1970 AMC Hornet vs Ford Maverick Dealer Promo Film
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ต.ค. 2024
- 1970 AMC Hornet vs Ford Maverick Dealer Promo Film
Mopar is a registered trademark of Chrysler Group LLC. Master Tech series training materials are the property of Chrysler Group LLC and are used with permission.
MyMopar.com
I've always thought the Hornet was the best American compact design of the 1970's. Nash invented the American compact market with the original 1950 Rambler, then the Rambler American, and the Hornet was next in this line. 10 years ago I had a '73 Hornet Sportabout D/L wagon with 304 V8. This was really a nice riding, nice driving car - I enjoyed everything about it. Also, Chrysler assembly quality began to slide in 1967 with GM and Ford following (all Ford cars smaller than fullsize used cheap quality Japanese steel in the 1970's), but AMC assembly quality didn't follow suit.
Had the same Maverick since 1989. Always starts, most reliable car we ever had. The 302 pushes the 2900 pound car along quite well, and the check engine light has never come on
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE 1,NINNY
The Four Seasons no kidding...I was being facetious
They were both good cars I'd take either one
I had one back in the mid-80s. The front-end suspension was completely worn out by the time it had 100K miles and rust was setting in all over. The 302 also burned significant oil by then too.
*The Sportabout looks great even today, and super practical too. If these were still sold new they would sell very well today, the design is timeless*
I owned a 1974 A.M.C. Hornet
Sportabout wagon from 83 to 86.
It was a great car. I sold it to buy 1973
Ford F-100 because l needed a pick up truck for work.
I have to say the Mavericks were underrated, those Ford Mavericks are very good cars , better than mustang off course not so popular no so cool design like mustang but better overall in the whole picture and the price back then , I am very familiar with Mavericks I grew up in Brazil , they are highly collected in Brazil and they have some unreal Mavericks there , even station wagons version done by ENVEMO .
I am owing a 75 Maverick grabber or a 66 Galaxie XL 428 Cobra Jet both cars were made in Brazil , I’ve already own a bad arse 79 F-1OO Ranger XLT with 351C/750Holley/C6/“9LSD/ sway bar , trailer brakes , cruise and it drives like a dream I bought it from an old dude who had a farm barn full of classic Ford muscle cars , when I bought my truck years ago people laughed at me , they told me why didn’t buy a Toyota or a Nissan , now I get chicks flashing they boobs to my truck at lights , whenever I go people ask me if I want to sell it ? It is yellow and it have Texas Ranger badges on the doors and the plates is F1OO-79 , my point is ....Ford always becomes classic and Ford always goes up in value here in Australia anyway, and Ford my friend is always cheap and easy to get parts everywhere and there’s heaps of parts as they part are all interchangeable among other Fords ... Ford is my brand even I love Chevy and Dodge equally but I will always get a ford before anything else , a 66 Stang GT350H over a Camaro RS/SS , a 57 Skyliner over a Belair , a XL Galaxie 66 over a Impala SS ...
The Hornet is by far the winner here for me. I'm not a fan of the passe styling job of the Maverick and I know that build quality would be inferior. In addition, the Hornet is just better designed all around. I remain convinced that AMC made the best American cars of the entire 1970s.
Yes, Ford and Chevy had big problems in the 70s
Jake I loved them also.Had a 73 AMX Javelin and it was a good car.
My friend had a Hornet in high school. Drove the shit outta that car, very reliable.
The Hornet formed the basis for much that Amc produced in to the 80's. One heck of a platform. It wasn't as flexible as say the K-car of course... But AMC only had so much to work with and given the lack of resources I would say these where very fine cars.
Harry looks like he played football without a helmet. I guess that's why he was considering a Maverick in the first place.
PRICELESS,LMFAO.THANK YOU FOR THE LAUGH.STEVE IN CLEARWATER,FL.
Harry cuts his own hair! LOL
Had there been no Hornet, Jeep would have faded away in the ,70's. It provided profits to some out with a new Jeep, the '74 Cherokee, later with four doors.
yep, you are correct.
Why would anyone downvote this video? It's an old dealer-training piece, some of which can be used to catch sales B.S. even today - and not just in cars. It's a piece of history; not someone's lame attempt at videography... BTW, I guess the Hornet 360 wasn't out yet... No Maverick equivalent there!
