Maverick is weird

[85_Ranger4x4]

No one tell rusty that the maverick is more capable than his ranger by any metric, other than maybe trailer weight. And the numbers on those old rangers were never realistic anyway for safely hauling a load.

Are they making service bodies for these things? That's the market for these. I think you'll see a lot as fleet vehicles to go along with the Transit - OEMs are dropping out of that market like crazy and there are a lot of places that need trucks but don't need something the size of an f150.

Ranger blows it away for bed length, no way around that.

For payload the maverick suffers from the same issue many crew cabs, the axle is clear ahead of the bed. This makes cargo in the bed take weight off the front axle which effects steering and increases stress in the frame, one can find plenty of T6 Rangers (and hilux/70 series/whatever) down under with sprung frames because of this.

Namely it is mainly designed to carry its payload in the cab moreso than in the bed.

For the rear axle, despite being out of a pinto my money is on the one with ball bearings that run in oil and lasts forever over the pos pressed in sealed wheel bearings that last 100k at best.

I think i have replaced 6 of the blessed things jn our edge which hauls/tows nothing.

Cant do a service body when the bed is integral with the body either. Payload is low for one too (they are rarely seen on anything under 3/3 ton)

Not knocking the Maverick, i can see it has a market but for regularly doing truck things a old ranger does hold some merit over it yet depending on what you are doing.

 

[Blmpkn]

Yeesh. It's a practical vehicle, and one that could make ford quite a bit of money.

Not everyone needs a vehicle that can bang through a ditch while over loaded.... some people just want something that's efficient and allows them to bring home their own new dishwasher instead of needing it delivered by people who are just gonna steal their silverware.

 

[Shran]

It would be perfect for me as a commuter, my single cab short box Ranger DD is overkill for getting to work... the only area it's lacking is seats for all three kids.

I actually could work out of that truck I think. If someone came up with a ladder rack with side boxes or make a contractor topper I definitely could. I ran an Astro van for many years, I really doubt that would have been any more capable on dirt roads and snow than the Maverick would be.

Lack of low range is only a deal breaker if I was gonna "wheel" it.... and then it is just a matter of the right tool for the job... someone needs to develop portal axles for these trucks, geared correctly, that could solve a lot of potential issues.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Yeesh. It's a practical vehicle, and one that could make ford quite a bit of money.

Not everyone needs a vehicle that can bang through a ditch while over loaded.... some people just want something that's efficient and allows them to bring home their own new dishwasher instead of needing it delivered by people who are just gonna steal their silverware.

Buy a sedan and a 4x6 trailer then. Instead of driving a stake further into the heart of the truck market.

 

[dvdswan]

Everyone is forgetting that this is a vehicle for a specific market. It's not going to replace the fullsize truck that farms, construction, utility companies need.

These are for the urban yuppies (for lack of a better term) to run to the local home improvement store to pick up the new closet door they don't know how to install yet.

 

[ryan]

View attachment 69580

But im sure just like when i proved the new ranger was barely more capable then a 92 the excuses will fly.
[/QUOTE]

The maverick payload in all configurations is 1500 lbs, give or take. The tow rating is 2000 lbs. Not sure what you think you're proving. The stuff you're saying about the maverick is the exact same stuff people said about rangers, complaining about the size and that it's IFS. I'm defending the maverick because it literally is the same thing as the older rangers were. and I love that you're here to complain about them because you love 70s trucks so much.

Want to really ruin your day? Go start looking at the dana 70 and dana 80 IRS stuff coming out in the race market. I bet you'll see that migrating into the half ton truck market sooner rather than later. Maybe not in 3/4 ton+ trucks for a while. But there's nothing inherently more strong about the fact that something has leaf springs vs coil springs. Components can be made to whatever the demand is

edit - I still think the main market for these is going to be fleet vehicles. There's really not much out there if you need a lot of trucks other than the F150 right now, and that's way more truck than most fleets need. In the fleet purchasing I've been a part of we went towards transits, when the maverick would be a much better choice because it's more economical and more aligned with what the actual payload needs were. You can probably get two of these for the price of what you were going to pay for an f150 or a transit. If you're working in trades you're probably more likely to end up in a 3/4 ton truck for teh towing needs anyway and all the different box configurations

 

[Blmpkn]

Buy a sedan and a 4x6 trailer then. Instead of driving a stake further into the heart of the truck market.

