As the Maverick is being produced on the same platform as the Bronco Sport, and the Bronco Sport is only 173" long, one has to wonder why the Maverick needs to be over 27" longer?

Maybe the rumors of a 200" long Maverick will prove to be untrue and this "small" pickup will actually be small.

 

I bet my 82 year old dad will like these, especially if a hybrid version comes out. A lot of suburbanites will like this truck for doing what most f150s do now, haul nothing. It should be easy to get in and out and easy to park in a garage. I think this thing will sell far better than many of us truck guys think.

 

The Maverick is 200" long because it has a pickup bed behind a cab with 2 rows of seats. The Jeep Wrangler 4-door is 188" long and the Gladiator pickup is 218" long. The 4-door big Bronco is 189" long (2 door big Bronco is 173" long) and the Ranger pickup, which shares the Bronco platform, is 210" long. See a pattern here? (How long is an F150 compared to an Expedition?)

 

Reg cab, standard bed 1/2 tons are around 210" long. Roughly the same as an Expedition. Crew cabs, about 230".

I get that it has room behind the seat, but a reg cab F-150 is no longer than a club cab Ranger, is far more capable, gets as good or better gas mileage with the 2.7l V-6 and if you catch the sales and rebates just right, is even cheaper. Paying more for less never made sense to me.

Calling something the size of an Explorer, Taurus or Charger "small" relies too much on the power of suggestion. I guess if you keep repeating it often enough, people will start to believe it.

 

I found 243.7" long for a Supercrew F150 with a 6.5" bed, and the Expy has 3 rows of seats where the pickup has only 2 rows... If you want 2 rows of seats and a pickup bed, along with an engine under the hood and crash protection better than a VW bus, you need a certain length if you want a pickup bed longer than 1.5 feet. Once the 2nd row of seats became mandatory on pickups, they got completely stupid in size for people who don't really use them. How big is a small dump truck, small school bus, or small aircraft carrier? The F150 is a light duty "half ton" pickup and it won't fit in most standard garages in the config above.

What I find completely stupid is the 1000-1200 lb payload on huge F150's per some long discussion threads a few years ago. Put 5 big guys in one, and you have barely enough payload left for their bag lunches. No capacity for more cargo, no capacity for tongue weight, etc. The 1983 Ford Ranger had a payload of 1600 lbs available with one row of seats and a 2.3 liter 4-cyl engine. (And note that the Supercab Ranger circa 1986 was 190" long while the Bronco II was 160" long as yet another math lesson on how a pickup bed adds length to a vehicle.)

 

I guess you have to look at it as "small" is a relative term.

Is the Maverick "small"? No, not really.

Is the Maverick "small" for a pickup? Yes.

 

Very few vehicles are truly small these days. NHTSA crash test requirements and EPA footprint requirements see to that. Look at a "Mini" parked next to a regular car, not very mini. Plus, here in the US, bigger is seen as better.

 

Perfect summary...if you want a hood with an engine/trans/cooling system under it, 2 rows of seats that fit adult humans, and a pickup bed, you will be working with a minimum length. The Subaru Baja was 190" long as a "pickup" but the bed was 41" long and the back seat had only 33" of legroom and 37" of headroom, not enough for grownups.

A bicycle is 6' long and any pickup needs to have a bed at least that long to make sense to me. (And with a cap on it, a 6' plus bed is necessary if you have fantasies of sleeping in the pickup bed even on an emergency basis.) They are marketing these smaller trucks to recreational users who carry bicycles, motorcycles, kayaks, canoes, etc. A 41" long bed is useful only for small quantities of manure or gravel.

 

You have not looked at my Fiat Spider nor my EcoSport. 15"-20" shorter than my 65 Falcons, which were the small car of the day.

 

I'm afraid the point has been lost, please allow me to re-iterate. Ford announced years ago that they are leaving the world of sedans far behind for vehicles that sell better. What they really meant to say was for vehicles that hold a higher profit margin.

Ford currently offers one vehicle that sells at 20K or less and that's the Ecosport. Otherwise, everything else starts in the mid 20's MSRP. Ford's average transaction is over $40,000 these days and why? Because people are buying huge trucks, Expeditions and Lincolns.

The Maverick will generate more lot traffic and then people can decide for themselves if they need to move up to a Ranger or F-series or none of the above. As I age, the Maverick will be a perfect fit for me. If the Maverick wasn't happening then I'd be stuck with a Ranger or one of it's competitors and then I'd feel really screwed as this vehicle segment is completely priced out of the stratosphere.

 

My day to day hauling needs are modest and infrequent, but often enough that I need a pickup. If someone made a truly small pickup, such as the 1st gen BRAT, then I might be interested. I am not large in size, neither height nor girth, and small cars fit me just fine. Many of my friends (not being judgmental here) simply do not fit well in something as small as the original BRAT.

But as I am in the fortunate position of being able to own both a daily driver (the EcoSport, currently running 31+ MPGs) and a pickup, I might as well go big on the pickup.

As an aside, when I can buy a mid-level, well-equipped 1/2 ton (Ram Lone Star, F150 XLT or Chevy Silverado LT) in the low $30s (as has been the case year after year up until the current COVID-inspired car buying anomaly), I see little value in a $30k Ranger or an upper $20ks Maverick. I do well recognize that many people are not in the same position as I.