Why would Mopar make a dealer training piece for AMC?
@@MrSTOUT73 You do realize that AMC was bought by Chrysler Corp back in the late 1980s?
Love the bs whistle! And, remember, it's not how long it is, it's how you use that length.
I had a 70 Maverick, 170 with auto trans. It was a fun little car, but it was basically a cheap update of the original Falcon concept. The 66-70 Falcons were good cars but the Maverick went back to the disposable concept of 1960. You could say the Hornet was an updated Rambler American, though that it was improved over the 69. AMC engines were miles ahead of the Fords, exceptional design, much higher build quality, and tough as nails.
2:19 actor Richard Herd, played Mr. Wilhelm on Seinfeld and lots of other movie and tv shows
I always liked the roof line and tail treatment of the 70-72 Mavericks 2doors, but beyond that, they really were meant to be a bargin based economy car, like the Pinto, Grabber packages aside. These cars also had the same flaws that the Pintos had, in that in a rear collision, they would catch fire quite easily. The AMCs were tanks in comparison. They had better suspension, better bigger tires, bigger std brakes, more instrumentation, bigger engines and better transmissions. Problem was, a Hornet looked the part of an economy car, stodgy with no style. The were very upright, meaning they had great greenhouse visibility and headroom, but the look was not exactly pleasing when compared with Maverick. It should be noted that both cars were extremely prone to rusting quickly. Just as a conversation piece, my dad looked at a 74 Maverick sedan in the heat of the gas crunch, to replace his 71 Cuda 340. Lots of people were hitting the panic button at that time. He said that that Ford was loaded up with automatic, the 200 six, A/C, P/S, P/B, dual outside mirrors, AM radio, etc. Once he drove the car, he instantly didn't like it ( duh, he was used to the Cuda!) so he passed. He also looked at the AMCs, as well as a Plymouth Valiant sedan and a Duster. He really liked the Duster and said he should've bought it, while just taking the Cuda off the road for awhile. Problem was, at the time mom and dad lived in an apartment, so there was nowhere to put a 3rd car ( mom drove dad's old 64 Sport Fury, which was dying from rust) So he didn't buy anything until 76. By that time the gas crisis was gone, they were in a house, and I was here for a year already. He sold the 64 to a neighbor who pulled the 383 and 4 speed, then scrapped the car. He once again looked at the Dusters sitting on the lots. He couldn't find 1 equipped the way he wanted it, so in frustration, he looked at a Volare. He didn't like them either. Out of sheer madness, he went the complete other way, and bought a Cordoba, with the Cuda as a trade in! LOL He said he just fell in love with the triple black car.. with that famous leather of course.. And it had a 400 4bbl. He worked with a guy who had a 75 Monte Carlo and said he was always envious of it, but the 350 2bbl had no 'guts' . I think he bought the Cordoba just to 1 up that guy... Anyhow, rare to see ANY of said cars on the roads today. To the poster, I dunno where you find these old vids, but they sure are fun to watch :) Keep um coming!
Adam - Great story! I definitely agree about the comparative styling; I STILL like Maverick's styling. Why didn't they just trade in the '64, on a Duster/Valiant/Hornet/whatever, and whoever drives more, drives that? Probably a good thing he didn't go for the Volare; I've read they were recalled more than anything up to that point. Good point about them seemingly ALL having vanished.
