MUSCLE CARS or just CLASSIC?

Hemmings Classic Car October Issue

Article in Hemmings October Issue of Classic Car calls the 1971-1975 Mercury Comet, non-GT models, "wallflowers." The article is on 30+ year old American cars worth ("worthless," their term not mine) under $5K. The article wasn't too complementary to Mavericks either. "The Comet beats out the Maverick onto our list because the Maverick is worth about $150 more across the board -- a piddling difference, perhaps, but there it is."

So those of you without Grabbers or GT's, have "wallflowers!"


Roz
1973 Grabber owner (a real Classic ).

Roz

 

Some people are real idiots....including people in the media and journalism...

 

Really, we need to worry a little less about what people think.

 

Take 'em for what they were,and still are;a cheap '70's subcompact that happens to look good,happens to share a similiar platform as the Mustangs,and happen to hold a smallblock with ease.Musclecar?Gimme a break.Classic?Obviously,I mean there's a whole community of us who like 'em,and more aftermarket stuff is being made all the time for them.Those 2 things alone tells me that these cars are at least "becoming classics"- there are people who are enthusiastic about these cars-therefore the repro places have responded.I think that kinda defines "classic car",where the aftermarket realizes that there is a market for restoration of a particular make/model car.Probably a bad example but take a '65 Impala and a '65 Olds delta 88.Same platform,but you can buy all kinds of stuff for the chevy,not so much for the olds.The Impala's considered a collectible "classic" while the Olds is usually thought of as "just an old car".Certain years of otherwise popular cars slip into the "old car"trap as well('65 fairlane comes to mind)usually due to weird styling.Fortunately,our cars never changed save for the crash bumpers,so it's easier for the aftermarket to repro stuff-most of it is the same or close enough that the buyer can mod the part for his/her application.Kinda makes it a bit easier for our cars to fall into the "classic" catagory-at least from a resto industry point of view.I don't care if they are classic or not,I just like 'em.

 

Tim,

I think you hit the nail. They may not be classics yet, but are moving in that direction. Lots are still on the road, because they were (are) reliable and cheap. They still look good and are fun to drive. Long live Mavericks (and Comets).

Roz

 

They were basically the bread winners for Ford in the early '70s which I think earns them a spot in automobile history.

 

Again, any American car (this may apply to foreign cars as well, I'm not sure) that is 25 years old or older is a "classic". The fact that a car is still around and hasn't gone to the crusher after 25 years, makes it noteworthy...

 

I agree with T.L.

 

I cosider my classic Maverick to be "THE "Muscle Car

 

Definitely a Classic. I'm not voting though.
The 2-door Maverick (and Comet) is right up there with the Mustang and Camaro (Pony Cars) if a few modifications are performed. It was a car for those who could not afford or didn't want to spend the money for a Mustang (or Camaro). The 4-door is obviously just an ordinary transportation sedan like any other in its price-range.
Any American car with a V-8 can be made into a "musclecar", but straight from the factory, Mavericks were not...

 

im way to young to really say anything about how they came form the factory being my 1970 grabber is 13 years older then i am but i had the options of chevelles and gto and stuff like that but i just looked at the weight and i knew after i was done it would be a muscle car that was much quicker then any 3000-4000 lbs car

 

Id definitly say its a classic car. Great stylin, nice lines, beautiful cars really. Now call me crazy but im not a speed freak. Im content with my 250 as long as it keeps running. But i know its a beautiful car and tahts wat is important to me. Plus, everyone knows me as the kid with the classic car. So there you go.

 

its ford best selling car !! the import fighter !! an instant classic !! the go getter !!
as the years go by, the better it looks with its classic lines

 

Seeing as I was born after any of these cars came off the line, I never really thought of these cars as daily drivers. I was attracted to the lines (if not so much the buggy headlights) and possibilities of the motor to think that a grandma or mother would drive it around. I just kind of figured too that most mustangs around nowadays, if they are really bad-acred, have been modified from their stockness but to each their own. I voted that they're both.

Funny thing about cars though, a lot of people use their newer Mustangs (not the 80s models, HATE those things) as daily drivers and I'm willing to bet in a few decades those'll be considered classics too. (actually I want one too because pretty!shiny! :bananaman )

Regarding Mavs vs. Comets, maybe it's just me but while I like both and don't differentiate much between them I like the Comet's taillights better than the Mav's although I like the Mav's grills more. Doesn't seem like too many people like Comets, or do we just have more Mav enthusiasts on the board? And why is it that one's better than the other, because it's a Ford/Mercury or are there actual structural/schematic differences? Just curious....

 

I love the 80's Mustangs. I would take one as a daily driver in a heart beat. Until then, I'll keep driving one of my Mavericks everday.

Comets and Mavericks are the same car with diffrent tail lights, hoods and grilles. Structurally they are identical. I think there are less Comet people out there simply because less Comet's were made to begin with. I have always liked Comet's better then Maverick's, but beggers can't be choosey in my case.