Grassroots Maverick

[FElony]

That's what I'm talking about:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ6Eo2Amn7o

[TomP]

I can't imagine how the 8" rear end had survived. I've seen videos of that car and it looks like it leaves hard enough to destroy any 8". Interesting stuff on the bowl vent and airflow problems.

[FElony]

I can't imagine how the 8" rear end had survived. I've seen videos of that car and it looks like it leaves hard enough to destroy any 8". Interesting stuff on the bowl vent and airflow problems.

An 8" with a mini-spool. Now there are 8" full spools, to hedge the bet. I gotta love a 9-second machine on the cheap by a guy who appears to have a handle on things. It seems just about nobody else here cares.

[FElony]

Can anyone recommend a grassroots forum? Something like jalopnik, but for post-'65 cars?

[mn67]

I am building an FE Maverick on the semi cheap. Mostly stock suspension with the exception of roller perches (home built).old school slapper bars stock leafs. Cuttoff wheel designed shock towers. Well built c4 and an 8 inch with a spool. I will agree that the 445 probably eliminates some of the grass roots apeal. But with that exception it is a garage built Maverick with big motor and bench seat interior and home done body and paint. I did farm out block machine work and seat covers. Maybe not grass roots but close in my oppinion. I do believe a dual quad 410 leftover from the 80's built with spare parts would better fit the deffinition but there is one of those in my build thread.

[e philpott]

Maverick's are sweet ! That one looks rough but I guess that's part of his point , my brother has a 22K original mile  Grabber with a tall Boss 429 style scoop that had been a street racer since day 1   , still sporting the slapper bars and 59 Ford 9 inch from back then , my brother switch to a C4 (was 4 speed) Dart block , Cast Scat 347 kit , AFR 195 Renegade heads , Funnel Wedge intake and a big solid flat tappet cam ( an engine anyone could build )with 6 point bar that clicks off 6.79 at 100 mph in the 1/8th like nothing pulling the wheels up 3 ft on the hit , Mavericks are just good cars and light weight too

[cammerfe]

I seem to remember the Tijuana Taxi, from a few years ago.

KS

[BattlestarGalactic]

My grandma had her '75 Maverick, bought new.  After her passing I sold it to buddy's son.  Son drove it for a couple years.  It had 6 banger with 7K original miles on it(ya grandma drove it to the store on Sat and church on Sunday for 22 yrs!!).  Once he was done with it my friend took it and stuck a roller cam 302 in it from a Mustang.  Threw a 600 holley on it and ran mid 12's easily.  He sold it to a friend and it disappeared.

With one of his F cam bomber motors and a 5spd...that thing would have really flown.

[FElony]

How do you think a Maverick compares in weight to a Fox body or early Mustang?

[wcbrowning]

According to Google:
1. 1969 Maverick 170 6 / 3spd man 2491lb
2. 1967 Mustang hardtop 200 6 / 3spd man 2687lb
3. 1967 Mustang hardtop 289 / 4spd man 2895lb
4. 1988 Mustang hatchback 5.0 / 5spd man 3192lb

(Edited for curb weight.  Mistakenly wrote the shipping weight for #'s 1 & 2.)

How do you think a Maverick compares in weight to a Fox body or early Mustang?

[Rory428]

According to Google:
1. 1969 Maverick 170 6 / 3spd man 2411lb
2. 1967 Mustang hardtop 6 / 3spd man 2578lb
3. 1967 Mustang hardtop 289 / 4spd man 2895lb
4. 1988 Mustang hatchback 5.0 / 5spd man 3192lb

Not sure where Google gets their numbers , but the first 3 cars listed seem awfully (unbelieveably) light. The 88 5.0 looks fairly realistic for a GT model, but a LX should be lighter. Lots of other FOX body models are lighter, especially earlier cars. I weighed my 1978 Fairmont back in 1986 when I bought it. It was a stripper 4 cyl, 4 speed, manual steering & brakes, with the spare tire, and 1/2 tank of gas, it weighed 2680 lbs.I would think that a similar equipped and smaller 79 Mustang would likely be even lighter.

How do you think a Maverick compares in weight to a Fox body or early Mustang?

