Mavericks one of the WORLD'S WORST CARS!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but no way any Mav is getting 33mpg with any of the factory installed engines.

I've burried the speedo on mine (120mph) with the stock 302 with a 4-barrel added, single exhaust, and 3.55 rearend gears. With highway gears, I would expect 130 or more.
I have no intention of ever driving it that fast again on a public road (this was 12 or 13 years ago).

Gas mileage is around 15mpg...

 

On the way to the roundup this year I raced what I thought was a Mercury maurader. It wasn't but it was a friendly Police officer in an unmarked car that wrote me a ticket for 91mph and added we both know you were going much faster 120mph speedo buried


consequently I had the first "time slip" of the event

 

now theres a big "oops"

 

A 91mph ticket? Ouch! 'Bet that was expensive...

 

Say what you will, I know what Mileage I got. This is with a 250 with Duraspark II ignition and TFI coil, 279 reargear on a mostly flat interstate. My plugs still look like they have never been ran after 9,000 miles. You barely had to put your foot on the gas going down the interstate.

My brother and several other people who drove the car can confirm what kind of mileage it got on the interstate. If you keep your foot out of it, I think you would be surprised what an old 6 cylinder can do.

Edit: Ohh, I see now that I put 33. I meant to put 23... Thats the point I was trying to make was that I highly doubt any Mav could get 35 mpg, but they didn't do to bad for what they were. I got 18-20 around town. You guys really don't have to get on the defense so quick.

 

There is a BIG difference between 23 and 33....only about a 45% increase!! Hence....the unbelieveability of it.

But wouldn't it be cool if it could be done!!!

 

We're not on the defense that quick. We are old, really smart, really good looking, and we love to expose spurious claims. There you have it!!!

 

there! its about time the real truth came out....

 

I resemble that, except for the really smart part............and the good looking part......ok, so I'm just old and grouchy.

 

My 98 Z28 got 30 mpg on the hwy...
Not trying to start an arguement, just thinking aloud.
The car was 3800 lbs with me in it.
Had 346 cubes and many power accessories draining power.
With the A/C on max, it still got 28 mpg on the interstate.
275/40/17 tires all around on very heavy stock rims.
Lots of rolling resistance if you think about it.
Clogged single exhaust, with multiple cats.
Oh, and 3.42 gears.
Those are all the points it had going against it...
So now what did it have going for it that we don't?

T56 with .75 and .50 overdrives.
Better areodynamics.
Aluminum driveshaft.
Weak rear end... light and effiecient, but very fragile.
EFI.
All aluminum engine and tranny. (Car would have been really heavy without all this aluminum (and a good rear end)!
Fiber doors and deck lid. Fiber hoods on some.
Plastic bumpers and fenders.
Wow, how did this car get so heavy???

We should only have to run EFI and overdrive to get the same, right?

Any thoughts?
Dave

Maybe this should be another thread?

 

I once got my bone stock 70 Maverick, I-6 auto to 95 mph, and it was a little scary.....


....not as scary as my 70 440 6-Pack Challenger R/T at 137 mph (radar verified, but no ticket! Long story). With the power steering belt off, and skinnies up front, the involuntary lane changes at that speed was enough to cause butt-puckers that'd bite a hole in the seat!

Stupid, I know....however, the risk of driving that fast was far outweighed by the risk of letting the people chasing me catch up!


BTW, milage for my first Maverick, 26 mpg highway @ 60 mph



As for the ridiculous article in that book....look at this comment from it:


[["Ford dropped a blooper with the original maverick, The floor pan had so many dirt and water traps that is was unenviable rust would eventually take hold, particularly as the cars left the factory with hardly any under seal."]]

"The floor pan had so many dirt and water traps that is was unenviable rust would eventually take hold"

is was unenviable???

Ok, I might take the opinions of a professional journalist/writer seriously, but from stuff like that, it's obvious whoever wrote the article is neither a professional or a writer at all.

If the guy can't even proofread his own stuff, let alone even use the right word (inevitable, you dork!), how much weight does his opinion of the Maverick really hold??



Have your dad tear that page of the book out and use it as a drink coaster.......it deserves little more than ring stains anyway.

 

No, I'm pretty sure he meant unenviable.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unenviable

 

Max said it best.

And yeah, the writer of that book has no credibility as any kind of "expert" as far as I'm concerned...

 

Thanks for the link. Now I know he used the wrong word!

When you have a former english lit professor in the family, he has the unenviable task of settling grammatical disputes that inevitably come up in life! LOL



But I think we all agree here, that the blowhard who wrote the article definately has his head up his Astin Martin!

 

can i use that line?