Not everyone has space to store a trailer. People who live in the concrete jungle often times have ONE parking space.. or have to park in a multi story garage. The number of people who that description fits is not a small percentage of the market either.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

View attachment 69580

But im sure just like when i proved the new ranger was barely more capable then a 92 the excuses will fly.


The maverick payload in all configurations is 1500 lbs, give or take. The tow rating is 2000 lbs. Not sure what you think you're proving. The stuff you're saying about the maverick is the exact same stuff people said about rangers, complaining about the size and that it's IFS. I'm defending the maverick because it literally is the same thing as the older rangers were. and I love that you're here to complain about them because you love 70s trucks so much.

Want to really ruin your day? Go start looking at the dana 70 and dana 80 IRS stuff coming out in the race market. I bet you'll see that migrating into the half ton truck market sooner rather than later. Maybe not in 3/4 ton+ trucks for a while. But there's nothing inherently more strong about the fact that something has leaf springs vs coil springs. Components can be made to whatever the demand is

edit - I still think the main market for these is going to be fleet vehicles. There's really not much out there if you need a lot of trucks other than the F150 right now, and that's way more truck than most fleets need. In the fleet purchasing I've been a part of we went towards transits, when the maverick would be a much better choice because it's more economical and more aligned with what the actual payload needs were. You can probably get two of these for the price of what you were going to pay for an f150 or a transit. If you're working in trades you're probably more likely to end up in a 3/4 ton truck for teh towing needs anyway and all the different box configurations

Solid axle/leaf spring has less moving parts and less wear parts then an IRS system giving it the durabilty advantage.

If IRS starts going into 1/2 tons trucks are done. Its bad enough ram uses coils on1/2 and 3/4 tons.

 

[dvdswan]

Not everyone has space to store a trailer. People who live in the concrete jungle often times have ONE parking space.. or have to park in a multi story garage. The number of people who that description fits is not a small percentage of the market either.

Your point is invalid...

1195 lb. Capacity 48 in. x 96 in. Heavy Duty Folding Trailer (harborfreight.com)

 

[dvdswan]

Solid axle/leaf spring has less moving parts and less wear parts then an IRS system giving it the durabilty advantage.

If IRS starts going into 1/2 tons trucks are done. Its bad enough ram uses coils on1/2 and 3/4 tons.

Isn't the Expedition on the F-150 frame? They have IRS.

 

[Blmpkn]

Your point is invalid...

1195 lb. Capacity 48 in. x 96 in. Heavy Duty Folding Trailer (harborfreight.com)

Lol go stir somewhere else you scoundrel.

There's probably more people that live on the 14th floor of their building in downtown Manhattan than live in my whole county... those people aren't going to want to deal with the process of having to fold up a trailer and elevator it up and through the hallway etc. etc.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Isn't the Expedition on the F-150 frame? They have IRS.

Not really, although i did find a 97 f-150 cab on a irs expedition frame and most of the cab mounts lined up. They changed a lot towards the rear of the frame though.

Ram went to coils to improve ride and increase towing/payload with a lighter rear suspension. Lighter as in physically weighs less.

4 months running the parts dept at the local CDRJ dealer and i have seen very few issues with rear truck suspensions.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Not really, although i did find a 97 f-150 cab on a irs expedition frame and most of the cab mounts lined up. They changed a lot towards the rear of the frame though.

Ram went to coils to improve ride and increase towing/payload with a lighter rear suspension. Lighter as in physically weighs less.

4 months running the parts dept at the local CDRJ dealer and i have seen very few issues with rear truck suspensions.

GM tried coils in the 60s. It didnt work. See no real reason to trust them now. But i guess if youre willing to buy a truck with a 5 ft box youre not worried about long term durability and workability.

 

[fastpakr]

That's ridiculous.

Why on earth would I buy a heavier/more expensive/less efficient truck unless I needed it's capability? Unless I felt the need to prove myself through the truck I drive... Or I just wanted the bigger one for fun, which is an entirely different argument

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

GM tried coils in the 60s. It didnt work. See no real reason to trust them now. But i guess if youre willing to buy a truck with a 5 ft box youre not worried about long term durability and workability.

The Ram 2500 i want would have a 6.5' box but that is neither here nor there.

Ram has been doing it for over 10 years, it seems to work well.

I have ordered more spring shackles (countless) than coil springs (none)