At Randy, dad looked at another Volare coupe w the 318 in '78 as a 2nd car for mom. He drove it and instantly disliked it's tendency to hit a bump and dart out all over the road. He did say that it had a decent enough of amount of power, as it was not an ELB car, but it was just all over the place when hitting even the smallest bumps, like something was falling off the steering, and thought that it would just get worse over time. He passed. In early '79, he was looking at used cars and new cars for mom. He actually rented a new Fairmont sedan, and though mom liked the room, she was scared of the acceleration. Basically, it had none. That was with their 6 w an automatic. I remember we had that car for 3 days, and on 1 of those days she picked me up from preschool. She was complaining that the high beams wouldn't turn off ( stalk controlled) and when she hit the RR tracks, a piece of side molding fell off, which the rental car co. made us pay for. And they passed on that car. He eventually settled on 2 used cars.. a 70 Pontiac Catalina Executive sedan, and a 69 Nova with the 230 six. The Poncho was a great running car, but developed a fuel leak that burned it to the ground. The Nova developed a bad trans and wouldn't shift from 1st to 2nd automatically. Mom was complaining that its leaky trunk got the groceries wet all the time, so it too was gone by '82. That was a 2 dr car. So from then until 1985, we were down to 1 car, the Cordoba, which was getting rusty. Dad bought a new Daytona Turbo 5 speed at that time. Mom was stuck w the old rotten Chrysler until late 87, when she bought her 1st new car, a Lancer ES turbo w the auto. By late '88, the Cordoba was sold to a demolition derby guy that wanted the 400 engine. I tested for my driver's license in that Lancer in 92. By '93. dad had special ordered a 92 Daytona Iroc Shelby 2.5 turbo 5 speed, and the 85 Daytona was given to me as my 1st car. I drove that until late '97, and had sunk a ton of $ into it. Ahh, the old car memories!
Adam - I guess we do tend to romanticize the old stuff, even when people who LIVED it tell us it wasn't all that... Quality wasn't really "Job 1" anywhere back then... Reading that, it's almost as though he really SHOULD have bought the Hornet (Sportabout!), then the Eagle, when they came out. Maybe "boring," but I've been happier in a Metro than in a Cadillac when sitting in traffic (at the time, 6mi. in 30-40 minutes). One thing I've seen a lot on the original-design Dusters - and I have to assume on the Valiants/Darts as well - the hood hinges would get weak and bow a bit, then rub against their fender opening, which would cause them to rust out there. He got 10+ years out of the Cordoba, which is a good thing, and you got 12 from the Daytona - though I'm sure with the emerging tech, LOTS of "little things" could become expensive repairs... I'd never read about "dartiness" with the Aspen/Volares. Hmmm... Maybe something to do with the transverse torsion bars, though I never had that experience with my Mirada... (1980; Slant 6; had to drop to low to get up a couple streets in my 'hood. Baron Red w/ matching interior and white rear-1/3 vinyl top.) Honestly, I wish I'd kept the Mirada... I'd bet that a visit to Clifford Performance would've woken it up to 318 standards, anyway... Oh well, someday another Mirada... Oh hey - 2 of the DUMBEST ideas EVER were on the same car I had: 1979 Ford LTD (the downsized full-size): 1. The 2700 VV carburetor. Whoever came up with THAT piece of garbage should've been killed in infancy, and that is the ONLY car part I've ever said that about. I'd call it actually DANGEROUS, with the stalling. Hit the brakes to turn right, and it'd stall. Great in traffic... I replaced it, 'cause I was NOT going to rebuild that 1,000-pc puzzle, and it was only MARGINALLY better. 2. the stalk-mounted horn... Push it in towards the column... There is ZERO intuitive about that. If they'd made it a pull-to-you, like the headlight dimmer, it would've been better. I've read that the rim-blows weren't all that great, but I'll betcha they were still better. It's not like they were working around an airbag... It just hit me: As I recall, the horn wiring was somehow tied in with the headlight switch... Sometimes these "designers" do stuff just to do it, without asking if it's a good IDEA. P.S.: I'm with Adam about keeping these videos coming! They're a great historic resource, and look back to where we were!
I had a friend that had an 83 Eagle wagon with the 258 six and 4WD. That 1 even had a low range. Abysmal mileage, but what a car in the snow or rain. Just a tank! He ran it head on into a 4ft snow bank, shifted into low, and it literally plowed its way through to the street, snow packed grill, headlights, and all.
I know the F, M and J body Chryslers had transverse torsion bar alignment issues, and k member sag, and a lot of cars shipped from the factory were not even set up right. I have to wonder if the 1 my parents test drove was suffering from such. I had an 86 5th Ave that had that problem, and had the k member replaced twice due to sagging, which not only caused strange steering characteristics, but also massive negative camber, which ate tires.
