I subscribed to Motor Trend back in the day and still vaguely remembered Eric Dahlquist’s article about the 1970 Ford Maverick. So when I came across his story in the Automotive History Preservation Society’s library archives, I was curious as to how it has withstood the test of time.
Surprisingly enough, the article comes off pretty well — particularly given that it was published in Motor Trend, which was not known for the critiques of Detroit iron typically found in Car and Driver, Road & Track or Car Life magazines.
Dahlquist presented a well-rounded assessment of the new Maverick’s shortcomings compared to the then-dominant Volkswagen Beetle.
He and other Motor Trend staff did not expect “first examples of a brand new car to exhibit the fine paintwork, trim fit, upholstery detailing and quality control characteristics of a car Volkswagen has been building for two decades, and [the Maverick] didn’t. But we did expect a certain novelty about the car, a certain fresh approach to passenger packaging perhaps, utility without cheapness, form following function. Instead we got ‘long hood/short deck lines with fun-to-drive appeal for the now generation.’ Translated from pitchmanese this means a car 20 inches longer than rival VW has precious little more interior volume, except shoulder room” (1969, p. 1).
Dahlquist went on to compare the Maverick with the original Falcon — and concluded that the latter design “seems a better vehicle to stem the foreign invasion than its replacement” (1969, p. 1). Perhaps because Motor Trend’s format gave more space to photos than text, Dahlquist didn’t flesh out his comparison, but a data table shows that even though the new Ford weighed 151 pounds more, it had a six-inch-shorter wheelbase that reduced rear-seat leg and hip room. A swoopier roofline also cut front and rear headroom. And despite the Maverick’s kammback styling, its trunk space was only 11.3 cubic feet — almost half that of the Falcon and only marginally larger than the Beetle’s.
Also see ‘What would an honest ad for the 1971 Ford Maverick have said?’
Perhaps most interestingly, Dahlquist compared VW’s engineering advancements with those of Ford since the Falcon was introduced in 1960. Whereas the Beetle gained a “Porsche-type true independent suspension in 1969,” the chassis for the Maverick and 1960 Falcon “match up perfectly.” In other words, same old, same old. One result: The Maverick’s track was only 2.2 inches greater than the Beetle’s even though the Ford was nine inches wider. Dahlquist concluded that “it does not require a physics degree to guess which vehicle will corner better” (1969, p. 3).
In addition, with “almost ten years to feed reams of data about the foreign car buyer into their vast computer banks, the Detroit think tank offers a Maverick whose turning circle is just .6 feet greater than a Bug and then compromises it with a motor-winder’s nightmare of 5 1/2 turns lock-to-lock. Just short of double the VW’s 2.8” (1969, p. 1). Even the Falcon did better at 4.64 turns.
Maverick had more potential as a cheap Mustang
Dahlquist recognized that even though the Maverick wasn’t very competitive with the Beetle, it would not be a failure because the car basically amounted to a much cheaper Mustang. Alas, here he lapsed into Detroit groupthink by swooning about the potential of adding a 351-cubic-inch V8 and other performance doodads. “Could there possibly be a market for a $400 less expensive Road Runner with equal or better performance?” (1969, p. 3). The subsequent collapse of muscle car sales would answer that question.
The story ended by noting that the Maverick was an “interim design” to tide Ford over until it could come out with a “true urban vehicle, like Chevy’s ohc four-cylinder front-wheel-drive,” which Dahlquist said were slated for introduction in 1972 or 1973 (1969, p. 3).
Also see ‘Compact cars became the neglected stepchildren of U.S. automakers’
Yeah, I remember those true urban vehicles, the Ford Pinto and the Chevrolet Vega. They really knocked the wind out of the European and Japanese subcompacts with their superior engineering, packaging and quality control.
