What did you do to your Maverick or Comet today

lol...yes sir, you ARE on your way!

 

Finally got engine compartment painted, tranny still a week out, but getting there..

 

Very cool! I assume that's going to be (or already is) the same as the exterior color?

 

Thank ! Going to be.. previous owner painted it white with implement paint ! Original color was a dark brown..got the trunk squared away last year, door jams last fall.

 

Loud voice: "Congratulations and welcome to our special universe!"
(Whispered voice: "Run, it's a trap!")

 

...

 

I put her on the scales. For all you that wonder how much your car weighs, she weighed in at 2860 lbs. That is with a 302, factory exhaust, C-4, 8", no PS or AC, buckets seats and rear seats, 1/2 tank of gas and no spare.
For comparison, my 66 Stang with pretty much same setup is, 2900 lbs, and my 68 Cougar 460, C-4, 9" is 3600 lbs, and my 82 Zephyr with a 6 cyl auto 2dr was 2775 lbs.
How a 6 cyl manual will probably come in around 150 lbs lighter.

 

Me and my helper mounted the fuse block and started separating wires so we could make the runs to where they need to be.

 

Great info! I suspect Ford never produced a 4 Bbl 4-speed Maverick/Comet because it would have been faster than a similarly equipped Mustang, especially '71-'73

 

Especially being 500-750 lbs lighter. The Stang people didn't want to competition. Another reason the Mav/Comet never got the Boss 302.

 

Internet myth... Even a smog a laden '73 351 Cleveland would have slaughtered a 302, 4bbl, 4 speed Maverick. The 302 Boss was gone after 1970, Not avail in Mustang or anything else. A 351W in Maverick would have been a logistics/service nightmare.

Also every one conveniently forgets the '74 Mustang II didn't have a V8 option. Was fourth largest seller after '64½/'65, '66 & '67. For that one year Maverick could clean the highway with Mustang.

For most of the mid '70s performance was a dirty word, 99.9% were not buying.

 

He did say similarly equipped so I would pit a 302 4V four speed Mustang against the Maverick, not a Cleveland powered car. At that point, you'd have a race the Maverick would do well in.

 

Sure we can what if all day long. Similarly equipped, the lighter car wins. Fly in that ointment is, other than 1968 & '83-'85 Fox chassis, Ford never installed a 4bbl 302 in anything. Yes there were Boss engines, but by time Maverick received V8 option, those were also history.

Maverick/Comet was a car for masses and sold well... That was their sole purpose.

If Ford really wanted a performance image for these cars, they'd have produced a competing version for Nova & Duster. Grabber & Comet GT missed that mark by a wide margin. Performance oriented 350 or 340 vs a 2bbl 302? Now there's a slaughter..

 

Playing what if is exactly what he was doing and what you said about the lighter car is the point he was making. I guess if we have to stay in the lane with what Ford actually made we can put a 72 302 2V auto in each and see the same result, lighter car eats the land yacht.

 

Weight is the factor. A 73 Cleveland Mustang is a pig. Weight and HP/TQ wise. I'd bet good money on a Mav/Comet with a 302 4bbl, 4spd, and a 3.50 posi rearend against a 73 Cleveland Stang any day. Stang weighs appx 3550 lbs against 2850 lbs. That gives the Mav a .7 second advantage before they even start. 70 71 Clevelands were runners. 72 73 74 were pigs. I have an old Hotrod article somewhere where they compared a 72 429 Torino, 72 Cleveland Stang and 72 Comet and the Comet won.