As for the lovely Ford VV carb, I did about 50 conversions as per Ford TSB when I worked for GoodYear/Ford/Fleet. That was the 1 where they used the Autolite 2bbl carb in both non and feedback designs as the replacements. Feedback cars had the ECMs replaced as well. However, those were all on the Panther platform, not the Fox chassis, so I don't know, as I was much too young, if the Fairmont they rented had a VV carb, or the progressive 2bbl. What I do know was the owner's manual wasn't in that car, and dad had called and asked the rental car co. about it, and they didn't know how to switch the high beams off either, so dad unplugged them on day/night 2. And he returned it that way lol. That 1 also had the push in horn on the stalk.. I remember the rim blow wheel. An old timer tech I trained with told me that moisture would get into the contacts and cause the horn to blow at random. My cousin had 1 on a Mustang, and he had to disconnect the relay to get it to stop. It's fun to see these old videos, and yeah, look how far we've come..
Sounds like maybe MOPAR went with too-thin metal for the K-frames; I can't think of another reason they'd sag... They CERTAINLY should have had that worked out by '86... My LTD was a '79, 2-door "Landau," triple burgundy. Had about 30K when I bought it in '90-something. I put a 5' light-up Santa in the trunk, on top of the smaller light-up snowman, in the well. LOVED that trunk! I don't remember the mpg, but it wasn't bad for the size, and LOTS of space inside. Developed a leak into the trunk - I think it was via the sealed quarter window on the driver's side. Normally, I'd trade a car when I saw something else I liked; this one I just wanted to get rid of - ALL because of that carb and to a lesser degree, actually, the leak. A fuel-injected 4-door would have been a nice ride... Interesting about the rim-blow... I'm sure that with some development that "random-blow" issue could have been fixed. Mileage may have sucked on the Eagle, but if you compare it to a Jeep of the time, it probably wasn't THAT bad... Of course, if it was going to be compared to compact cars, in relative terms, it wouldn't fare well. Eagles are high on my lottery list, though non-mechanical parts are probably a challenge these days - especially the flares, meaning I couldn't really use them for what they were made for. I remember reading the 4WD system required a different floor pan to the Hornet/Concord. Could modify one for the "driver" one... I still like the old vehicles. You can replace from the plugs to the distributor rotor for probably less than one coil pack on a new car. Throw some carb or F.I. cleaner in the tank maybe 4x/year. No weird wrenches required to service the brakes (that I know how to pump if it's slippery out...). No computer to go pffft, and cost $2K+. "Crumple zone? Yeah, I have a crumple zone - it's called YOUR car!" :-)
Incidentally, I had an opportunity to buy an,AMC Concorde out of the,showroom in 1981.
The car was loaded, Vinyl top, electric antenna, factory cassette deck, leather seats. If it had be a hornet with a conservative paint job, I'd have bought it. But the Concorde was,super ugly, and thus one had a factory "Earl Scheib" yellow paint job. It out Chryslered Chrysler for looking like a cheap put on -- and no V8 available (I was 2 years too late for that.) I was ashamed to buy it. So I bought a 1981 Buick Skylark, and regretted the choice big time.
Let’s not forget,When they put the 302 in the Mav in’71,they sold very well. In fact,Ford stopped that option because it was taking a serious bite out of it’s Mustang sales. They would never help put a dent in the the precious Mustang.
A Maverick with 302. Put Mustang badge on it. Way better car than Mustang II.
I'm sold on the maverick, always wanted one...but they came out before I was born, I came home from the hospital in a vw fastback
This slideshow is like a bad PowerPoint. The 1970 AMC Hornet may have had some advantages over the 1970 Maverick, but the Hornet sold about 101,000 model year 1970 and the Maverick sold about 451,000 model year 1970. Some reasons why the Maverick was more popular: many many more Ford dealers than AMC dealers, the Maverick had more "sporty" styling, the AMC styling was pretty blah, Hornet sales also competed with Falcon (prior to 1970 1/2 conversion to the Fairlane body), Chevy Nova, Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart, plus the quickly growing wave of imports. When the Maverick added a four door model and V8, that was a further blow to Hornet sales. Maverick styling still looks good today and if you drop in a modern fuel injected 200 hp engine, improve the brakes, suspension and seat belts, you have a nifty and unique car.
Whistle? Is this a bootcamp? :D Seriously, the hornet is a good value, but the looks... Love the video anyway, though, these old promo films are always entertaining. Peace!
