Is a 1975 Ford Maverick Grabber Sport really that slow!?

[Guest Spy]

Hello all,

As some of you may know, I'm looking for my first classic car. 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. Automobile Catalog lists this car as having 0-60 times between 18 and 19 seconds, and top speeds between 80-90 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. How can a sports car with a bigger engine be slower than a beat up old volvo?

Similar question to a 1965 Impala Sport Sedan 327 V8 I'm looking at, 0-60 is over 11 seconds, top speed 109 mph. Much more reasonable but still, I'd think you could push an engine of that size farther than some volvo brick. But the numbers for the Maverick are really surprising to me, someone let me know if that's accurate. Thanks!

P.S. It's not that I plan on racing or abusing these cars, but.. 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.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Spy (see edit history)

[keiser31]

I thought all of the Maverick "Grabbers" came with the power bulge hood with scoops and the 302 V8. I guess I learn something new every day.

[joe_padavano]

How can a sports car with a bigger engine be slower than a beat up old volvo?

Well, your first problem is in thinking that the Maverick is a "sports car". It's an economy car with some sporty styling touches. Also, keep in mind that 1975 was the absolute worst of the emissions-laden low-performance American automobiles. This was after the first gas crisis, so performance was sacrificed for economy by doing simple tricks like using very low numeric axle ratios. This was the first year of federally-required catalytic converters, so 1975 cars had choked-off single exhausts. 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. Finally, published performance "data" is all over the map. These cars were factory available with different engines, transmissions, and rear axle ratios. Which version was tested for the article?

On the other hand, I don't doubt the dismal performance. The CHP used to have Dodge St. Regis patrol cars that were so slow, they were being passed by older VW Beetles on hills. 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.

[sfair]

Hello all,

As some of you may know, I'm looking for my first classic car. 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. Automobile Catalog lists this car as having 0-60 times between 18 and 19 seconds, and top speeds between 80-90 mph.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]247084[/ATTACH]

The 18 -19 seconds looks like 1/4 mile time, not 0-60.

Top speed looks about right if it has the 200 engine. They are slow, border line stone, cars, indeed!

Had one....would not pull the hat off of your head!

[Bleach]

It has five lug wheels so it might have a 302. The 302 will have a higher top speed as well as better acceleration times.

[Rusty_OToole]

The Maverick was meant as a replacement for the Falcon as Ford's lowest price, best mileage economy car. They were selling against the VW beetle, Gremlin, Vega and similar at least before they brought out the Pinto.

The Grabber gave them a little more pizzaz but no way was it meant to be a performance car.

You seem to take the word "sport" too literally. The Chev Impala Sport Sedan was not a sports car either. It is a big heavy family car. The base 327 2 barrel engine was not built for performance.

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for.

[TerryB]

Economy was important in 1975 as we were adjusting to our first taste of rising gas prices and limited availability. Performance over fuel economy was a long time in coming back in to the US car market. I had a 1977 Nova "Rally" edition that had a 305 v8, 2bbl carb, dual exhaust and auto on the tree. It was not fast but it did handle well.

Terry

[intimeold]

I was working as a Ford Tehnician, in 1975; so I have first hand experience on the Maverick. Grabber or otherwise; that car should not be used in the same sentence with Sporty.

Very sorry to be so blunt; but the facts show what it is. A replacement for the Falcon; is the best thing said for the Maverick.

I will not comment on it's close cousin the Mustang II; I know when to just let it go.

Yes, 1975 was a terrible year for most cars in the US. The unleaded gas was being pushed on us; and that just ruined valve guides, and valves, at a rate that was just crazy. The metallurgy wasn't up to snuff for the unleaded gas. Plus all of the emission controls, that were tried by all the manufactures; some worked but most failed. Whether a 6 cylinder or V-8, the poor engine was just choked to death.

Ford didn't have much to offer in 1975; so they added "Sporty" looks. Not sporty performance.

Other than that, if the car looks good, buy it.

If you like it, that is all that matters.

And please, I am not being negative. Take a good look at the mechanics of the Grabber. 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.

[Dave@Moon]

First of all, the "grabber" option was nothing more than an appearance package. It had no more bearing on performance than a vinyl roof or color-keyed wheel covers (also both available).

I believe by 1974 all straight 6 cylinder Fords had gone to 5 lug wheels.

18 seconds for a 0-60 time is about right for a 6 cylinder automatic Grabber. It's is WAY to fast to be a 1/4 mile time. 302 V8 Mustang Cobra II's at that time were only doing 18.2 sec. 1/4 miles. The best 1/4 mile time for Maverick Grabbers I could find online was 17.4 sec. for a 1974 302 V8. In 1974 the biggest 6 cylinder Ford Maverick (250 cu. in., there were also 200 and 170 cu. in. versions which may have been optioned into "Grabber" appearance models) was rated at 81 hp. That's exactly 30 fewer horsepower than a 1984 Volvo 240 DL. This link is for a simulated* detailed performance profile of a 200 cu. in. 1975 Maverick Grabber (75 hp): ( http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1975/841475/ford_maverick_grabber_200_six.html ). 0-60 for this car was 18.8 sec., with a 1/4 mile time of 21.8 sec. And that was with a manual transmission, most of these cars came with a VERY inefficient automatic.

Also 80-90 mph is a reasonable top speed for a 6 cylinder Maverick. My 1960 Ford Falcon (144 cu. in., automatic) could only do about 72 flat out on level ground. Choked by emission standards and severely restricted exhaust, many cars of this era were limited in top speed to such numbers. Also the Maverick was just about as un-aerodynamic as a car can get. The car in the link above had a theoretical top speed of 99 mph, but again that was with the manual.

1975 is not the year to be looking for a fast car, especially among American cars.

* See: http://www.automobile-catalog.com/simulation.php

[mastertech]

back about 74/75 I had a 70 maverick , this was a real early car ignition switch was on the dash. Any way mine did real good for about three months anyway. It would go over 110mph,but being a youngster I had replaced the 170 cid with a 351 Cleveland with a4speed, but forgot one thing....rear end. out one night we reved her up dumped the clutch, well never seen a mate pin cut a case in half before. boy I miss that car!!!

[JACK M]

That 200 engine is probably one of the best that Ford ever made. 7 main bearings, I drove an old Mustang convertible to 300,000 when the car was just worn out. The engine never gave me any trouble, I put rings and bearings in it and put it in another car for another 100,000 and sold it running.