New Ford Maverick

[Mister Woof]

50 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I guess it makes sense if you need to haul a few things, but the base comes with a CVT so I wonder how well it would actually haul or tow stuff.

But I think the hype for this truck is that it starts at $20k, but I'd be curious how much it actually costs and what the options are.

It would be a good fleet vehicle though, cheap and good fuel mileage.

 

It doesn't have to be really that capable. Nobody's buying this to haul very heavy items.

 

They'll be using it to bring home a larger appliance, some 2x4s, some shelving, planter boxes, some potted trees, etc. 

 

The fact it can't tow that much and has a CVT is literally irrelevant for the demographic of this vehicle.

[MadAnt250]

40 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

CVT

I hate it, CVT's are crap for trucks, this vehicle will have a short life span. 

[dizmo]

Stupid vehicle.

 

I mean, the higher end one isn't terrible. But at that point, you might as well buy a Honda Ridgeline; a vehicle which honestly is better specced, and will have significantly better residual value. I'd have been impressed if they managed to make a compact pickup with a semi useful bed (aka at least 5.5', preferably 6').

 

4.5' bed is pathetic, especially when there's no option for something longer. The Baja was similar, and look how well it did. I predict this model will be around for maybe 2 or 3 years and fade off into irrelevance as one Ford's missteps as it "restructures."

 

10 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

Hybrid or not, this could fill a pretty big use case since they made the Ranger almost as large as the 150.

It's not, though. It's much closer to the Ranger. At only 7" smaller, I'd say it makes more sense to learn how to drive a very marginally larger vehicle to gain the extra foot of bed space. 4.5' is a joke.

9 hours ago, trag1c said:

For me I feel like this is the same thing as a honda ridgeline. It doesn't have the space, the payload or towing to be useful as a truck and it doesn't have the seating capacity or enclosed cargo space that you would get with an SUV. The lack of locking diffs and a tcase for 4High and 4low also kind of kills it for me since the lack of 4x4 is also massive loss of possible utility. To me the entire point of a truck is utility and I feel like this is a perfect storm where it simply doesn't have any utility other than you can have a piece of plywood hanging 4ft out of the truck.

 

Ultimately though, everyone's needs are different and I can't make that judgement call for anyone but my self but for me its a hard pass lol.  

You get almost an extra foot of space with the Ridgeline. I'm with you on uselessness, but the Ridgeline is waaaay more useful than the Maverick. Can't agree more with the rest though. It's not a truck at all, and in most cases an SUV just makes more sense. The compromises really don't add up.

9 hours ago, Mister Woof said:

That's the thing though - those features are available in vehicles that already exist. For people that need those things, obviously the Maverick isn't the right vehicle for them. 

The Ridgeline is a good point to bring up. It's not as capable as a "real truck", but it's priced in competition with them. The Maverick corrects that problem by being more capable than a compact car, but not priced to compete with actual trucks.

As for SUVs, at this price point, it's difficult to find one that has the same capabilities.

 

This isn't for truck people. It's a "truck" for non-truck folks, with the most compelling parts being it's low price (cheaper than a Honda Civic) with a fuel efficient hybrid system.

Is it, though? Not really. Hell once you add AWD, even a Ford Explorer isn't far off in price.

9 hours ago, trag1c said:

I did not notice that price. I was definitely under the impression they were going to pull the bs of if it looks like a truck it will be priced like a truck lol. That definitely makes things a lot more interesting since thats like 16-20k cheaper than anything else. I think for the 20k US they're asking that's very reasonable for what it is. That's about a price point where many of these smaller trucks should be or at least like 20-27k USD range. That's one thing that bugged me when I was truck shopping in 2019, price was definitely a sticking point for me. I was originally looking at Tacoma's, Canyon/Colorado and the Ranger but I ended up going with a Sierra 1500 simply because it was like 5k CAD more for a 6'6'' box and way more towing/payload. I couldn't justify what I was spending on a smaller truck when I could get the real deal for not much more.

At 20k you're not getting much though. Not even AWD.

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I was really hoping for a plug-in hybrid. My commute is only 11 miles round, wood mill 30 miles, and wood tools 68 miles. This would have been perfect as I've been eyeing the Prius plug-in. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Can we get a 2-door with a longer bed instead? 

