First photos of Maverick

[8thTon]

Obviously if there is a large disparity in mass you'd want to be in the larger vehicle, as you'll be using the smaller vehicle as crush zone, and that reduces your rate of deceleration. If there is any kind of parity in masses then you sure don't want a rigid chassis, as then the deceleration rate will be massive and your body will be more damaged by that.

So yeah, you can drive around some large old rigid chassis vehicle, hoping you don't hit anything else that is of similar construction.

Back on this topic, my Ranger has a full frame, and it weighs about 3100lbs - probably not a lot different than this thing. I suspect the cargo and towing capability for a truck in the class could be made similar regardless of unibody or full frame construction. If you want a strong structure you'd use a space frame over some flat ladder frame every time, it wouldn't even be a contest.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

If I were to throwmy two cents in, I've been in two head on collisions. The first I was in my 85 mazda 323 I cane around a corner on a dirt road and there was a lifted f150 right infront of me we were both traveling around 30 mph. If i hadent reacted instantly by spinning the wheel, downshifting to 1st, and stomping the gas to pull the front end out of the way. I would not be here today. He would have drove right over me instead it was a glancing fender to fender. The second was up in the hills during a snow storm in my 83 ranger 4x4 traveling in the ruts, when down the hill came a 90s Cherokee, driver was drunk going to fast we both tried to stop, however he slid into me at around 20 mph. Bent the bumper and passenger frame horn abit. His unibody was twisted and collapsed jamming up the steering column. These are both examples of how a beefier stronger structure can protect its occupants better. The f150 driver barely knew I was there. I broke my nose on the steering wheel, than put 4 in diameter hole in the windshield with my forehead. And sustained no injuries in the ranger. This is an example of structure, without being skewed by modern tech.

 

[MikeG]

So you weren't wearing a seat belt in the 323?

 

[ThatOneGuy]

True back then I didnt know a person who did. I had never worn a seat belt before that incident, even as a small child I would just free roam the back seat. I didnt even have to wear it when I took the drivers test. Almost 17 years ago. After that incident my vehicals dont move till everyone is buckled. And I was glad for seat belt laws. In the Hope that it teaches people to never drive without wearing them

 

[Dirtman]

Seat belts are stupid. So is tempered glass.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

This is what happens when tempered glass isnt used where building codes say it should be. You can be sure the next day it got replaced with tempered. I could see the bone. And still have nerve damage.

 

[Dirtman]

Cars were vastly safer before seat belts and tempered glass.

 

[Grumpaw]

The safest !!!
No seatbelts, glass, steering, brakes, airbags, child safety seats !
And, bet ya'all didn't know there was also a Flintstone pickup truck !

 

[MikeG]

LMAO......

 

[rusty ol ranger]

And by reading this I can tell you didn't read ANY of those articles because thats not at all what they are about.

Ok...i didnt read all of them before. But i just reskimmed through them again and got the jist...and heres where im at..

1- I wont read consumer reports. Its a biased rag not fit to wipe my ass.

2- Most every one of them articles posted that god awful video of the 59 chevy vs the 09 chevy...once again...a bullshit test.

3- A good majority of them pointed toward electronic nannies as the reason for things being safer...this is only valid when you got people more interested in facebook then driving...a generational problem, and a product of them never having to DRIVE for real.

4- The death statistics? Well they dont account for all the dangerous driving actvities we all used to engage in in. Cars had seatbelts...no one wore them. Kids wernt in car seats, people drank and drove in much higher rates then we do now, high powered 60s muscle was still dirt cheap in the late 70s/early 80s and in the hands of 16 year olds who had no fear....once again...doesnt hold water.

5- Crumple zones? Like i said before, one vehicle wreck against a tree, building, or other object with no give? Fine. But if a 77 mercury collides with a modern explorer the explorer is going to a)cushion itself b) cushion the mercury c) be in much worse shape after the accident. The frame acts like a battering ram, holding its shape better forcing the other vehicle to take the brunt.

Now if the mercury collides with a tree...yes...the stiff frame is a hinderence there and will more then likely cause more damage to the passengers then a softer vehicle would.

The IIHS, NHTSA, and whoever else spreads this kind of "oh new is safer" bullshit mainly to keep insurance rates soaring on older vehicles (IIHS goal) and to try to scare people into lighter, better MPG, cleaner cars (NHTSA is a gov't agency, as is the EPA, keeping the greenies happy)

 

[rusty ol ranger]

So yeah, you can drive around some large old rigid chassis vehicle, hoping you don't hit anything else that is of similar construction.

