The Maverick was Ford’s second sales success of the 1960s. It followed the Mustang by five years to the day when the car went on sale in April 1969. Sharing the same long hood/short deck portions as the Mustang, the Maverick was the replacement for Ford’s aging Falcon compact. This 1973 edition wears the Grabber appearance package and is said to be a garage find having been in hibernation for the past 20 years. Located in Simi, California, this nice survivor will need some TLC to get it running again. It’s available here on craigslist for $8,800. Another “primo” tip was brought to us by Tony Primo!
Ford sold more than two million Mavericks through the 1977 model year. When it first debuted, the starting price was just $1,995, so they were considered cheap wheels then, which explains why you don’t see many running around today. Also, they were not a performance vehicle like the Mustang could be, with a 2-barrel 302 cubic inch V8 being the biggest thing you could get under the hood. The Grabber package was added mid-way into 1970 and mainly consisted of interesting colors (like Grabber Blue) and striping to appeal to younger buyers.
Though the stripes on the hood indicate this Maverick is a Grabber, it doesn’t have the rear spoiler they typically came with. It may have been a “delete” option by that point. We’re told this car “Ran when parked” which suggests nobody came back to give it much love for a long time. The odometer reads 41,000 miles and the overall condition of the automobile suggests it could be accurate.
No mention is made of the Ford’s running health today, so we assume some work will be needed to get it going again. Like a flush of the fuel system, a new battery, and some fresh rubber donuts. This car has the desirable 302 V8 compared to an inline-6 and it’s paired with a floor-shifted 3-speed manual. The single photo we get of the interior suggests it’s still quite nice, too. Overall, this looks like a nice Maverick to give some TLC at far less money than a 1st generation Mustang.
Can’t remember ever seeing red one, looks quite serviceable with a little work. What I find strange today it’s a small truck.
I agree on the Maverick truck name and also felt the EV Mustang SUV should have been the Pinto 😉
I like this Maverick color and model . The earlier models had better bumpers but this is a good non rusted car for the money.
If i had room in the Inn then I would buy this Maverick and play with the motor, intake and carb plus exhaust.
It’s not top gun Maverick but looks like a fun weekender…
I agree. I think it was a mistake made by Ford. I owned a 1972 Maverick which I called Shelbrick because I sent it to a race shop way back when and painted it blue with silver Shelby racing stripes, lowered with a high performance handling/suspension package, a 427 cu in Shelby Cobra engine, 3 speed on the floor, and racing buckets. If I ever bought another Maverick I’d want it to be a modern 1000hp EV version and not some mini-truck!
They called the new mini truck the Maverick because it has the exact same mission as the original: an economy car with more features and utility than other economy cars on the market.
In the 70s that extra was more style, size, and power than the VW Beetle. Today, that means offering truck utility to people shopping economy cars who may not have considered a truck since Ford doesn’t build cars any more. It’s a gateway drug into Fords bigger and more expensive trucks.
There is truth to this statement. The new Maverick can be considered the new “economy” car of this decade in that they are offering something that people want in a package that won’t kill the wallet like a full size pickup can do. And Ford isn’t the only one to recognize this market – think Hyundai Santa Cruz.
I have always appreciated this market. I had a Ford Explorer Sport Trac that I loved, but it rotted out from under me after 12 years of NE winters. Now that I am down here in GA, I see them everywhere.
From the meager ad it does look good. For being just trim the Grabber package did dress them up, especially the earlier-years small-bumper models.
This Maverick will go great alongside my 1986 White Ford Escort hatchback 4 speed.
that comment is getting ooolllldddd…..
I like Charles Atlas and his Escort!
Record = Broken.
That is one solid stock OEM engine and barn. Yellow inspection stamps on driver side valve cover remain.
Worth a look… on a rack, etc – priced to move.
Price seems fair. It would definitely stand out at your local car show in the sea of Mustangs and Camaros.
Looks almost too good to be true! A whole lot of potential rite here replace the bumpers and exchange the trans with a 5 speed and add some speed parts to the engine and not a lot of dough to get it there! Visit a used car lot and what $8k will get you!
The bumpers are a ‘one year only’ product and tough to find, even in the early ’80s… I had a ’73 with a 6. It was a good car until a woman left turned into me while she merged onto a local freeway… ugh.
I have a soft spot for ’73s.
The turn signals were mounted below the front bumper, in the slot between the lower valence and the bumper until the 1973 model year, when the Federal 5 mph bumpers appeared in the 1973 model year. With the big “Bash Beam” bumpers, the turn signals moved up, into the grille, an injection moulded plastic part, possibly recycled from a ’68 or ’69 Mustang. A simple bolt-in upgrade was to bolt a ’73 or later grille into a 1970-72 example, to make the front turn signals bigger and brighter, along with a better style look. No rewiring required, as the wires for the lamp sockets had enough slack that the existing lamp sockets would snap right into place in the new lamp holders in the grille!
