0
0
« Photo of the Day CarDomain Blog Home Dealership Brochure Goldmine! »
March 16, 2010
CarDomain Obscure Muscle Car Parking Lot: The Ford Maverick Grabber
By Jim Brennan
UDMan
Welcome to another edition of the CarDomain Obscure Muscle Car Parking Lot, where we discover cars that were never really thought of as Muscle Cars, and change your mind about them. Yes, it has been a while since the last edition, and I know there are rabid fans of this feature, so over the next several weeks we’ll be running this feature super-regularly so you can get your fix. And look at what we have here: the Maverick Grabber, powered by the tried-and-true Ford 302 CID V-8. Let’s see if it belongs in the Parking Lot…
The Grabber package lent a sporting flair to the cut-price Maverick coupe, and it deserves a second look. The original Maverick’s main purpose was to offer an inexpensive option within the “compact” segment, and the Grabber actually had little in the way of performance options, even in its day. However, it has potential; these lightweight cars have the look, and their Falcon/Mustang-derived chassis can yield true fun just by swapping few parts from a huge catalog of performance goodies.
For 1971, the Grabber became its own model within the Maverick family, and not just a trim package. The model included simulated hood scoops with blackout paint, stripes on the sides, fender decals, blackout tail panel, grille-mounted road lamps with the Maverick nameplate, blackened grille, hubcaps with trim rings on 14-inch wheels and D70-14 tires, twin body-color sport mirrors, a decklid spoiler, bright window frames and drip moldings and the DeLuxe steering wheel.
Early Grabbers were only available with a choice of 170-, 200- or 250-cube straight-sixes. Then in 1971, for the first time since the Maverick was introduced, V-8 power became available in the form of Ford’s 302. In 1971 the two-barrel 302 was rated at 210hp, enough for mid-9-second 0-60 and sub-17-second quarter-mile times. For 1972, the auto industry switched from gross to net power figures, which meant a power decline to 143hp in the 302. Dropping the compression was one of the reasons why the 70′s engines lost power, and for 1973 power stayed at a rated 140hp, but by 1975 the 302 was rated at a measly 129hp. Parts for the 302 remain plentiful at the local parts store, and performance parts are as plentiful for the 302 Ford as they are for the small-block Chevy.
Year-by-year changes were few, with the 1972 model adding a choice of seats, some interior trim options, additional tape stripe colors, and complimenting tail color instead of a black-out treatment. A “Battering Ram” front bumper made its debut in 1973, and the hood scoops were replaced with a flattened hood and tape stripes. The 1973 model did benefit from a new handling package, and the option of a bench seat. Instead of Hub Caps and Trim Rings, you could order your Grabber with Aluminum Slotted Wheels, available throughout the Maverick Line, along with radial tires. 1975 saw the addition of the large bumper in the rear of the car, the deletion of the spoiler, and the availability of Power Disc Brakes.
The last year for the Maverick Grabber, 1975, changes were limited to white-letter radial tires and 14-inch styled-steel road wheels. Maverick Grabber production lasted through 1975 and the name was discontinued at the end of the year to make way for the bolder-looking Stallion. Grabber production was healthy, but declining: 38,963 units in 1971, 35,347 in ’72, 32,350 in ’73, 23,502 in ’74 and just 8,473 units for ’75. Tally that up and it’s more than 138,000 Grabbers, but not all of them were V-8 equipped.
CarDomain Members Rides:
Well, there are 6 pages of Mavericks within the CarDomain community, and sifting through them I spotted a few nice Grabbers. Here is Ed’s 1973 Red/White V-8 Grabber, from Syracuse NY. Looks great, and Ed is the original owner. Take a look at his Grabber, and leave Ed a shoutout.
Here’s Jeffery’s 1972 Ford Maverick Grabber, with a little over 59,000 miles. Jeffery hails from Choctaw County Mississippi, and he has one fine looking Grabber. Check it out.
And that’s it. So do you think the Maverick Grabber is an Obscure Muscle Car (probably the 1972, and 73 version) and does it belong in the parking lot, or is it just another pretender to the throne? Let me know either way, and tell me how you like (or loathe) this feature as well
Comments
Post a comment
Please login to CarDomain to post a comment.
KandC0625
Jan 18, 2011 at 7:54 pm
1972 Ford Grabber…This was my 1st Car! Love it!!! You would understand if you ever drove one. Lightweight frame, 302 V-8, 60′s on the back and 70′s on the front, 3 speed on the floor,duel exaust, bucket seats. You could start the car in 3rd and still “chirp” the tires…That engine made you feel like you were part of the car. I can’t pull up to one and not want to get out of my car, and offer to buy it!
I bought mine in 1985 for $700 and it needed a lot of work. I bought my first “Chilton’s” and hung out in garages at 17 so I could work on it myself. That car was FUN, gave me freedom and taught me so much about working on cars. When I retire and have the time to restore one completely, this girl will get another one! I just hope my heart will be able to handle it.
Just thinking about the sound of that engine makes my heart pound!