....and this is why as time goes on my old trucks get safer and safer.....

 

[MikeG]

Rusty, I think you are (seriously) missing the point. The car should be safer for both vehicles in a collision.... not just one of them. Unfortunately stuff that doesn't "yield" (ie. your beloved land yacht examples, etc), MAY somewhat improve the outcome in SOME collisions for those in the old boats.... but the outcome will be WORSE in certain collisions for land yacht, and worse in ALL collisions when hitting something smaller, for those in the smaller vehicle.

Yeah some of the little cars fare poorly.... the unfortunate folks who rear-ended my explorer with a Geo Metro or some other beer can, their car was totally wrecked. There was a scratch on the Explorer bumper... basically heard the little car hit, never even felt it. However, their car sacrificed itself so that they did not get injured so much by the sudden stop.

Anyway if you can't figure out that the point of crumple zones, etc., is to make (on average) cars MUCH safer for EVERYONE, then we'll just agree that you're right and then you can ignore the thread from now on. How about that?

And if you think that safety devices don't work, then disable the 4wheel ABS and go put drum brakes back on everything you own, and let us know how that works out in the next ice storm! By the way putting rear anti-sway bars on just about everything on the road (pickups too) is a MAJOR improvement in emergency handling. Don't agree? Disconnect both front a rear anti-sway bars and let us know how that works out. Yeah some of the silly electronic crap borders on the extreme.... but safety devices are sometimes pretty simple, yet remarkably effective.

Independent suspensions handle FAR better in emergency situations than solid axles (if you don't need them for what the vehicle is for). Steel belted tires are FAR safer than bias ply.... the list goes on and on. Crumple zones, like it or not, ARE a major improvement in safety - for everyone.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

All other things being equal, weight gives you an advantage.

All other things are not equal.

And heavy looking doesn’t mean heavy either.

Dads ‘57 Bel-Air had about the same curb weight as my brother’s ‘11 Mustang GT.

A lot of the old stuff isn’t even as heavy as it looks/feels.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Rusty, I think you are (seriously) missing the point. The car should be safer for both vehicles in a collision.... not just one of them. Unfortunately stuff that doesn't "yield" (ie. your beloved land yacht examples, etc), MAY somewhat improve the outcome in SOME collisions for those in the old boats.... but the outcome will be WORSE in certain collisions for land yacht, and worse in ALL collisions when hitting something smaller, for those in the smaller vehicle.

Yeah some of the little cars fare poorly.... the unfortunate folks who rear-ended my explorer with a Geo Metro or some other beer can, their car was totally wrecked. There was a scratch on the Explorer bumper... basically heard the little car hit, never even felt it. However, their car sacrificed itself so that they did not get injured so much by the sudden stop.

Anyway if you can't figure out that the point of crumple zones, etc., is to make (on average) cars MUCH safer for EVERYONE, then we'll just agree that you're right and then you can ignore the thread from now on. How about that?

And if you think that safety devices don't work, then disable the 4wheel ABS and go put drum brakes back on everything you own, and let us know how that works out in the next ice storm! By the way putting rear anti-sway bars on just about everything on the road (pickups too) is a MAJOR improvement in emergency handling. Don't agree? Disconnect both front a rear anti-sway bars and let us know how that works out. Yeah some of the silly electronic crap borders on the extreme.... but safety devices are sometimes pretty simple, yet remarkably effective.

Independent suspensions handle FAR better in emergency situations than solid axles (if you don't need them for what the vehicle is for). Steel belted tires are FAR safer than bias ply.... the list goes on and on. Crumple zones, like it or not, ARE a major improvement in safety - for everyone.

If it keeps me and my passengers safe then thats good enough for me. Perhaps the drunk, texter, or whoever shoulda not been driving or paying attention instead of hitting me...cruel thought process maybe but its life.

Ive driven many non ABS vehicles in ice storms...hell i prefer them. If you "need" abs or whatever else...learn to drive.

Ive had many older trucks without sway bars, and a few with two solid axles...if you dont drive 70mph everywhere they are plenty safe to avoid whatever needs avoiding. Dont be in such a rush and put the phone down. Youll be fine.

IRS has no place on anything with a bed, or that calls itself an SUV. If you cant handle an SUV/truck made for people who can handle, and need the durability...then perhaps you should buy something that actually suits your needs...instead of watering down and screwing up the things that suit my needs so you can play urban cowboy.

 

[Grumpaw]

Found these floating around...
First one is called the Courier, second one is the Maverick, "renderings"