These looked good with the stripes and spec hood. I don’t recall a spoiler as the rear has a duck tail to it. Seats resemble those from the early Fox Mustang. I like it with the 302 and 3-on-the-floor.
I’m almost with you, but I’d swap out the three-speed for at least a period correct four-speed, or maybe a five-speed salvaged from a wrecked Mustang. I can’t tell if the front seats are bench or buckets from the pictures, but I’m guessing a simple bench seat is part of this car’s equipment.
As Nelson C stated a ducktail not a spoiler..which was quite different and much higher than a standard Maverick..thus this does have the rear “spoiler” as was a Grabber option.
Lots of Grabbers are fakes, the VIN is the tell – and that’s missing from the listing. But it does have all the right stuff.
Have we reached the point in the hobby where people are cloning Maverick Grabbers to increase the selling price, like Z28s and Super Sport Chevys?
Sadly, yes. Which is a bit like printing counterfeit $1 bills, but I digress!
Why couldn’t this one have surfaced about a year ago? I would’ve been all over it. Looks good . With some added ponies under the hood and a better trans and rear end. A little bit fatter wheels and tires on the back, This car could be perfect. A friend had one when I was younger with an upgraded drive train and suspension and it was a blast to drive. We had some pretty nice canyons back then that was perfect for seeing how well a car would corner. Unfourtunatly those places are full of houses now. Sad all the places that were taken over by “PROGRESS”.
The key words being “with an upgraded drive train and suspension”! Why would you pay good money for a car that can’t do its job properly without spending even more money to fix it? These had so much body roll in stock form that you were afraid that you’d rub the door handles off of the car! The brakes were numb, like they had been shot full of Novacaine, and stopping distances were measured in miles instead of feet! The stock power steering was equally devoid of feel, and might just as well been attached to a video game for all of the feedback you got from it! The V8 cars at least got front disk brakes with power assist, but the bottom feeder sixes made do with drums at all four corners, power assist was optional, and sorely missed!
The Grabber option was just an exterior appearance package,having nothing to do with performance.The guy i bought my 70′ Maverick from had 3 of his own.A 77′,a 75′ and a 72′.All were 302 cars and the 72′ had a 3spd.He would hunt down the hoods and trunks with the spoilers off of Grabbers to use on his own Mavericks,drilling holes in the honeycombed inserts to make them functional.The 75′ had a Grabber hood and used tail lights off a Mercury Comet.
All of the crowd that I hang out with made the hood scoops on their cars fully functional. This includes a 1972 Plymouth Cuda, 1977 Pontiac Firebird Formula and a 1978 Chevrolet Camaro Z28.
And made as about as much performance improvement as a new paint job…Didn’t need scoops on my Maverick,it had 275hp under the hood…
The only holes we drilled in ours was in the front shock towers, so we could fit a grease gun hose onto the grease fittings for the upper control arm bushings without jacking up the car and taking the front tires off, LOL!
Wow lots more commentary than I thought would ever come from a maverick!
Any body remember the original TV ad for these bragging about how simple they were that a group of Stewardesses could assemble one? Then they showed a pile of parts and a group of stewardesses put it together
Man they could NEVER get away with that today! LOL
Not only do I remember it, I found it on You Tube! Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo7_FCZX8w8
Here is a compilation of 1970 Ford commercials. Most of them are high quality – the stewardess one is the 2nd one in. There are also a couple of Grabber ads too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nSLHNiuFfM
Setting aside the ergonomic issues these cars present for the moment, the only way to get these flaccid unibody cars to handle properly, IMHO, is to put a full frame under it! These cars had all of the chassis rigidity of overcooked spaghetti from the factory, and with a solid rear axle hanging from leaf springs in the back, they handled about as well as a fully loaded pickup truck, that is, not at all! Putting a full frame under it would at least allow you to cut the front shock towers out of the car, for easier access to the engine, and replace the numb recirculating ball steering with a proper rack & pinion setup, along with a double wishbone front suspension, and possibly a fully independent rear suspension in place of the solid rear axle that was over forty (40) years old when these cars were new. Finish the job with a good set of aftermarket four-wheel disk brakes, and you’re done! The problem is, of course, that you’ll spend two or three times what the car is worth when you’re done, but hey, the truth hurts, deal with it!
