Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Here's a '74 LeSabre, as an example...
Some people may find it awkward and clumsy, but I think it's kinda cool.
I wonder what the last year was that you could get a roll-down rear window in the big 2-door Ford cars? I'm pretty sure you could get them in '73-74, but for '75 I think all the full-sized Ford coupes went to that style where you got the little vertical opera window at the B-pillar, and then the larger window at the back, sort of an odd homage to the old "Basket-handle" Crown Vic of the 50's.
The Marquis coupe was pillarless all the way through 1978, but I think in later years, the rear quarter window was stationary.
With Mopar, you could get a hardtop coupe or hardtop sedan right up through the end of the mastodons in '78. The hardtop sedan was dropped in the Royal Monaco/Gran Fury line after 1975, but the hardtop coupe was offered through 1977. It was fairly rare though, as it was the base model, while the nicer trim levels had a landau roof, and stationary opera windows. The Newport/New Yorker made it through 1978, and the only 4-door offered was a hardtop. The coupe was offered as hardtop or landau roof and opera windows. With the Newport, the hardtop seemed to be the most common, while the New Yorker was more likely to be equipped with opera windows. Unfortunately, production tables don't break down the body style, as I believe they all started off as hardtop coupes, with the padded landau roof and opera window being an option, rather than a separate model.
Our 1967 Chevy with the 283 cu. in motor was a station wagon. It seemed pretty quick, even with a two speed automatic transmission. We had that at the time I got my driver's license so I drove it quite a bit.
By the time we got the 400 cu. in Chevy, 2-door Impala hardtop, I already had my Avanti, so it seemed like a slug compared to the Avanti. I expected a lot more power from 400 cubic inches. It seemed slower than the 1967 station wagon.
I don't blame the Government for putting emission controls on cars, but I do not like the way they did it. Why couldn't they just certify the engine and transmission, no matter what vehicle it was installed in???
For example, every year, the Avanti II from Newman and Altman used the same engine and transmission as the Corvette, but they quit offering the 4-speed transmission because it was not certified for the Avanti. Both were passenger cars of similar weight and use. These requirements made building cars difficult for American Motors and would have killed Studebaker if it had not died already.
Example #2" When the "Quad 4" seized up for the second time in less than 60,000 miles in my 1996 Chevy, I wanted to install a less powerful but more reliable motor from the same year, but the mechanic said I would have to have a different motor "certified" after it was installed in the car because the car did not come with that engine, even though it could have been sold with that engine.
This may have been a California requirement, but if there is a stupid and difficult way of doing things, the government regulators will find it and then impose it on the public.
Same thing with the Falcon. I like the old Sprints, but after 1965 the Mustang just sucked all the oxygen out of the showroom when it came to sporty, compact 2-door Fords.
But I still like the 1970 (and a half?) badge-engineered Falcons based on the Fairlane/Torino platform. Spotted a yellow 4-speed 429 Falcon and a white automatic version of the same posted on CL by the same MI dealer.
My guess would be that, for any given condition, a Mustang would fetch a lot more money than a Falcon or Maverick. You can probably buy a nice, little-old-lady owned Maverick or Falcon for not a lot of money, and have a good starting point, whereas a Mustang for the same price would be ratty?
The Mavericks and some of the Falcons were also lighter than the Mustang, although I don't know if it's enough to make much difference. If you're going to build up any of these cars, I imagine you're going to add some weight in beefing up the suspensions, subframes, etc.
I kinda liked those "1970.5" Falcons too.
I agree that the '71-76 Caddies, as well as all of the GM full-sizers, seemed to show signs of cost cutting compared to the previous generation, but wasn't aware that it had started with 1970. What kind of stuff did they start cheapening out on in '70, compared to '69?
I think the main areas where the '71 cars looked cheap, compared to the older models, were 1) the dashboards, which had a lot more hard plastic and a lot less exposed metal to them (the metal was probably more dangerous, but at least it looked nicer!) and 2) the 2-piece door panels where the upper part was vinyl/cloth and the lower part was plastic and had the armrest molded into it. I think the older door panels, which were usually a large, one-piece section with a bolt-on armrest, had a higher-quality look to them.
A similar thing happened when GM redesigned their '73 intermediates, compared to the '68-72 style.
As the former owner of a Maverick, I would think that its body structure and chassis could not possibly handle much more than the stump-pulling torque of a '70s 6-cylinder. They were very light cars. I always liked the late-'60s 2-door Falcons better. They just seemed a bit more substantial.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Which reminds me... wonder how steep the bills are now for that $100K plus Edsel restoration? One can only hope that the Edsel owner loves it more than a T-Bird and then some.
