First photos of Maverick

[97RangerXLT]

You mean this one?

I noticed a couple of things:
1) The '59's door came right off, exposing the driver
2) The '59' front seat broke away from the floor. Well, it might still be attached to the floor pan, but the floor pan sure got bent to snot to make the seat move like that (which means the frame is toast, too!)
3) The '59's windshield even popped off.
4) The '56's passenger compartment was pretty badly mangled by the crash.

Meanwhile:
1) The '09's passenger compartment remained fully intact
2) The driver of the '09 stayed in place

Yeah, I'd have rather been driving the '09 in that crash.... I'd have walked away (maybe limped).

yep, that is the one. also notice that the passenger side fender was ripped out from the collapsing front end and the hood nearly went into the passenger compartment after the windshield came off, could have decapitated the front seat passengers if hit just right. when this vid came out, I read a story on possibly Jalopnik that the 59 was a complete frame off restoration so you cannot argue that it was a rust bucket with a new paint job. It was as if it were a new car. the previous owner was mortified at what the bought it for and what they did to it.

but yeah, there was no reinforcemnt of any of the passenger compartment in cars at all in the 50s and 60s.

In a crash, having the passenger compartment buffered by engineered break away points for the engine and transmission and crumple zones all around makes for a much safer car, even if it isn't as cool looking as the older cars.

AJ

 

[Snoranger]

yep, that is the one. also notice that the passenger side fender was ripped out from the collapsing front end and the hood nearly went into the passenger compartment after the windshield came off, could have decapitated the front seat passengers if hit just right. when this vid came out, I read a story on possibly Jalopnik that the 59 was a complete frame off restoration so you cannot argue that it was a rust bucket with a new paint job. It was as if it were a new car. the previous owner was mortified at what the bought it for and what they did to it.

but yeah, there was no reinforcemnt of any of the passenger compartment in cars at all in the 50s and 60s.

In a crash, having the passenger compartment buffered by engineered break away points for the engine and transmission and crumple zones all around makes for a much safer car, even if it isn't as cool looking as the older cars.

AJ

There’s a ton of little things that you notice on newer cars beside the obvious seat belts and air bags.
Look at the underside of a newer hood. Most of them have some kind of hook that goes inside it when it’s closed, that’s to keep it from going through the windshield.
Collapsible steering columns weren’t a thing in ‘59. Big pointy chrome horn buttons designed to stab you in the chest or face were popular.

 

[G8orFord]

It's always best not to crash.
47

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I wasnt trying to say that they arnt popular. But if you read the forums alot of guys end up with doors that wont shut right and shit cause the unibody cant take the flex, Same deal with big torque unibody cars, hell, even foxbody 302s were known to crack the trans tunnel even with factory parts.

Hatchbacks and convertibles were weak because they had much less structure than a coupe... which is why the almighty notch is so sought after for race cars.

 

[wildbill23c]

Too bad its still a bloated 4 door with a useless bed. Was hoping they'd at least build it to be a 2 door or some extended cab variant. Being FWD it should do pretty well in areas that get snow where the RWD trucks just can't get a grip LOL. The Ranger as it is now is over-priced, and too big for the people who actually want a Ranger and remember them as a compact pickup not a 95% full size truck with a full size+ price tag.

I guess Ford decided to build the next Subaru Baja.

 

[wildbill23c]

The rear suspension setup says a lot about where it sits on the fleet vehicle/passenger vehicle spectrum. Definitely not marketed at any of us.

It looks like the back end is already sagging....and its only a prototype, that means it will be delivered with a sagging rear end when new and only will get worse after its first trip to Walmart LOL. That's what happens when you try to turn a car into a pickup.

 

[Curious Hound]

It looks like the back end is already sagging....and its only a prototype, that means it will be delivered with a sagging rear end when new and only will get worse after its first trip to Walmart LOL. That's what happens when you try to turn a car into a pickup.

Everybody else complains about Ford pickups having the back end a bit higher than the front. Now they fix that and you complain. Sheesh!

 

[Snoranger]

Hatchbacks and convertibles were weak because they had much less structure than a coupe... which is why the almighty notch is so sought after for race cars.

Iv never seen a Fox crack the trans tunnel.... I’ve completely ripped the torque boxes out of an 89. And twisted and ripped the seat out of the floor pan power shifting.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Iv never seen a Fox crack the trans tunnel.... I’ve completely ripped the torque boxes out of an 89. And twisted and ripped the seat out of the floor pan power shifting.