 

I definitely agree that the Maverick will bring people into Ford showrooms--assisting the Bronco and Bronco Sport. The Bronco Sport is REALLY catching on big here in Detroit--I'll see 4 or 5 parked in the high school parking lot here, and driveways with 2 Bronco Sports in them.

Buying solely for "deals" can put you into a Fiesta-based clown car SUV made in India (the Ecosport with its miniature tires and wheels) or a perfectly good Miata with its fine Japanese drivetrain replaced by some unknown junk from Fiat and no dealer service experience... And Fiat will pull out of the US market soon enough as they have done in the past. Probably OK if you buy/sell vehicles while under warranty but I have kept stuff for 10 years and that is when you see the value of high quality and high resale values vehicles like Honda* and Subaru... Strange choice of vehicles in your sudden "downsizing" moves, js

*reference point on Honda is my wife's '07 Civic, bought new in 2007, sold to a friend in 2018 with 150k miles and ONE repair outside of regular maintenance in 11 years. Or our '17 Forester which is worth more money than what we paid for it new in 2017.

 

I would have agreed with you regarding the EcoSport, before I drove one. My EcoSport, albeit a Titanium, is nicer in every way than my 2017 Escape S. Interior is actually just as nice as my 2017 Expedition KR. And my "deal" put me in it for under $17k. MSRP was over $27k. 38% off MSRP. Real leather (Ford went to synthetic Active-X in 2021). Killer stereo. Sirius radio. Navigation. BLIS. Backup and x-traffic alert. Rides on 17" wheels. Hardly miniature. So your disparaging remarks are made from ignorance, not knowledge nor experience.

Regarding the Spider. Yes it has a Fiat drivetrain, but much of it is Miata, and it was made in Japan on the Miata assembly line. Notwithstanding, I bought a 7 year, bumper to bumper FCA extended warranty for <$1000. So if it explodes, it's FCA's problem, not mine. Even with the cost of the extended warranty, my FIATA cost >$10k less than a comparable Miata.

And Fiat might pull out of the USA, but FCA is not. FCA sells cars in the US using Stellantis corporate engines, many of which are made by Fiat. So finding a knowledgeable mechanic is not really a big concern.

Regarding resale, everyone's relatively new car is worth more than they paid for it. Sign of the times. Don't get too smug. Carvana offered my $5000 more for the Spider than I paid for it, but my wife loves the car and won't let me sell it.

Downsizing was not the plan. But COVID has changed my driving habits over the last year and I have found myself not needing the hauling capabilities of the Grand Caravan. Carvana offered me $2000 over what I paid for it, TT&L included, a year after I bought it as a leftover 2019.

It's your choice to keep a car for 10+ years, but with the technological and safety advances (particularly improvements in crash test results) being made, seemingly every year, one could question the wisdom of not trading more often, and this is coming from a guy who still uses a flip phone purchased 7-8 years ago for $30.

I have previously posted regarding buying a car based on resale value. Paying $5000 more up front for a car because it will be worth $4000 more at resale is some very funny math.

My Sierra Denali was all new for 2020, but GM is already planning big upgrades for 2023 or 2024, just about the time my current truck comes off lease.

We all spend money on what is important to us. I spend money, a lot of money, on cars. I can and I do.

But I will bet you 100 Happy Meals that you spend more in restaurants in a year than I do. Eating out? Not a big deal with me.

 

Sorry for being judgmental and realize I am kind of tongue-in-cheek here, but I have too many auto engineer and enthusiast friends to drive a little SUV like the Ecosport. 17" wheels with 1" tall tires on a tall and pudgy body side still look like a pumpkin on a roller skate. Paying $5k more to recover $4k 10 years later is very well worth it if you don't have expensive repairs over that period of time--anything costs a grand or more to fix and even if you're under warranty, repairs are a hassle.

As for your Fiata, we see a bunch in Detroit, mostly driven by Chrysler employees who get leases for close to free to get them off the lots. There's one a block away from me. I have painful history lessons like my first car, a Sunbeam Alpine, which was "bought by Chrysler" and for whom Chrysler never had a single part or mechanic. How about parts for that Merkur, Geo, Renault/Eagle, Sterling (remember that?), and legacy Fiat/Renault/Alfa/Peugeot/SAAB history? I'm sure it's fun to drive and I do hope the drivetrain holds together, but I see no market for Fiat or Alfa in the US aside from a few people who don't remember the history of these brands in the US. Their sales are in hundreds, not thousands, of units per month.

It's all good if it works for you. Based on your history with an Expy KR, I'm surprised that you really would drive a little thing like the Ecosport. If it works for you, enjoy. Have a good weekend and take my opinion with many grains of salt as I am in no way consistent or logical when it comes to auto hierarchy.

Back to the Maverick, though, and apologies for pulling off topic. Here's hoping the Maverick is a great success for Ford--I believe it will have a good "cool factor" and serve a lot of people well. I would drive a Bronco Sport without hesitation as my DD. I'd probably also consider driving the Escape if it proved to be comfortable for me. Have a good day.

 

All right, stop taking jabs at each other. Points have been made. This thread isn’t about defending EcoSports. It’s about Mavericks, the new ones. Carry on.