My sentiments exactly! I like the '66-69 Falcon two-door sedans in upmarket trim--either 'Futura' or 'Sports Coupe'? Seemed to me to be much more competition for Chevy II and Valiant than the Maverick was. I remember bugging my Dad to take me to the Maverick's introduction night, and he did. April '69. Smaller than a Falcon, but cheaper, too--$1,995 base price. No glove compartment, just an open shelf under the dash. Funky color names (like "Thanks Vermilion").
The '70 1/2 Falcon was just a bottom-line Torino. Ford's midsize line had me confused in '68-71 or so....Falcon, Fairlane, Torino--but not with a preceding name of any kind, other than "Ford"!
In the early '70s a neighbor had a late-60s Falcon Sport Coupe, red with black vinyl roof and I think a red interior, and I always liked it. Stainless side window frames, whitewalls, full wheel covers, looked sharp.
For anyone who may have sampled some of the early Mavericks during its introduction, did you see any cars equipped with a 3 speed semi-automatic trans? I found this link to a News Release reference regarding a semi-automatic available only with the 170 L-6 engine.
I've never heard of it before but it made me think that Ford really may have been homing in on the VW Beetle in a few weird ways...the unusual styling of the Maverick for its time, available at first only as a 2-door, and now the semi-automatic trans reference. Anyone ever see a Maverick with this transmission?
My favorite is the later Ice Green.
Don't remember any semi-automatics, though.... I do know that they lose most battles with stationary objects (think trees, telephone poles, houses, etc..) Not that I ever had to walk home from one of those encounters.. :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
According to my old car book, the 170 was offered up through 1972 in the Maverick, and it had been a base Falcon engine as well. The 170 did go away after a few months in the 1965 Mustang, so maybe that's what most people remember?
I still see a couple of Mavericks running around locally from time to time, but they're both 4-doors. One is dark blue, around '75 or so, can't remember the color of the other. About 12 years ago at work, there was an older, kinda eccentric-seeming guy who had a pristine looking red and white Maverick 4-door. He let me sit in it. Roomier than I thought it would be, but it was definitely on the low end of the compact scale, compared to a Nova or Dart/Valiant.
Bingo. Maverick wasn't a bad car but from the first look it lost ground in comparison to the competition. Even compared to the Falcon it replaced. Somebody posted earlier how their eye was drawn straight away to the Maverick's "package tray" which was offered instead of a glove box. Not a good sign.
The first Maverick to be introduced was the 2-door, which was on a 103" wheelbase and was around 183" long. The 4-door model, which came a year or two later, was around 191" long, and on a 109.9" wb. In contrast, the 1970 Falcon (the compact one, not the "1970.5") was on a longer 111" wb, but was only 185" long (the wagon was longer, at 113" wb, same as the midsize, and I forget the length).
Even in width, there wasn't a huge difference. The Maverick was around 70" wide, versus around 73" for the Falcon.
So, I guess either the Maverick was a more substantial car than I used to give it credit for, or the Falcon isn't quite the car I perceived it to be!
I guess there's just something about the styling of the Maverick that makes it look more petite than it really is.
I agree, there's just something 'weak' about the styling to me, the Duster pulled off that look with much more authority, IMHO:
I grew up in Chevys, but I think the Novas of that same vintage look better than either.
Yeah, those vent boxes under the dash were really handy, and great for ventilation. Unfortunately, they also provided an easy way for water to get in once the drain plugs to the fresh air intakes got plugged (which didn't take much)
I think the Duster/Demon had something like an 18 cubic foot trunk...better than most midsized cars of the era! In contrast, the '67-69 Dart sedan and hardtop had around 17, although that was cut to around 15 when they went to the sloped-off rump in '70.
As for styling, I LOVE the '67-69 Dart/Valiant, but don't care for the '70-72 as much. However, I'm also not a fan of the '68-72 Nova so I still preferred the Mopars. But then for '73, I liked the restyle of the Nova, whereas the Dart and Valiant were showing their age, and the facelifts were a bit fussy.
I thought the '75 Nova was downright gorgeous, and by then the Mopars were really looking out of date. They were still pretty competitive though...not necessarily because they were great cars, but everything else started sucking. I remember some consumer magazine (not Consumer Reports) saying that the '75 Dart was more like a well-preserved 1965 car than a brand-new model. However, with the direction the new cars were taking, that wasn't necessarily a bad thing!
I think it was mainly the Granada, Maverick, and Hornet they were bashing though, and not necessarily the Nova.