That front bumper looks too skinny to be a proper Federal Bash Beam bumper, are you sure that this car is a 1973 example, and not an earlier model that has been retrofitted with the later 1973-78 grille? The grille swap takes less than ten minutes with a nothing more than a socket wrench to do the job! It really makes the car look better, IMHO. Another tip off is the dashboard. I think it was 1974 when these got a proper glove box, with a door and everything! Earlier cars made do with a cheesy “package shelf” made from fiber reinforced plastic and a cheap vinyl envelope, called a “documents pouch”, to hold your owner’s manual and registration, attached to the package shelf with peel & stick velcro!
You act like you know so much about Mavericks, but the stuff you talk about shows that you don’t really know that much about them!
There are so many incorrect statements in your many responses to this car that I don’t know where to start, so I won’t even bother.
We have 6 Mavericks and Comets in our family and they are fun cars that always get plenty of thumbs up any time that we take them out. Also weighing only about 2,700 pounds with a 302 V8, it doesn’t take much to make good performers out of them.
We have two that are solid 12 second 1/4 mile cars that are still easy to drive to cruise-ins and car shows that are 1 to 2 hours from where we live.
I drove one for ten (10) years, so that’s where my information comes from. It was Mom’s replacement for her 1961 Buick Special, before it became my college commuter car. At the time we had a ’67 T-Bird as our second family car. Dad ditched the T-Bird for an Audi 5000, I got the Maverick before passing it my younger brother as his high school beater when a 1972 Opel 1900 became my college wheels.
The Maverick’s first motor took a powder while I was still in high school, so Dad bought a wrecked 1970 example and transplanted the motor and transmission into our car. Two (2) years later it threw a connecting rod at a stop light, and went to the crusher on the back of flatbed wrecker!
We probably should have ditched it years earlier, but Dad was starting a new business, I was in college, baby brother was still in Catholic High School, and money was tight. When Dad’s business took off, he bought a new ’79 Capri (the Fox body Mustang’s twin sister), and later upgraded to new Audi 5000.
I like these Mavericks just the way they were from the factory. They were basic economy cars, representative of their times. The Grabber trim added to their already-attractive long hood/short deck styling.
Definitely a 73 front bumper. The 73 bumper was a one year deal, 74 got the park benches front and back. 73 was last year for front valance under the bumper. The lights in the grille were called sport lamps, they had their own switch in the center of the dash. On 74-77 models they indeed became the parking/turn signals. 73 was also last year of the rear ducktail spoiler, the 74 -77 cars used a taller end cap on the fenders than the small bumper cars, so Ford never made a spoiler cap for them. There were a few fiberglass conversion kits to use the spoiler on big bumper cars, don’t know if anybody makes them anymore or not.
This looks like the real deal, or could just be Grabber specific parts on a standard coupe. Either way, it’s a good deal, even if there were a little rust in the quarters, the most common place. I sold my 74 that had been converted with Grabber parts about ten years ago for $8500, so this one will get snatched up quickly. Contrary to what a couple of naysayers above had to say, the Maverick was actually a decent handling car, certainly no worse than the Mustang of the same time period that it got most of it’s suspension from! Those naysayers are probably Honda Civic folks anyway…
Well, this naysayer drove one for ten (10) years, until the second (2nd) motor threw a connecting rod! It went to the junkyard on the back of a trailer! I took my driver’s test in that car, and the only reason I drove it, was it was drive that POS or walk! It ate one (1) transmission and two (2) motors, and the 1972 Opel 1900 that replaced it was a much better car in every way! The Opel was two-thirds the size of the Maverick, but had almost the same amount of room inside, ditto in the trunk, had more power, got better mileage from the 1.9L four-cylinder than the Maverick’s 250 I6, and the Opel, with the Coil sprung solid axle, with trailing arms and a Watt’s linkage, and rack & pinion steering would run rings around the Maverick, with all of its well known limitations. Oh, and BTW, the Opel had a REAL glovebox!
Interesting bit of excitement, here. Who’d a thunk that a Maverick would get the commentariat all so worked up?
I remember the Maverick well. I was of learner’s permit age when the old man traded in his (Kaiser) Wagoneer in on a Maverick four-door.
That’s how little status the workaday Wagoneer of the Kaiser era had – he was climbing, socially, in his choice of car.
I drove the Jeep, which was unremarkable and frankly, heavy. And I spent a fair amount of time driving the other car, a Gran Torino wagon. Nope, nuffin there for ya – you didn’t drive it, you telegraphed the steering room. Hard to Port, and Full Steam Ahead.
The Maverick, in my short driving career, was positively sporty. The Ford numb power steering (the worst of the times; but much better than electric assist steering that we’re seeing) was way too light, but quick. The car responded easily, albeit with body roll.