Just buy a Duster Harry...
wiibaron - You saw that video too, huh? :-)
@@randymorobitto5453 ... or better yet, a Nova.
The Hornet was a very dependable car as was the 1971 Gremlin , which I owned for 10 years without any major problems and no rust , also the gas mileage was about 24 on hwy and 16-18 around townI had the 232 straight six auto and it flew . people who say it was ugly have not seen Vega and Pinto and all the little Japan imports.
I had a friend in school had a gremlin that he put a 258 six in with lots of go fast parts. Didn't handle that great in turns but it was quick off the line...
@@stephenkeebler732 folks who knock AMC cars have never owned one or driven one ! I have had 2 and both have treated me great !
The Grabber package in 1970 came with a 6clyinder 250CI
Crackle of the lp. Classic!
Stay away from the Buick Opal
AMC SEEMS TO HAVE THE EDGE IN ALMOST ALL SPECS,SO I ASK,WHY DID AMC FAIL,IF THEY INDEED HAD A SUPERIOR PRODUCT? ANY THOUGHTS? THE LONGEST I EVER OWNED A CAR WAS A GREMLIN WHICH IM HAD FOR 5 YEARS.NEVER A PROBLEM,NOT EVER.
The Four Seasons - Wondering that myself... Styling plays a lot into it, and AMC really didn't have the budget to keep up with the others, but they were always considered to be sturdy little cars, if not exactly exciting. Of course, if you watch the MOPAR-brands video comparisons to Ford and GM, ChryCo. should've been number 1, and AMC #2. Of course, AMC burned a LOT of resources developing the Pacer and the '74 Matador coupe...
AMC failed because of shoddy assembly.
AMC had a lot of fleet purchases. For fleet cars, the line manager went down the line and made certain that each car was assembled properly. These fleet cars were sold at a steep discount, but the volume more than made up for it.
The individual car, sold in showrooms did not get this attention. The factory workers simply put them together. Quality control here was haphazard. An individual buying one was rolling the dice, is it assembled carefully or not? Buy it and find out.
Not a recipe for success.
The AMC Pacer was stupendously popular when it first came out. And had not expected such a demand. The line,workers were forced to crank them out much faster than planned in so as to meet the orders and, predictably, disaster resulted.
With an AMC, one,was buying a kit car. A mechanic could take one home, partially disassemble it, and put it back together correctly to get a good car.
Another problem was repairs. AMC bought parts from other manufacturers. If a car was designed to have a Ford clutch, and in the middle of the model year, Chrysler clutches became cheaper, the factory would start assembling the cars with Chrysler clutches. So the parts catalogues were never accurate. Savvy mechanics would take the defective part off the car and take it to the parts, where a very well versed supplier would look at the part and figure out what it was. Then the mechanic would buy the correct part and go put it on the car.
Mechanics,who were out of the loop, so to speak, would order the part listed in the catalogue/manual for that year. After several days of getting the wrong part and sending it back and ordering another, they would give up and,do what they should have done in the first place -- take the part in for ID.
If your mechanic was not hip to this, your car might be in the shop 3 days for a simple brake hob requiring 2 hrs of labor.
And with fewer cars sold, there were fewer used parts available, too.
George - I've been thinking about that... "Shoddy assembly" probably pretty much describes ALL the American car co.'s at the time, especially Chrysler, to be honest... REALLY hit-and-miss. It was probably the reason THEY almost went under. Seems rather appropriate that they bought AMC, and even when you look at the styling of the Rebel, and even going back to the Rambler Classic. The good thing is, if you find one now, all the bugs should've been worked out! Now, if only there was a good repro market for the parts...
Randy, Chrysler was an appropriate buyer for AMC. Chrysler has a higher profit margin per car than GM or Ford. That is because Chrysler wastes no time putting the cars together.
That is another question. If a company has a higher profit margin, how does it go broke?
AMC did not fail. They got bought out.
I'm having flashbacks to Jr High.
I'll take a hornet please.
The Hornet was clearly the better choice and it is a shame that the higher ups in AMC dropped the ball and ruined a fine company. But what a stupid ad, I didn't like the whistle blowing idea.
It's a training film for dealership salesmen. It was never designed to be aired to John Q. Public.
Who is the AMC salesman @2:11?