 

I think this would make a ton of sense, especially as a fleet truck.

20 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

It doesn't have to be really that capable. Nobody's buying this to haul very heavy items.

 

They'll be using it to bring home a larger appliance, some 2x4s, some shelving, planter boxes, some potted trees, etc. 

 

The fact it can't tow that much and has a CVT is literally irrelevant for the demographic of this vehicle.

You can haul most of that in virtually any SUV. As for the appliances, they're such a one off purchase I wouldn't even bother including them into consideration, and if you're buying them frequently enough to be a consideration, you've purchased the wrong vehicle.

[Mister Woof]

Found the "real truck" owners lol

 

If you're considering the 2.0T version for improved towing (4k? LoL) you've chosen the wrong drivetrain and vehicle, imo. It makes a ton more sense with the standard layout. It also doesn't need more than your typical 4cyl CVT because it's never going to see the type of usage that would warrant a heavier duty one.

 

AWD is also not really that important for most users, but I could see it being important depending on where you live. But then again it's no different than any other passenger vehicle that doesn't offer AWD like a Camry or whatever.

 

Additionally, very few SUVs are priced like this is. Not even mentioning the Ridgeline, which costs nearly 50% more.

 

As far as an SUV having the same capability, I disagree. Some things have a lot of vertical clearance that just doesn't translate well into an SUV. Like garden trees, sheets of wood, etc that are for for typical weekend warrior home improvement project.

 

If you don't understand why this vehicle makes so much sense, it's definitely not the vehicle for you.

 

Can just safely move along and be secure in your own purchasing decisions.

 

[MadAnt250]

20 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

If you don't understand why this vehicle makes so much sense, it's definitely not the vehicle for you.

This "truck" is not for most people and will probably be available for as long as the Subaru Baja was.

20 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Found the "real truck" owners 

Yes I am.

 

Ford should have just made a cheap Ranger or a Bronco Pickup instead.

[Mister Woof]

7 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

This "truck" is not for most people and will probably be available for as long as the Subaru Baja was.

Yes I am.

 

Ford should have just made a cheap Ranger or a Bronco Pickup instead.

In my opinion you grossly, grossly overestimate what "most" people use their pickup trucks for.

 

In the city, most people who own pickup trucks never use them for 90% of their capabilities, and this vehicle is made for them. Not you.

 

I disagree and think this actually fits the needs of what most people buy pickups for, in comparison to 1/4 or 1/2 tons.

 

The reality is a lot of people overspend on trucks for features they don't need. Ford knows this. And has undoubtedly spent millions determining this.

 

This is simply an option for people who have determined what their needs are and now have a viable option.

 

It's existence doesn't magically make F150s go away.

 

I had a RAM 1500 for years....I used it maybe once or twice near it's capabilities. Otherwise I wasted thousands of dollars and tons of gas for nothing that this little guy couldn't do instead.

[dizmo]

26 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Found the "real truck" owners lol

 

If you're considering the 2.0T version for improved towing (4k? LoL) you've chosen the wrong drivetrain and vehicle, imo. It makes a ton more sense with the standard layout. It also doesn't need more than your typical 4cyl CVT because it's never going to see the type of usage that would warrant a heavier duty one.

 

AWD is also not really that important for most users, but I could see it being important depending on where you live. But then again it's no different than any other passenger vehicle that doesn't offer AWD like a Camry or whatever.

 

Additionally, very few SUVs are priced like this is. Not even mentioning the Ridgeline, which costs nearly 50% more.

 

As far as an SUV having the same capability, I disagree. Some things have a lot of vertical clearance that just doesn't translate well into an SUV. Like garden trees, sheets of wood, etc that are for for typical weekend warrior home improvement project.

 

If you don't understand why this vehicle makes so much sense, it's definitely not the vehicle for you.

 

Can just safely move along and be secure in your own purchasing decisions.

 

No, for the AWD...something which you can't get with the 2.5L engine. The Ridgeline is more expensive, yes, but not when they're comparably equipped. AKA AWD. CVT transmissions are notoriously unreliable, so I don't imagine that's going to be a very strong selling point.

 

That comparison makes no sense. You're not cross shopping this with a Camry.

 

It simply doesn't make sense to lose the foot of bed space over something like a Ford Ranger.

 

Love how you ask for thoughts, and then get irritated when people give it.

[MadAnt250]

1 minute ago, Mister Woof said:

In my opinion you grossly, grossly overestimate what "most" people use their pickup trucks for.

Where I am, people use their light duty pickup trucks like heavy duty mason trucks. This is not a real truck, this is a tall car with a bed. And people who want to buy a pickup truck and not use them for truck things still want a real pickup truck.

[Bombastinator]

CVT?  I had a CVT car once.  Worst purchase I ever made.  CVTs have power problems. I understand they’re great on snowmobiles, but they have power limits which are below modern cars.  They start doing 60hp cars again it could change my mind though. 

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Mister Woof said:

It doesn't have to be really that capable. Nobody's buying this to haul very heavy items.

 

They'll be using it to bring home a larger appliance, some 2x4s, some shelving, planter boxes, some potted trees, etc. 

 

The fact it can't tow that much and has a CVT is literally irrelevant for the demographic of this vehicle.

This truck is too limiting as a vehicle then if you can't use it to haul any more than a crossover or SUV can.

And if you live in the city you can often get appliances, 2x4's, furniture, or plants delivered for free.

It doesn't matter if it can't tow much, CVT transmissions are awful in a small car, so I can't expect a CVT would be any good in a truck rated to haul 1500lbs.

17 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

Ford should have just made a cheap Ranger or a Bronco Pickup instead.

I agree, really too bad Ford didn't just take the Ranger and offer a cheap base option with a non-turbo 4 cylinder, manual transmission, and no navigation system because you can do that on a phone anyway. Or make a pickup based on the Bronco sport with AWD.

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

Where I am, people use their light duty pickup trucks like heavy duty mason trucks. This is not a real truck, this is a tall car with a bed. And people who want to buy a pickup truck and not use them for truck things still want a real pickup truck.

Aren’t something like 1% of trucks ever actually used as trucks though?  I get the impression that for the vast majority of buyers  it more about LARPing.  Used to be the vehicle most likely to break traffic laws in a rude manner was a bmw. Nowadays it’s a pickup in suspiciously good condition with a fiberglass body color painted bed cover.  I suspect they’re being driven by the same people.

 

Conversely the pickups with the best reputation internationally are compact pickups like this maverick thing.  My memory is some small northafrican country crushed Lybian tank forces with them. They mounted anti tank rockets in the bed and drove like madmen. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Bombastinator

[MadAnt250]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I suspect they’re being driven by the same people.

Most of them became Audi drivers.

[Mister Woof]

23 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

Where I am, people use their light duty pickup trucks like heavy duty mason trucks. This is not a real truck, this is a tall car with a bed. And people who want to buy a pickup truck and not use them for truck things still want a real pickup truck.

And? Is this a problem? This is entirely the whole point of this vehicle. 

 

That and being inexpensive and good on gas.

[Mister Woof]

24 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

This truck is too limiting as a vehicle then if you can't use it to haul any more than a crossover or SUV can.

And if you live in the city you can often get appliances, 2x4's, furniture, or plants delivered for free.

It doesn't matter if it can't tow much, CVT transmissions are awful in a small car, so I can't expect a CVT would be any good in a truck rated to haul 1500lbs.

I agree, really too bad Ford didn't just take the Ranger and offer a cheap base option with a non-turbo 4 cylinder, manual transmission, and no navigation system because you can do that on a phone anyway. Or make a pickup based on the Bronco sport with AWD.

You aren't getting this to tow something. And it cost significantly less than most SUVs, and has good gas mileage, and a bed to throw stuff in.

 

It's something that is going to be used as a small car 99% of the time, and every other weekend to grab a few bags of gardening soil.

 

It's a very very simple concept.

 

It seems a consensus on this isn't going to happen. The good news is you can buy the vehicle that makes sense for you, and I can buy a vehicle that makes sense for me.

 

 

[vetali]

53 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I mean, the higher end one isn't terrible. But at that point, you might as well buy a Honda Ridgeline; a vehicle which honestly is better specced, and will have significantly better residual value. I'd have been impressed if they managed to make a compact pickup with a semi useful bed (aka at least 5.5', preferably 6').

Ridgeline has a problem of being very expensive for being outdated. The infotainment is the old system, not updated like the 2019+ pilots and passports. No cooled seats on the top trim level, no power folding mirrors, much worse headlights than the pilot and passport. I shopped the ridgeline because I don't need a gas guzzling truck to haul around what I'd do with a truck. Most of my stuff would sit in the bed trunk anyway... I went with the passport because the refresh was legit just a facelift, no real updates. I like how the refresh looks, and its been very popular so far. I just couldn't pay as much as an elite passport and lose that much for a bed. Plus the passport gets acoustic glass and air baffles in the wheels to reduce road noise.

 

The Maverick is hard to beat at 21k. I figured they'd price it right up the nose of the ranger, everyone would complain its overpriced for a unibody, torsion beam rear suspension truck. Then jack up the price of the ranger in a refresh and people would accept it. Things gonna sell insanely well. I already know one person thats getting one for the simple fact that it will actually fit in the garage unlike any other modern truck. All they do is haul a lawnmower and weed eater to weekend lawn jobs. So its perfect for them.

[Blademaster91]

23 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Aren’t something like 1% of trucks ever actually used as trucks though?  I get the impression that for the vast majority of buyers  it more about LARPing.  Used to be the vehicle most likely to break traffic laws in a rude manner was a bmw. Nowadays it’s a pickup in suspiciously good condition with a fiberglass body color painted bed cover.  I suspect they’re being driven by the same people.

Is there a source for only 1% of trucks only being used as trucks?

But it doesn't surprise me that some people buy trucks just to have a truck, because manufacturers refuse to make a body on frame luxury car, so I would assume people go to the next best thing, luxury trucks. I've heard youtube car enthusiasts point out that you can either get a car that has harsh uncomfortable suspension turned for handling, with hard uncomfortable seats, or a luxury truck that has a nice ride and soft leather seats. I'm not sure of your claim of pickup drivers driving rudely, I see that all the time with BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Tesla drivers. Tesla drivers are some of the most pretentious rude drivers.

 

[MadAnt250]

Just now, Mister Woof said:

And? Is this a problem? This is entirely the whole point of this vehicle. 

 

That and being inexpensive and good on gas.

Ah, you don't see, it can have have all of those things, but execution is what's wrong with it here.

 

Oh, I forgot one thing, this car looks like it was designed by a committee.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Is there a source for only 1% of trucks only being used as trucks?

But it doesn't surprise me that some people buy trucks just to have a truck, because manufacturers refuse to make a body on frame luxury car, so I would assume people go to the next best thing, luxury trucks. I've heard youtube car enthusiasts point out that you can either get a car that has harsh uncomfortable suspension turned for handling, with hard uncomfortable seats, or a luxury truck that has a nice ride and soft leather seats. I'm not sure of your claim of pickup drivers driving rudely, I see that all the time with BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Tesla drivers. Tesla drivers are some of the most pretentious rude drivers.

 

It's really not much different than CPUs or GPUs.

 

Lots of folks (including myself) overbuy on hardware because they can, and justify it for some reason or other.

 

I have a 10900k and a 3080, but I play an MMO that generally is CPU limited most of the time and doesn't care about threads.

 

It's a very common occurrence across markets.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

Ah, you don't see, it can have have all of those things, but execution is what's wrong with it here.

 

Oh, I forgot one thing, this car looks like it was designed by a committee.

Explain how it can have all of those things, be executed better, and cost $20k.

 

I'll wait.

[Blademaster91]

8 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

You aren't getting this to tow something. And it cost significantly less than most SUVs, and has good gas mileage, and a bed to throw stuff in.

 

It's something that is going to be used as a small car 99% of the time, and every other weekend to grab a few bags of gardening soil.

 

It's a very very simple concept.

 

It seems a consensus on this isn't going to happen. The good news is you can buy the vehicle that makes sense for you, and I can buy a vehicle that makes sense for me.

 

 

I didn't even say towing, I think if you can afford stuff to tow you can afford an F150 to tow around a trailer. I mean as a truck to throw stuff in, the bed is so small you can't even throw much stuff in it, there's SUV's that have more cargo room to throw things in the back. IMO a 2 door version of this truck would've made much more sense than a 4 door with a limited amount of bed space. And you asked for opinions on this, not everyone is going to agree, the only comparisons I see being made is the Honda Ridgeline, sure the Ridgeline is more expensive but it's also a much nicer truck that also has AWD.  If this truck works for you then great but theres many other options, I would personally go for a Tacoma if I wanted a small truck, it isn't much more than a Maverick, and is a truck with a frame, and a transmission I would trust more than a CVT.

[Mister Woof]

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I didn't even say towing, I think if you can afford stuff to tow you can afford an F150 to tow around a trailer. I mean as a truck to throw stuff in, the bed is so small you can't even throw much stuff in it, there's SUV's that have more cargo room to throw things in the back. IMO a 2 door version of this truck would've made much more sense than a 4 door with a limited amount of bed space. And you asked for opinions on this, not everyone is going to agree, the only comparisons I see being made is the Honda Ridgeline, sure the Ridgeline is more expensive but it's also a much nicer truck that also has AWD.  If this truck works for you then great but theres many other options, I would personally go for a Tacoma if I wanted a small truck, it isn't much more than a Maverick, and is a truck with a frame, and a transmission I would trust more than a CVT.

Ridgeline is a bad comparison because it's not even in the same league price wise.

 

And are you kidding?

 

Tacoma starts at $26,000 or 30% more expensive. Ridgeline starts at $36,500, or 82% more expensive.

 

The maverick aims to compete against a Honda Civic more than it does to compete against the Ridgeline or Tacoma.

 

Which is why the hybrid being standard is such a big deal.

 

 

[vetali]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I didn't even say towing, I think if you can afford stuff to tow you can afford an F150 to tow around a trailer. I mean as a truck to throw stuff in, the bed is so small you can't even throw much stuff in it, there's SUV's that have more cargo room to throw things in the back. IMO a 2 door version of this truck would've made much more sense than a 4 door with a limited amount of bed space. And you asked for opinions on this, not everyone is going to agree, the only comparisons I see being made is the Honda Ridgeline, sure the Ridgeline is more expensive but it's also a much nicer truck that also has AWD.  If this truck works for you then great but theres many other options, I would personally go for a Tacoma if I wanted a small truck, it isn't much more than a Maverick, and is a truck with a frame, and a transmission I would trust more than a CVT.

Maverick has AWD options in the 2.0t model. People gonna compare it to the ridgeline a lot because they are both unibody transverse based trucks. I don't think 2 doors would've sold at all besides some fleet sales. Plus the tooling to adapt a production line for a 2 door long bed unibody would be much more than a body on frame.

 

I shopped a TRD pro tacoma as well when I was looking. I hated the seats and seating position way too much. Felt like a car on stilts, which didn't work well with being a tall truck. Much rather have the tundra if getting a toyota, but that MPG....

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, vetali said:

Maverick has AWD options in the 2.0t model. People gonna compare it to the ridgeline a lot because they are both unibody transverse based trucks. I don't think 2 doors would've sold at all besides some fleet sales. Plus the tooling to adapt a production line for a 2 door long bed unibody would be much more than a body on frame.

 

I shopped a TRD pro tacoma as well when I was looking. I hated the seats and seating position way too much. Felt like a car on stilts, which didn't work well with being a tall truck. Much rather have the tundra if getting a toyota, but that MPG....

Let's not forget the Ridgeline starts at close to $40k... Almost double the price.

 

It would be insane if it wasn't more capable.

 

It feels like people are mad at this vehicle for not being something it was ever supposed to be in the first place.

[vetali]

5 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

The maverick aims to compete against a Honda Civic more than it does to compete against the Ridgeline or Tacoma.

The best point in this thread, the maverick and bronco sport are looking to take civic and corolla owners that want something bigger. Taking ridgeline and tacoma shoppers is bonus for them.

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, vetali said:

The best point in this thread, the maverick and bronco sport are looking to take civic and corolla owners that want something bigger. Taking ridgeline and tacoma shoppers is bonus for them.

My only fear is that on the quest for economy they screw it up and the driving experience is bad. 

 

I don't want another Dodge Calibur.

 

But since it's based on proven existing vehicles it shouldn't be too bad. I hope.

 

As Steve Burke says... Wait for reviews.

 

On paper it seems like a good option.