Renton_Ford
Sep 23, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Great car! If you’re looking for muscle cars, this is definitely one of those. I love the classic look of Ford Maverick.
Comrick317
Mar 19, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I love the look of the Mavericks and the Comets, the mild fastback look, add the right rims and a mean stance, a 351 and bang you have a real beast on your hands.
AfTaShOx
Mar 19, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Hey I feel like the grabber is a true muscle car. Im a chevelle man myself but the grabber comes from a time of true street rods and with a lil help in the power plant department they can run with the best of us.
rabbit1969
Mar 19, 2010 at 10:48 am
I have to say it is a muscle car, 99% of the Mavricks I have seen are packing some major ponies. They have a neat style and can hold a V8. I wouldn’t go out and buy one, but I wouldn’t pass it up if someone was to give me one.
MD-IN-UK
Mar 19, 2010 at 8:52 am
I remember Fast Eddie Schartman driving a Super Stock Maverick at the 70 Indy Nationals along side those AMC AMX 2-seaters. That was the equivalent of Pro Stock these days, and those cars were amazing to watch, side by side, jerking the wheels off the ground in damn near every gear.
Yeah, I’d say it’s a Muscle Car. Count me in.
DriftNut88
Mar 19, 2010 at 8:35 am
Muscle car for sure.
don1970
Mar 19, 2010 at 3:14 am
Definatly. Its the Mustangs retarded brother.
frostiejohn2002
Mar 18, 2010 at 7:56 pm
please a chevette i’m a chevrolet man but even i know that a maverick grabber is bad ass
MopTop
Mar 18, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I would think a Chevette more of a muscle car than a maverick.
Rotpus_Eyeball
Mar 18, 2010 at 6:58 am
Meh…
michaelnsusan
Mar 17, 2010 at 7:32 pm
I have had three Mavericks in my younger days, one had a 289 and the other one was Comet GT with a factory 302. I think they should be in the Muscle car club. If you put the right rims on them, they do look nice. We all know that under that body is a Mustang frame !
SouthernGuy8503
Mar 17, 2010 at 6:23 pm
GTwildfire – don’t grabber unless she’s 18 or older lol
wsbob
Mar 17, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Very good entry. This car is like Ford’s equivalent to the Chevy Nova. I say it belongs
GTwildfire
Mar 17, 2010 at 8:21 am
hu huh.. he said.. “grabber”
dragorphan
Mar 17, 2010 at 3:30 am
HELL YES!!!!!! If I could have found one at a reasonable price I would not be building a 78 mustang II for my race car.
Frdbrnk408
Mar 16, 2010 at 5:51 pm
A muscle car for sure, I had a ’75 Grabber new. It was my 1st new car ever, with a few mods under the hood it was very quick! The interiors were cheap vinyl and plastic and the exteriors did not hold up to rust at all. It was a fun car to drive!
ktommy
Mar 16, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Fords Forever !!!!!!
retroman
Mar 16, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Seriously?? I’ve never though of it as anything else. It draws quite a few styling cues from the Mustang, but with one advantage; it didn’t have the weight. Considering a ’72 Mustang Mach 1 weighed in over 2 1/2 tons, and the ’72 Maverick weighed a full 1500 lbs. less, yet came with the same engine lineup, which one do you think would win. I think the Maverick deserves to be a muscle car more than the big body Mustangs. Don’t get me wrong, Mustang is a great muscle car, but I think of the Mustang like Elvis; started skinny and plain but finished fat and dressed in sequins. Both are great cars, but when it comes down to sheer performance, I’d choose a ’72 Maverick over a ’72 Mustang any day.
troutster52
Mar 16, 2010 at 11:16 am
Hell yeah its a muscle car! They are featherlight despite being from the 70s. If I remember right, a two door weighs something like 2800 lbs and a four door big bumper car still came in under 3000 lbs if not just a shade above. Thats comparable to Corvette weight so even with just 250 or 300 hp, these Mavericks can fly. I have been watching everywhere I know to buy one because I seriously want a running stick shift Maverick. Two door, four door, six cylinder, v8, demo derby bumpers or early small bumpers, I don’t care. As long as its a running stick shift Maverick, I want it.
Jen Dunnaway
Mar 16, 2010 at 9:56 am
Oh my gosh, I need a Maverick.
SouthernGuy8503
Mar 16, 2010 at 9:20 am
ya its a muscle car. 2 door RWD with a V8 so ya it fits the general description. even though a Ford 302 (like the Chevy 305) isn’t a monster V8 but they can produce a lot of power if set up right. also the Maverick looks to be basically the Ford’s version of the Chevy Nova since its small. so a 302 in a Maverick would basically be like a 351 in a Mustang when you compare weight and size to the engine so a 302 is all the Maverick really needed. just get a 351 and stroke it then it would be a TQ monster in a small RWD muscle car
-
im a Chevy guy but i do like Mopar and Ford to, just prefer GM. i don’t think classic muscle cars will ever die, at least in my lifetime i hope even though im only 24 lol