacer. It was originally planned to be built with a Wankel Rotary engine, same as the 1975 Chevrolet Monza was.
Emission/mileage problems caused both cars to be built with conventional engines instead.
From the start, the Gremlin was just a shortened Honet, with the same I-6's that were in it. It was designed with low-cost in mind, so no experimental/fancy stuff was ever really planned for it.....
I think you're thinking of the 1975 AMC Pacer. It was originally planned to be built with a Wankel Rotary engine, same as the 1975 Chevrolet Monza was.
Emission/mileage problems caused both cars to be built with conventional engines instead.
From the start, the Gremlin was just a shortened Honet, with the same I-6's that were in it. It was designed with low-cost in mind, so no experimental/fancy stuff was ever really planned for it.....
I think it looks pretty cool
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
I think it looks pretty cool
Max, you know, the doctors these days can offer you a wide range of medications -- supposedly, some of them can even instill a sense of taste where none existed before. . .
I think it looks pretty cool
Max, you know, the doctors these days can offer you a wide range of medications -- supposedly, some of them can even instill a sense of taste where none existed before. . .
Having been born in 1961 myself, I can actually remember most all of the 1970s pretty well. Not that I really want to, but you get the idea. I distinctly recall that Mavericks had the amazing ability to look old only days after having emerged from the dealership lot. I do respect that others are entitled to their own view of what's pretty and what's not, but for me, then as now, the Maverick makes me feel like this:
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
I think it looks pretty cool
Max, you know, the doctors these days can offer you a wide range of medications -- supposedly, some of them can even instill a sense of taste where none existed before. . .
haha whatever,
that look's ILL!! For old school designs it's definitely not bad. Considering so much ugly poop was made at that time, I really dont get the problem with the ol' Mav
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
I think it looks pretty cool
Max, you know, the doctors these days can offer you a wide range of medications -- supposedly, some of them can even instill a sense of taste where none existed before. . .
haha whatever,
that look's ILL!! For old school designs it's definitely not bad. Considering so much ugly poop was made at that time, I really dont get the problem with the ol' Mav
my friends 71 302 Maverick Grabber. Nice car, and can easily toast the open end diff tires, it's still was pretty slow, even with an edel intake and carb. It got a [censored] of deal on it, and all it needed was tires, brakes, and seatbelts..
For a Ford... It is a nice looking car....
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
I do respect that others are entitled to their own view of what's pretty and what's not, but for me, then as now, the Maverick makes me feel like this:
Since you respect other people's views, let's imagine a 30+ year old Maverick Grabber (like some of the ones shown in these posts ) and any one of the cars that you claim to own sitting at a stop light side-by-side with a large crowd of people watching both cars.
What car do you think will get the most admiring views?
And in 30+ years from now, do you think history will think of your cars as exciting or nauseating?
I do respect that others are entitled to their own view of what's pretty and what's not, but for me, then as now, the Maverick makes me feel like this:
Since you respect other people's views, let's imagine a 30+ year old Maverick Grabber (like some of the ones shown in these posts ) and any one of the cars that you claim to own sitting at a stop light side-by-side with a large crowd of people watching both cars.
What car do you think will get the most admiring views?
And in 30+ years from now, do you think history will think of your cars as exciting or nauseating?
- Status
Similar threads