Aside from the Maverick, we owned an AMC Hornet and my brother had a '78 Skylark. The Maverick was by far the worst of the 3 cars. The Ford's driving dynamics weren't even in the same class as the other 2. The Hornet had a lousy interior, about on par with the Maverick, but drove much better.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I had forgotten how nicely styled those were, and it even seems like a manageable size today (though to me, I consider it huge!). really did look classy, considering it was basically a gussied-up Nova.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I do remember the trunk was big enough to hold plenty of beer. And I did take a few riders back to college in the think a few times.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I remember when the '75 Seville came out. It was the first domestic to test the long-held theory that the bigger the price, the bigger the car. The Seville cost more than a comparable Sedan deVille.
I still think it's one of the best-looking four-door cars of the '70's. The rear door cut and vent on the "C" pillar say 'BMW' to me.
With all these years' hindsight, I'm not sure now if I like that big vent on the coupes between the doors and rear quarter windows. But I like the increased glass area, much-better-integrated bumpers, "LN" model, and the instrument panel pad that was cut differently on the passenger side than earlier Novas. I also like the '75 Nova Custom--nice quality vinyl seat trim.
We had a '73 Nova. It was only on a one-inch-shorter wheelbase than a Chevelle coupe and cost a bunch less. They did cut corners on the quality control, I can remember that. When new, ours had water leaks in a few places and some squeaks. Still, it was a good value and looked nice. The 2.5 mph rear bumper on the '73 was bad enough, but the 5 mph rear bumper on the '74 was awful!
Question per the Maverick: did the base Maverick come with 13" wheels?
Standard Tire: 6.00-13 BSW Tires.
Options: 6.00-13 WSW Tires, 6.45-14 BSW Tires, 6.45-14 WSW Tires, B78-14 WSW Tires.
And the colors touted included: anti-establish mint, hulla blue, original cinnamon, and freudian gilt - all printed in lower case letters in color-coordinated fonts. Pure essence in the 1969 world of advertising I guess.
The '78 Nova Custom replaced the '77 Concours but still used the Concours' mesh grille and vertical turn signal lights. The Rally Nova was carried over for 1978 with a diamond pattern grille and horizontal turn signals. Back then I thought the '78 Nova Custom 4-door really looked like a pseudo-Seville but without any fussy trim like a hood ornament, etc. Good looking compact sedan even now.
IIRC, sales of the Dart/Valiant declined considerably for 1975, as well. Both Mopar and GM tried to rush out luxury trim levels of their cars, but they just didn't catch on with buyers the way the Granada did.
Then, when the Aspen/Volare came on the scene for 1976, that might have put a bit of pressure on the Nova, especially with the offering of a wagon, something the Big Three had been lacking in compact cars since the 1967 Chevy II. The Dart/Valiant wagons got dropped after 1966, and the 1966-70 Falcon was actually an intermediate, a Fairlane with a Falcon front clip.
Then of course, in '78, the introduction of the Ford Fairmont and Chevy Malibu probably put a big dent in Nova sales. And 1979 was a partial year, as they started selling the replacement Citation in April of 1979.
I think it's a bit interesting that Chevy went through the effort to give the Nova one last facelift for '79, considering it would be the last year, and only a partial year. But, all they really did was give it a new grille and switch out the round headlights for rectangular, so maybe it wasn't that big of a deal.
I think style-wise, the Nova has aged the most gracefully of all those cars. The Granada, and to a lesser degree the Aspen/Volare, were always a bit pimpy and over-styled. The Fairmont was just TOO boxy, and had a lightweight, fragile look to it. And while the Malibu was nicely styled, I think the Nova just seemed a bit better proportioned, with its longer hood and smaller passenger cabin, and gently sloping trunk. Of course, the slightly less appealing proportioning of the Malibu is what gave it more interior room than a Nova, in a body that was slightly smaller overall.
Wha-wha-what? You m-mean this ISN"T a Mercedes?!?!? I've been living in a fool's paradise!
Personally, I didn't think the car looked bad, but actually driving it took away any illusions.
I actually preferred the Mercury Monarch. It just seemed to have a cleaner front-end, with a less fussy grille. And, IIRC, the rear-end was better-finished.
I guess one of these cars, with a 302, or better yet, the 351, wouldn't be too bad. I'd want a 4-door though...the coupe doesn't do anything for me.
And yeah, handling was horrible in these things. I swear, it put the American automobile back a good 20 years or more. Somehow, whenever Detroit tried to make a small car feel big, it often ended up handling worse than a full-sizer would have.