Never heard of trans tunnel specifically either. I know some are stronger than others though.

Subframe connectors help, the SN95 that everybody loves to hate has a much better structure.

 

[Snoranger]

Never heard of trans tunnel specifically either. I know some are stronger than others though.

Subframe connectors help, the SN95 that everybody loves to hate has a much better structure.

The SN95 is ugly (yes, I’ll admit it even if I have one) but it really is a nice upgrade over the Fox.

 

[wildbill23c]

Everybody else complains about Ford pickups having the back end a bit higher than the front. Now they fix that and you complain. Sheesh!

The back end is supposed to be higher than the front, that's how you get your hauling & towing capability...a sagging ass end will cause you to bottom out the suspension when doing light hauling and towing duties.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The SN95 is ugly (yes, I’ll admit it even if I have one) but it really is a nice upgrade over the Fox.

The owners are weird but really I like them. About a tie with a late 4 eye fox for looks.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Iv never seen a Fox crack the trans tunnel.... I’ve completely ripped the torque boxes out of an 89. And twisted and ripped the seat out of the floor pan power shifting.

I shouldnt of said trans tunnel...its actually the driveshaft tunnel. Under the rear seat. I misspoke...my bad.

 

[Saddle Tramp]

Someone called Primrose did a dimension compro between the Maverick and the 2020 Ranger. She based the dimensions of the Maverick off the Bronco Sport which shares the platform. I decided to throw in the dimensions of the 2011 Ranger. (R)egular cab and (E)xtended cab. Here's the results.

2022 Ford Maverick (Estimate)
Length: 190 inches
Width: 70 inches
Height: 69 inches
Wheelbase: 105 inches
Bed Length: 50 inches

2011 Ford Ranger:
Length: 189.4 inches (R) 203.6 (E)
Width: 69.3 inches
Height: 66.3 inches
Wheelbase: 111.5 inches (R) 125.9 inches (E)
Bed Length: 72.7 inches

2020 Ford Ranger:
Length: 210.8 inches
Width: 73.3 inches
Height: 71.5 inches
Wheelbase: 126.8 inches
Bed Length: 60-73 inches

Interestingly, the payload for the 2011 Ford Ranger regular cab with the 2.3 I4 engine has a max GVWR of 4,300 lbs. and max payload of 1,130 lbs.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Someone called Primrose did a dimension compro between the Maverick and the 2020 Ranger. She based the dimensions of the Maverick off the Bronco Sport which shares the platform. I decided to throw in the dimensions of the 2011 Ranger. (R)egular cab and (E)xtended cab. Here's the results.

2022 Ford Maverick (Estimate)
Length: 190 inches
Width: 70 inches
Height: 69 inches
Wheelbase: 105 inches
Bed Length: 50 inches

2011 Ford Ranger:
Length: 189.4 inches (R) 203.6 (E)
Width: 69.3 inches
Height: 66.3 inches
Wheelbase: 111.5 inches (R) 125.9 inches (E)
Bed Length: 72.7 inches

2020 Ford Ranger:
Length: 210.8 inches
Width: 73.3 inches
Height: 71.5 inches
Wheelbase: 126.8 inches
Bed Length: 60-73 inches

Interestingly, the payload for the 2011 Ford Ranger regular cab with the 2.3 I4 engine has a max GVWR of 4,300 lbs. and max payload of 1,130 lbs.

Dude.

Thank you.

Its not a truck, its most certainly a ranchero. Its an ute.

And im ok with it.

I'm mildly interested in these. Its what every Napa on the planet will run. Give it a manual and ill test drive it. Give it awd and I may buy one.

Sub 20k is quite a number. It has some of my attention now that im seeing dimentuons.

One of the things that makes 83-11 trucks awesome is their diminutive size.

This intrigues me.

And no rusty, I dont want a damn Ridgeline. Its a fake truck sold as a truck. This is an ute, through and through.

Ranchero and rampage were cool af.

I'd trade my 2011 in the right El camino.

i said it.



This isnt a truck. The media is dumb for calling it one. Ford is dumb if they call it one. Its a chance to get an American ute again, to which I say cool. Sure, its no Holden HSV, but, eh.