I much preferred it to the Driver’s Ed Nova, of the same year. Already I was coming to hate Saginaw variable-ratio steering – in the Jeep and Nova both.
So, today I have some fondness. When I was younger, I could have gotten a few Mavericks…but the car I followed up the Maverick with, a Super Beetle, gave me a taste for well-balanced little cars. Now, in my dotage, I’d like that Maverick four-door; but then…thanks, no; I’d moved beyond it.
I like the 1969 -73 Mavericks and Comets…..Always have.
They made a ’69 Maverick? Oh right, they were released in spring of ’69, so the early ones are probably referred to as 69.5.
Had a 73, same color pkge, 302.
Since it was light , didn’t take much to melt the tires, but at the end of the day it was still a maverick!
A couple of bolt ons for the engine and drive it! Look for 5 speed OD trans they are nice for cruising around on the open road. Alot to like there.
A lot of comments liking Mavericks all say, in effect, they’re great cars if you swap out the engine, transmission and brakes! Well, call me old fashioned, but I’m of the opinion that if you have to swap out major parts of the car to make it “good”, then maybe it wasn’t very good to begin with! I’m of the admittedly quaint opinion that a car is either good or bad from the factory, and if you have to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in parts to make it perform acceptably, then maybe it wasn’t all that good to start with!
Now that’s different from taking a basically good car and modifying it to personalize it to your taste. There’s nothing wrong with that, and lots of folks do it every day. But they are starting with a good beginning, and customizing it to fit them, rather than trying to fix large flaws that should have been taken care of by the manufacturer in the design phase, long before the car ever entered the dealer’s showroom.
As a case in point, all of the “Big Three” had compact cars that competed with each other in this era, but I found both the Chrysler entries (Dodge Dart/Demon, Plymouth Duster/Valiant) and GM’s entries (X-body, a.k.a. Chevy Nova, et al.) to be superior to the Ford Maverick and Mercury Comet twins in just about every area, from fit and finish, handling and interior appointments, to drivetrain (engine & transmission) choices. They all used the same basic architecture (front engine, rear-wheel drive, with a solid axle hanging from leaf springs in the back and double wishbones up front), and none of them would be competitive in handling against their import competition, but among the domestic competition, the Ford twins placed dead last in every category! Now being last in class against two (2) other mediocre contenders should be a source of shame, not pride!
We had a gold 72 grabber. It didn’t have a spoiler. Bought the car off base at Havelock NC in the early 80’s. Pops built a 302 boss for it at The Truck Shoppe in a plaza next door to a VW repair shop. Car was fast but kept breaking a clutch bracket. Took the car with us when we moved to Savannah and sold it for cheap to a guy on Red Oak in Regency Trailer Park.
Oops… It was a gold 1972 Comet GT.. I sent this page to my Dad and he corrected me. He also said it was the “z” bar that kept breaking because the car was flexing…
My first car, a 1973 four door. It was originally green, but I painted red, with a black striped hood, and back light area. She was really quick, 302 V8. Only thing was changing those back two spark plugs, wow no room between the engine and the side.
I owned a 72 Grabber in 1989, 74 2 door in ’92, A ’73 in 2002 and I still have a ’76 I bought in 2011. I love these cars.
Now, if I can convince my wife that I need this one…
“Grocery Grabber”
🤣😅👍 Hey, we all have to eat!
I was such a Mustang snob back in the day when they were cheap ( had quite a few 65-70’s, including a ’70 Mach 1). Now I am liking these. I feel dirty.
“Out, out damned spot!” With apologies to Will Shakespeare and Lady MacBeth, that stain will never wash out! Well, we’ve all done things in our lives we’re not proud of, this is yours, LOL!
Robert Atkinson jr Thanks for finding and sharing that stewardess ad cracks me up!
I still remember back in the day that my sister dated a guy who had a gorgeous red mustang Mach one and he turned around and traded it for a red maverick like this one, what a dope!
He could have scored the max points on his license and the insurance company may have encouraged the switch.
I was going to leave a comment, but ALL has already been said in the numerous comments already posted. So, I’ll just say goodbye!
I know. 51 comments for a Maverick, when we average at least 1 per week here.
Had the Mercury version of this…72 Comet GT…had 302 V8 and C4….cool looking…but prone to rust…the 4 wheel drum…with power steering really made the car feel loose…and was dangerous when it rained…only way to upgrade were salvage yard cars as disc conversion kits were not available…easy and cheap to work on though.
I bought a new 1973 red maverick with a white stripe. 302 cubic inch engine with 3 speed floor shifter. It ran like a scalded dog !!!