![]() It had no more bearing on performance than a vinyl roof or color-keyed wheel covers (also both available). If the suspension, engine, brakes, handling are fine with you, then go back a few years and look at a 1970 Mach I or 1970 Chevy Camaro SS and compare the Maverick.įirst of all, the "grabber" option was nothing more than an appearance package. Take a good look at the mechanics of the Grabber. If you like it, that is all that matters.Īnd please, I am not being negative. Other than that, if the car looks good, buy it. Whether a 6 cylinder or V-8, the poor engine was just choked to death.įord didn't have much to offer in 1975 so they added "Sporty" looks. Plus all of the emission controls, that were tried by all the manufactures some worked but most failed. The metallurgy wasn't up to snuff for the unleaded gas. The unleaded gas was being pushed on us and that just ruined valve guides, and valves, at a rate that was just crazy. Yes, 1975 was a terrible year for most cars in the US. I will not comment on it's close cousin the Mustang II I know when to just let it go. A replacement for the Falcon is the best thing said for the Maverick. Very sorry to be so blunt but the facts show what it is. Grabber or otherwise that car should not be used in the same sentence with Sporty. I was working as a Ford Tehnician, in 1975 so I have first hand experience on the Maverick. That's when they went to the 12 Z-28 patrol cars as a test in 1981, followed by the infamous Mustang 5.0 patrol cars of the 1980s. Regis patrol cars that were so slow, they were being passed by older VW Beetles on hills. On the other hand, I don't doubt the dismal performance. Which version was tested for the article? These cars were factory available with different engines, transmissions, and rear axle ratios. Finally, published performance "data" is all over the map. This was long before computer controls, so the car has a single barrel carb that is tuned lean and has a million miles of vacuum lines to operate all the valves and sensors that are computer controlled today. This was the first year of federally-required catalytic converters, so 1975 cars had choked-off single exhausts. This was after the first gas crisis, so performance was sacrificed for economy by doing simple tricks like using very low numeric axle ratios. Also, keep in mind that 1975 was the absolute worst of the emissions-laden low-performance American automobiles. It's an economy car with some sporty styling touches. Well, your first problem is in thinking that the Maverick is a "sports car". How can a sports car with a bigger engine be slower than a beat up old volvo? I'd like to know in case of a zombie apocalypse, that I can do better than 19 seconds to 60, and top off a little higher than 80 mph. It's not that I plan on racing or abusing these cars, but. But the numbers for the Maverick are really surprising to me, someone let me know if that's accurate. ![]() Much more reasonable but still, I'd think you could push an engine of that size farther than some volvo brick. ![]() Similar question to a 1965 Impala Sport Sedan 327 V8 I'm looking at, 0-60 is over 11 seconds, top speed 109 mph. ![]() Is this true or realistic? My 1984 Volvo 4-cyl engine, non turbo, had a 0-60 of about 14 seconds, and I personally drove it to 115 mph. Automobile Catalog lists this car as having 0-60 times between 18 and 19 seconds, and top speeds between 80-90 mph. I came across a nice deal on a 1975 Ford Maverick Grabber, but then upon looking into the specs for the inline 6 version I'm seeing some numbers I can't believe for such a sporty looking car. As some of you may know, I'm looking for my first classic car.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |