What does Ford think the Maverick is for?

[sgtsandman]

I didn't realize how similarly sized these 3 trucks are. Width is within 3 in, wb is within 10 in, and payload is within 300 lb. The maverick tow capacity is 2-4k (like the low end of the last ranger), and the new ranger is 7500 (half ton more than the high end of the last ranger).

I find all 3 to be cramped tho... the new ranger the least cramped but still cramped. But I find almost all unibody "suvs" to be cramped.

Don't think I'd plan on doing this with a Maverick tho
View attachment 82630

The Maverick is pretty close in dimensions to the original Rangers. The new Ranger is pretty close but different in significant ways. Definitely taller, some what wider, and it sits higher. Length is about 6 inches longer. Driving the 2011 and the 2019 back to back, they pretty much drive the same. Obviously, load and towing capacity are significantly different as well as the target market.

 

[Curious Hound]

Like the Chevy LUV?

Or the Subaru Brat?

 

[RumPunch]

I'm going to risk this post... (after scanning the comments, (no I didn't read each word prior to this post, but I eye hunted and didn't see it...and "it" being the label FX4) Not a single person has mentioned the fact they needed the FX4 model to make it to that parking lot!!! Those speed bumps getting there were treacherous!!! Barely made it to the front row... Why not advertise stuff for it's "true" purpose... If you have an FX4 version dump it into some mud, or desert hell at least something without pavement.

 

[ekrampitzjr]

In Australia they call car-based pickups like the El Camino and Ranchero "utes" (from "utility"), and GM and Ford used to sell a lot of utes there. One would typically be a young guy's first vehicle.

I look at the Maverick as a 4–door ute. It also has similarities to the old truck-based Explorer Sport Trac, which also had a tiny bed.

For some small businesses the Maverick pushes all the right buttons. Frankly, I like it and if I were in the market for a new vehicle, it would be on my short list.

 

[holyford86]

I can see the usefulness of the maverick, have both a lifted first Gen and stock 4x2 4th Gen. The low load height of the 98 is quite handy and the nearly 30 mpg I can pull out of the 2.5 makes it easier on the wallet to drive far it also has the most useless bed (flareside). The first Gen is harder on fuel and I have to lift things over a foot higher to get them on the bed, but the bed makes a fantastic workbench and it will go most places I want it to without effort. One drives me to work every day and the other takes me on adventures or when I need to work on something, it's my rolling shop, It's all about your intended use and what makes sense for you.

 

[mtnrgr]

Millennials want a softer life..thier skinny jeans won't let them reach that far into a real truck. They feel they're working to hard. The maverick is for them to wear top gun sunglasses, hash tag social media look at us while drinking their rat yuck..(star bucks).

 

[rubydist]

I don't know why you all are confused about that first picture - it clearly communicates that the Maverick as a great platform for your buddy the DJ to put his boombox in while he spins vinyl to set the mood for you to put a move on a cute girl that stopped by. The water wall in the background is just part of the atmosphere being created by all this greatness.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

Threads like this really destroy the atmosphere around here. @rusty ol ranger you don't think the Maverick qualifies as a truck because it's unibody, doesn't have an eight foot bed, and has an independent rear suspension. So what? You want a truck, fine. Go buy a beat to snot F150 regular cab that rides like hell on the highway.

I want a small vehicle that handles like a small car, gets small car fuel economy, is comfortable, rides decently on the highway, and has an open bed for hauling dirty stuff once in a while. I also want it to be AWD or 4X4. The Maverick doesn't tick any of your boxes, but it ticks ALL of mine. The Maverick was designed and built for people like me. If you don't like it, too bad. Go buy something else, and let Ford discover that there really is a market for the Maverick.

 

[Uncle Gump]

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion.

It would be a perfect vehicle for the wife... in hybrid version.

It doesn't work as well for me personally... I need a bit more truck.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion.

It would be a perfect vehicle for the wife... in hybrid version.

It doesn't work as well for me personally... I need a bit more truck.

Exactly. For your wife (and hundreds of thousands of other North Americans), it's perfect. For you, it just doesn't work. And my whole point is that I wish people here (not everybody, but some) would quit telling people who want the Maverick that they can't have it because, in their opinion, it's not a truck, it's not capable of what a truck should be capable of, etc.

It would be like me, being of the opinion that it has to be over 20 pounds to qualify as a dog, telling somebody who wants a 6 pound dog that they have to get a 20 pound dog because the little six pounder isn't a dog. Just because *I* think it's a rat, not a dog, doesn't mean it's actually a rat. It's classified as a dog.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Millennials want a softer life..thier skinny jeans won't let them reach that far into a real truck. They feel they're working to hard. The maverick is for them to wear top gun sunglasses, hash tag social media look at us while drinking their rat yuck..(star bucks).

Minus skinny jeans and coffee that was me going to the trail ride lol. It was a epic sing-a-long when "Danger Zone" came on the radio.

Oh, yeah. Barebones first gen instead of a new Maverick too.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Threads like this really destroy the atmosphere around here. @rusty ol ranger you don't think the Maverick qualifies as a truck because it's unibody, doesn't have an eight foot bed, and has an independent rear suspension. So what? You want a truck, fine. Go buy a beat to snot F150 regular cab that rides like hell on the highway.

I want a small vehicle that handles like a small car, gets small car fuel economy, is comfortable, rides decently on the highway, and has an open bed for hauling dirty stuff once in a while. I also want it to be AWD or 4X4. The Maverick doesn't tick any of your boxes, but it ticks ALL of mine. The Maverick was designed and built for people like me. If you don't like it, too bad. Go buy something else, and let Ford discover that there really is a market for the Maverick.

I just dont feel the maverick should be called a "truck"...cause its not, and sets a bad direction for the truck market should it ever be taken seriously. If (big if) it were to get super popular next thing you know we have super duties running around witH FWD, look what happend with the supercrew F150 in 2000, now almost every truck you see has a milkcrate bed and 4 doors, and its basically ruined the truck market for anyone who wants something resembling a truck.

My problem isnt so much with the maverick, its with the fact it should be marketed as a "utility wagon" or something along those lines, and should not even be for one second thought of as a truck

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I just dont feel the maverick should be called a "truck"...cause its not, and sets a bad direction for the truck market should it ever be taken seriously. If (big if) it were to get super popular next thing you know we have super duties running around witH FWD, look what happend with the supercrew F150 in 2000, now almost every truck you see has a milkcrate bed and 4 doors, and its basically ruined the truck market for anyone who wants something resembling a truck.

My problem isnt so much with the maverick, its with the fact it should be marketed as a "utility wagon" or something along those lines, and should not even be for one second thought of as a truck

You just made my point. You don't think it should be called a truck because it doesn't fit your definition of a truck. It does, however, fit the EPA definition of "truck" which is a cargo hauler with an open cargo area at the rear. That's the definition that matters, not your definition.

Rusty, it's a truck. Just like that little six pound terrier is a dog. I, personally, think it's a rat, because it has to be over 20 pounds to qualify as a dog, but it's a dog, whether I like it or not.

 

[Snoranger]

If (big if) it were to get super popular next thing you know we have super duties running around witH FWD, look what happend with the supercrew F150 in 2000, now almost every truck you see has a milkcrate bed and 4 doors, and its basically ruined the truck market for anyone who wants something resembling a truck.

What do you care?
You hate and refuse to buy anything newer than a 1980.
You don’t buy new vehicles. (Car manufacturers only care about the new car market trends. They don’t sell used cars.)


Most people don’t need a 10 passenger truck with an 8’ bed for day to day life. They compromise and buy crew cab short beds because they can’t afford to buy, maintain, tag, store, etc. 5 separate vehicles for each different errand of the day. They have to get to work, they have kids, they need to pick up a new dishwasher, the pull the sub 20’ boat to the lake, they take a long weekend at the shore and bring their bicycles, they go light off-roading.
A crew cab pickup with a 5-6 foot bed can do all this and more. Most people can do everything with a Maverick or a Ranger. On the rare occasion they may need a bigger truck, they can rent it from Home Depot for $20.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You just made my point. You don't think it should be called a truck because it doesn't fit your definition of a truck. It does, however, fit the EPA definition of "truck" which is a cargo hauler with an open cargo area at the rear. That's the definition that matters, not your definition.

Rusty, it's a truck. Just like that little six pound terrier is a dog. I, personally, think it's a rat, because it has to be over 20 pounds to qualify as a dog, but it's a dog, whether I like it or not.

What do you care?
You hate and refuse to buy anything newer than a 1980.
You don’t buy new vehicles. (Car manufacturers only care about the new car market trends. They don’t sell used cars.)


Most people don’t need a 10 passenger truck with an 8’ bed for day to day life. They compromise and buy crew cab short beds because they can’t afford to buy, maintain, tag, store, etc. 5 separate vehicles for each different errand of the day. They have to get to work, they have kids, they need to pick up a new dishwasher, the pull the sub 20’ boat to the lake, they take a long weekend at the shore and bring their bicycles, they go light off-roading.
A crew cab pickup with a 5-6 foot bed can do all this and more. Most people can do everything with a Maverick or a Ranger. On the rare occasion they may need a bigger truck, they can rent it from Home Depot for $20.

My point is the crowd who buys a truck just to say they have a truck and dont really need a truck shouldnt of being the ones being catered to.

Yeah yeah follow the money whatever...but if you truely want a truck, regardless of if you need one or not, you should be willing to accept the shortcomings that make it a truck suited to a purpose.

So then that way those of us who actually want a serious truck would be able to get one without spending ridiculious sums of money, or buying a product thats supposed to be meant for a certain segment who has to now deal with shortcomings because people who had no business buying one in the first place has dictated market direction.

All trucks right down to the ranger should be built similar to the superduty only getting smaller in size and capacity. No 5.5ft boxes, no independen front ends, etc etc.

Just my take. If you really need a truck like one of you said drive your camry to home depot and rent one for 20 bucks.