why Mustang and not Maverick?

Can somebody tell me why Mustan is considered a Muscle car and not our Maverick?
Why Mustang is more expensive tha the mavericks?
Why we can find almost all parts for Mustang and for our Maverick is more difficult?

 

I guess the simple answer is that the Maverick was built by Ford to be an inexpensive economy car and was marketed to that demographic. It made a great drag car because it is light and relatively aero efficient. It was never offered with a four speed transmission or much power, the 302- 2V option notwithstanding. The other issue in regards to popularity is the Maverick's relatively low survival rate due to it's propensity to rust severely in Northern US climates. Aftermarket parts manufacturers look for numbers and popularity and we cannot compete with the Mustang for that. Then again, show up at a car show with a snarling, modern 5.0 under the hood of your Maverick and see who gets the attention in a sea of Mustangs!

 

id say because mustangs were actually build with some muscle, the best a maverick ever got was a 200hp 302...

 

Lucky for all of us, they weren't! How many people on this board would be able to afford a nice Grabber, Stallion, or GT if the cars cost $40K or more like the Mustangs have done?

 

Amen to that!!! we dont need no un-obtainium alloy mavs/comets.

 

Makes it a little harder tracking down parts, but it's all worth it in the end.

Do you even take a second glance when you see an old Mustang? I don't. They're pretty durn common. TOO common really.

 

I have wondered this as well and I would agree it is because Mustang was accepted Muscle long before Maverick hit the scene and even then the Maverick only offered visual charm with no alarm. Stripes and scoops don't make a Musclecar. By the time Maverick hit it really big Muscle was dying and economy was on the rise. Folks still wanted 2 door cars with sporty looks though.
Thats why our cars are dead sexy. Comets specifically.

 

And even that's probably stretching it by a good margin.

 

Mustangs are Horses... Mavericks are Bull...........$#!^

 

Are you saying our cars are horne....er....uh..nevermind

 

Sssshh!.... not so loud... that's OUR LITTLE SECRET....

If Barrett-Jackson ever stops flogging million dollar Shelby's or Cuda's because people with way too much money might actually realize that they could BUILD or BUY a brand new one for a fraction of the price... they might start eyeballing our barn finds to see if they can drive the price through the roof with a little hype and lots of pomp and speculation... just like the price of gas last summer...

Funny - my girlfriend wanted to buy a friends 68 Mustang 2 years ago, for $5K, since it's a collector, and she had no problem with me getting a Comet - but she hit the roof when I bought a second one because I told her it was an "investment". I should know better than trying to lie to my girlfriend. It's a second toy, and the only time I plan on selling one of them is to buy another one. I know she knows I knew that. I fixed the balcony a month later to make things nice with her, but by that time she was even more miffed when I got that done.

Whisky... still trying to cover my "second investment"

 

I still love that our Mavericks and Comets are cheap.....er..... then Mustangs and after all these years i still like my little Comet over the all mighty Mustang. At the shows i LOVE to stick out of the sea of Mustangs, Camaros, Chevelles, Chargers, Vettes, '57 Chevy's, blah,blah, blah. Thanks but i'll stick with my,'' Not worth so much" Comet.
Besides, does anyone really like this...

 

Mavericks and Mustangs rust at a equal rate.

 

JA JA JA, I am agree with us!

Mustang is mustang but Maverick wowwwwwwwwwww Maverick is a really pasion!

I love my Maverick! I´ll never think to sell it!

 

When the Mustang was introduced in April of '64, it was first thought of as a sporty little all around car, good for mom as a grocery getter and also a youth car with a fair amount of zoom to go after the GTO's or other bigger engine cars. Then, in '67, a 390 engine was offered, then the next year, a 428, all with no shock tower alterations. Then the engine bay was enlarged to accomodate a 429 with a body restyle for '71. The 429 was only offered in the new body style for one year because the horsepower wars were coming to an end. After that, the 351 was the largest engine available until '74, when a downsizing took it back to a 4 cylinder, same as the Pinto.

The Maverick came into the Horsepower Wars as a car about the size as the original Mustang with a small 6 cylinder engine. Even with the splash of the Grabber package, no big powertrains were offered. It was manufactured to fill a different market, one similiar to the original Mustang concept. When the 302 option was offered later in the Maverick, the wars were waining. Never offered with a 4 barrel carb and a 4 speed. it never had a real muscle car apeal. It's engine bay was never altered by the factory to accomodate anything larger than a 302. It's body style stayed basically the same throughout it's run.

My college car was a '65 Mustang with a 289/3spd. I put headers on it, a larger 2V(Holley cfm 500) and a few other things to make it faster and more powerful, but it was no match for the big boys. In it's original setup. I would get 25-26 mpg in it. I destroyed that figure by my alterations, but I had fun in the process. We do the same thing to our Mavericks now.

It's all good. Maybe that's why I like so many different models of cars.

Jim