Definitely was a journeyman actor in TV and film around that time!
Anyone?
How much for the electric wipers instead of vacuum?
It wasn't a bad car at all, but it still had vacuum wipers as standard equipment and AMC braking system were not the best when the brakes got hot, lots if weaving.
1) low resale. Even as a teenager l was aware of AMC's bad resale.
2) AMC seems to have been unable or unwilling to pay for favorable reviews by writers in the auto magazines.
3) Consumer Reports hated all AMC cars. Consumer Reports rated Chevy Vega (aluminum engine block made it a 30,000 mile motor) & the Pinto better than the much better Gremlin.
4) In 1984 a Dodge salesman admitted to me the Hornet was ahead of its time. Ford Tempo was almost a direct copy of the underrated Hornet.
then why was the Hornet rated so highly? 1973 was a banner year for amc... you don't know crap about amc cars dude.
Actually CR liked the Hornet. Rated it tops.
1) Hornet...2)Dart...3) Maverick...4) Nova.
Just how was the ford tempo a copy of the hornet ? They had absolutely nothing in common . the tempo was a front wheel drive car .
Yes, because consumer reports are totally not biased to who gives them more money.
@@BuickParkAvenueWrong. Consumer Reports does NOT take money from auto-manufacturers, and does NOT take advertising from auto manufacturers. Never has....never will.
Well. The Hornet does have a glove box
In the age the imports were winning the race. Ford and chevy were fighting each other.
The Maverick looked like norhing else and in 72 it could have the 302 V8. Enough I´ll just go get a Maverick
Ford Maverick with the 302 V8 all the way!
Why you could get a 304 V-8 in the hornet.
The hornet with a 304 was a little hot rod would blow the doors off any Maverick
Maveric the edsel of the 1970's - it's now a truck model
Both cars okay
That dann whistle is really annoying! The AMC people didn't hire the best people to do their training films.
I'm guessing the whistle had to do with some sort of major point the salesmen had to write down - here is what Maverick is saying . . . WHISTLE . . . now here is what we offer. Annoying as hell, as you say.
This is a very convincing sales tool. After seeing the attributes of the Hornet and Maverick my mind is made up. I'll take the Continental Mark III.
👍🏻👍🏻
Ford will remember this
This is the kind of training video that would make me question my choice of employer.
That is why your king of the weirdos
What if Harry has something called taste? How do you prepare Mopar and AMC fans against something utterly alien to them?
From the times when car reviews were just attacks.
goofy 1970s lol
All this talk of room in the Hornet, but how did it compare to the '69 Rambler American? This generation of domestic cars across the board was infamous for poor space utilization due to the long hood/short deck look. The Chrysler A body got its' last full redesign for 1967 around the 1962 hard points so it didn't suffer as much; that killed the gen 2 Cuda but had to have been an advantage for the regular Dart/Valiant, especially the 4 doors.
Cool vid, hate the whistle stop.
72 grabber 302 with fac ac was cool in hs
Get the picthure, yes we see
The whistle is a bit irritating 😠
Me gustaría tener un Eagle Sportabout
I’ll take the ugly one
Prop rod worked well on 50 ford so why is there a problem
my 2010 has a prop rod
So does my 99 Mustang GT...
What's the big deal?
@@CarminesRCTipsandTricks Back then cars were big but were starting to get smaller. Most of the bigger cars did not have prop rods, as most Americans had not seen them since the early 50s. Consequently, in the early 70s, prop rods had the perception of a car being primitive and low end.
However, people later got used to prop rods again, as the imports all had them. Most American cars later went to prop rods to save weight and money.
*Beep*
Beep
BEEP.
Hermoso, el Hornet. Todavía hoy en día se luce
Mavericks y su primito, ESPANTOSOS. De los autos más feos que he llegado a ver
Plot twist, the Maverick is back!
But it isn't a Maverick....the new car should have been named "Ranchero".
Because it's a Mopar ha ha
mopar my ass, that was in 1987 when chrysler bought amc only for the Jeep name you dufus.
Mopar or no car
I'd have bought a Volvo 142.