But back to the Maverick. Dahlquist offered that “Ford probably has another Mustang on their hands — if they just realize it” (1969, p. 3). The automaker instead gave the car a narrow role as a strippo compact. Perhaps that made sense because a more capable Maverick might have cannibalized sales from the Mustang and forthcoming Pinto. Whatever the reason, America got a rather crude car that highlighted how much Detroit had fallen behind the imports.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Dahlquist, Eric; 1969. “Ford’s Maverick.” Motor Trend. May issue: pp. 1-3. Posted in Automotive History Preservation Society’s library archives.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Ford Maverick (1970)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Ford Maverick (1970)
I drove 200 highway kms in a 1970 Maverick that belonged to a cousin. It was a scary trip. The car wandered all over the road and felt unstable on its skinny tires and narrow wheels. It was probably one of the worst cars I’ve ever driven. To say it was a rudimentary car would be an overstatement. I wonder if Ralph Nader ever rode in one.
Yup. Back in the 1980s I inherited a Maverick. It had custom trim but still felt like a strippo car. Few gauges, no glove box, uncomfortable front seat and a tiny back seat. We used the Maverick as an around-town commuter, which it did okay . . . when it started. That was when I discovered the value of a AAA-Plus membership because that car needed a tow all too many times.
We eventually swapped out the Maverick for a 1981 Honda Civic. What a difference! The base coupe may have been relatively spartan, but it felt like a jewel of a car in comparison, with much better handling, braking, acceleration, fuel economy and even roominess in most respects. The seats were comfortable enough for long-distance driving, shifting was a breeze and outward visibility was excellent. Pop the hatch and we could fit far more cargo than the Maverick even though it was much smaller on the outside. Best of all, the Civic was relentlessly reliable.
I haven’t owned a U.S.-built car since that Maverick. Perhaps it made Ford some easy sales at first, but at what long-term cost?
Interesting to note then Ford referred the Maverick in Mexico as “Falcon Maverick” https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/5337866727/ did Ford originally wanted to keep the Falcon nameplate for a couple of additional model years for the sedan while the coupe will be called Maverick?
The Maverick was also sold in Brazil where an aftermarket specialist created a station-wagon version. http://www.maverick.to/maverick-comet-timeline/1978-1979-timeline/
The wagon looks pretty good besides the tacked-on taillights. In the U.S. a wagon could have given the Maverick a useful niche in the compact class. Since the Pinto wagon sold pretty well, I would imagine that the Maverick might have done even better because it was a more versatile car, e.g., having four doors, a roomier back seat and an optional V8. Alas, Iacocca seemed to be allergic to practical cars that reminded him of the McNamara days.
I kind of wonder if Bunkie Knudsen during his short stint at Ford might also have a word to said about the creation of the Maverick?
Slightly off-topic, I spotted this vintage promo dealer strip film who compared the Ford Maverick vs the Plymouth Duster.
I don’t know. Knudsen was hired by Ford in February 1968 and fired in September 1969. Presumably he would have had some role in decisions around the original Maverick coupe, and perhaps the lineup expansion of 1971. However, my guess is that the Maverick was more reflective of what Iacocca said that he had wanted to see with the original Falcon — a much less utilitarian design than what McNamara had insisted upon.
I wonder if Iacocca had some input in the Fairmont design, as it debuted a year before HF II fired him, and was a far more utilitarian design than the Maverick and maybe even all generations of the Falcon. Or perhaps the decision makers on the Fairmont were lower level Ford executives.
The Maverick’s inherent cheapness upon introduction went a long way why it only had a lifespan of eight model years. The Falcon, even in its 1969 iteration, looked like a more substantial car than the Maverick. The smaller Cortina drove better than the Maverick. A college classmate had a new 1970 Maverick coupe with the biggest six offered, Cruise-O-Matic and the deluxe interior. My friend still wanted a “Grabber”. At his first opportunity, he replaced the tires with bigger size, more aggressive tread pattern as he lived in the Calumet region of northwestern Indiana, so he needed something better for traction in snow and ice. My friend said even then, the Maverick did not handle better than his previous car, a 1964 Falcon Futura.