According to Google:
1. 1969 Maverick 170 6 / 3spd man 2411lb
2. 1967 Mustang hardtop 6 / 3spd man 2578lb
3. 1967 Mustang hardtop 289 / 4spd man 2895lb
4. 1988 Mustang hatchback 5.0 / 5spd man 3192lb

How do you think a Maverick compares in weight to a Fox body or early Mustang?

[wcbrowning]

Entirely possible that the Google data is flawed Rory.  Also, I edited the first two cars in my post, because I had mistakenly written the shipping weights rather than the curb weights.  For reference, these are the Google results that yielded the curb weights I posted (scroll for different engine / transmission configurations):

1. http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/maverick_usa/maverick_usa_2-door_sedan/1969.html

2. http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/mustang_1gen/mustang_1gen_base_hardtop/1967.html

3. http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/mustang_3gen/mustang_3gen_gt_3-door/1988.html

Not sure where Google gets their numbers , but the first 3 cars listed seem awfully (unbelieveably) light. The 88 5.0 looks fairly realistic for a GT model, but a LX should be lighter. Lots of other FOX body models are lighter, especially earlier cars. I weighed my 1978 Fairmont back in 1986 when I bought it. It was a stripper 4 cyl, 4 speed, manual steering & brakes, with the spare tire, and 1/2 tank of gas, it weighed 2680 lbs.I would think that a similar equipped and smaller 79 Mustang would likely be even lighter.

According to Google:
1. 1969 Maverick 170 6 / 3spd man 2491lb
2. 1967 Mustang hardtop 200 6 / 3spd man 2687lb
3. 1967 Mustang hardtop 289 / 4spd man 2895lb
4. 1988 Mustang hatchback 5.0 / 5spd man 3192lb

(Edited for curb weight.  Mistakenly wrote the shipping weight for #'s 1 & 2.)

How do you think a Maverick compares in weight to a Fox body or early Mustang?

[e philpott]

How do you think a Maverick compares in weight to a Fox body or early Mustang?

Mavericks are light, early ones don’t even have a glove box, they only have 2 windows that roll up or down, my brothers uncut Mav  weighs 2600 with 6 point roll bar , frame connectors and 9 inch rear axle only missing back seat because of the roll bar

[e philpott]

I would say google has the Maverick correct

[FElony]

What actually surprised me about the Google statistics was the mention of a "1969" Maverick. I don't think I've ever seen one. My memory says that the Maverick rolled in as the mid-year replacement for the 1970 Falcon, and was thus a 1970 vehicle. In researching this, I found one or two references to a 1969 Maverick. Indeed, the Wikipedia page starts out saying it was introduced as a '69, then does a 180º a few paragraphs later and says it was made in 1970. Maverick-specific forums say "1970-1977" in most cases, but then you see this:  http://www.themaverickpage.com/Introduction/introduction.html

So, near as I can guess, this anomaly mimicks the 1964 1/2 Mustang, which people say are "titled" as 1965's, with a VIN that begins with a 5 (is this true?). If the Maverick was a 1969 1/2 release, then the notion that it "replaced" the Falcon would be somewhat false, as both would have been concurrently available for sale. Do early Mavericks have a VIN that starts with 9, or 0? My 1969 Ford Shop Manual has zero Maverick info. Assuming that it was printed prior to the release of "regular" '69 cars, was there a later shop addendum to cover these cars?

Anyway, I am still in possession of the 1972 Pinto I picked up a couple months ago. The member here that wanted it so much discovered that it wasn't going to ship itself for free to his locale, so here it sits, for the moment. As usual, I did a bunch of research on V8 swaps for this thing. A cruise through YouTube will turn up quite a few V8's rampaging about the countryside. Curb weight is listed as 2061 pounds. Still not sure what to do with it. Good Grassroots vehicle.

I was hoping to get into the ADRA Bracket points program this year. Somehow, I was thinking the season opener was in Oct. Wrong. It's on Sept 8th. The only car I can run that soon would be the Crown Vic. Will people laugh at me showing up with a stock 16-second car? Probably, but it's the only way to get points right off the bat. More interestingly...the Vic, left in Drive, might be a more consistent car than anything else I could conjure up around here. Do you bracket pros ever see mundane vehicles actually place high in a points season?