👍🏻
Didn't watch it for the annoying beep all the time
Well the AMC Hornet S/C 360 and Ford Maverick 302 Grabber both cool cars. The Maverick sold more then the Mustang ll, cause it cost less than the Mustang. Ford Motor Company killed the Maverick to keep the Mustang. I wish the Ford Motor Company would bring back the Maverick and Chrysler Motor Company would bring back the Hornet! On a new Chrysler Hornet S/C, rear wheel drive a inline 6 cylinder turbo or a Hemi. For a new Maverick, rear wheel drive 302 V-8. As more car companies steering away from building cars to SUV's , I feel Chrysler Motor Company should look into cars it little. Cars like Hornet, 2 door Charger, Duster, and Sport Fury. The car I wish Ford would retro would be a72' Gran Torino Sport but Ford is too chicken to build along with Chevy Chevelle and Buick GS.
The Maverick was replaced by the Fairmont...
Daryl and Duster beter quality
Harry should by a datson 510 bluebird
I'd rather have a Hornet. It is American and it was the only affordable car your could get in America that cared about rustproofing.
@@jakekaywell5972 you should look up what a Datsun 510 is worth now don't get me wrong I luv amxs javllins hornets and ramblers but 510s are going for 16 to 20 grand
@@oscarwalton1188 I personally don't care one iota about monetary value in my vintage cars. If I did, I wouldn't be driving my 1962 Studebaker GT Hawk daily. I wouldn't trade her for anything else.
Also, I don't think the Datsun 510 looks as good as AMC's Hornet. A subjective point, I know, but still one worth considering.
@@jakekaywell5972 I like them all
@@oscarwalton1188 Can't argue with that. Cheers!
the hornet is definitely designed better but the quality would go to the maverick.
Are you serious? The Maverick was just a little bit bigger Pinto...
Maverick was a more rounded body version of the Falcon and Mustang, which for all intents and purposes were three different bodied versions of the same car, the Mustang getting more heavy duty options of suspension and Engines/drivetrain. Pinto was very different, with smaller engines, McPherson Strut suspension, and Rack& Pinion Steering, which they developed the MustangII out of...
You compare either of these cars to the Datsun 510 sold at the same time and you soon realize how horrible Americans are at building cars.
Yeah, Isn't it soooo horrible how American cars didn't rust out after 2 years like the Japanese cars of that era did.
@@BuickParkAvenue They did? When? Didn't happen in my family, and Bondo was THE trend with American cars since they were rustbuckets.
@@LearnAboutFlow Used Hondas and Toyotas from that era were known for rusting. Because the cars were brought over from Japan, they were exposed to sea water. Their thin sheet metal construction didn't help either.
EDIT: Some American cars of that era did have rust issues as well (Dodge Aspen and Chevy Vega were some of the worst) but for the most part, you can still find battered American cars of that era with very little rust.
@@BuickParkAvenue Well, clearly your experience is different than mine.
@@LearnAboutFlow Very true.
I walk to the Nearest Chevrolet dealer an buy a Nova
The Nova was a cut-rate car by the early 1970s. AMC's Hornet, meanwhile, was a tank in comparison by virtue by its old and well-developed underpinnings. The ol' reliable.
Didn't like these 2 go buy a Duster or Dart better cars
Funny, I don't think I've ever seen a Hornet on the road.
Have you ever watched James Bond " The Man With the Golden Gun".
That's because less were made relative to the Maverick to begin with. For what it's worth, I've seen several factory-correct Gremlins in the metal in the past but no Mavericks.
There's one still being driven down the street from me.
Hornet has nothing on Maverick. This is a car that Ford killed because the sales were so good that it threatened other car lines.
VERY SUCCESSFUL CARS !!!
CAN'T SAY THAT FOR HORNET.
Hold on a second there. The Hornet was an extremely good success for AMC. Besides the tough-as-nails quality of the car, the same basic platform lived on through the 1970s clear into the 80s thanks to the Concord and the Eagle. Can't say that for Maverick!
@@jakekaywell5972,You should be a comedian.
@@daleostrom3613 Ha, ha, ha... I'm sure you know that sales numbers have absolutely no correlation to build quality. The Chrysler K-car lineup is proof of that. The fact of the matter is that the Hornet was a better made car than the Maverick. The only reason as to why you see more of those around today than Hornets is because Ford, as a corporation, was and always will be more popular and prominent than AMC.