Ford Maverick Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I dislike unitbody vehicles, but as a current (last generation) Ranger owner, the new Ranger is too expensive; too big; I don't care for the automatic only transmission, and I wonder what the lifespan of her turbocharged engine is.

Enter Maverick: At 190 inches, it's the perfect length; with a manual transmission option - that too, suits my needs perfectly. I also like that it has a normally aspirated engine.

The one question that I have: can its' chassis take a beating? Not a heavy beating, but would the Maverick be a suitable/durable vehicle to be used to deliver auto parts?

What about the engine? The Transit engine specs show a base engine with little torque, at high RPMS. I don't expect the Maverick to be a torque monster, but will it have something equivalent to a 2.3-2.5L normally aspirated engine?

If the chassis is durable (not off road durable, but enough such that I can put light-mid weight stuff, wood, etc., in the bed); if it has a decently torquey engine, and a manual transmission option, and if it comes in a super cab, I definately know what my next vehicle will be. One final thing: I hope the Maverick looks like a truck, as opposed to more of a crossover vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
If your interested, quality build with functionality can be found in KEI class Japanese minitrucks. Check em out in youtube, proof a small truck can do crazy things with the correct setup and design. They only have 660cc engines! Torque machine? No, but they have potential as a LD truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I dislike unitbody vehicles, but as a current (last generation) Ranger owner, the new Ranger is too expensive; too big; I don't care for the automatic only transmission, and I wonder what the lifespan of her turbocharged engine is.

Enter Maverick: At 190 inches, it's the perfect length; with a manual transmission option - that too, suits my needs perfectly. I also like that it has a normally aspirated engine.

The one question that I have: can its' chassis take a beating? Not a heavy beating, but would the Maverick be a suitable/durable vehicle to be used to deliver auto parts?

What about the engine? The Transit engine specs show a base engine with little torque, at high RPMS. I don't expect the Maverick to be a torque monster, but will it have something equivalent to a 2.3-2.5L normally aspirated engine?

If the chassis is durable (not off road durable, but enough such that I can put light-mid weight stuff, wood, etc., in the bed); if it has a decently torquey engine, and a manual transmission option, and if it comes in a super cab, I definately know what my next vehicle will be. One final thing: I hope the Maverick looks like a truck, as opposed to more of a crossover vehicle.
i would think ford would be adding some rigidity to the normal transit frame. like what jeep did to turn the unibody Cherokee into the Comanchee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
@NDL the Honda Ridgeline is a unibody pickup that we can dissect.

Good points on it here:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
If your interested, quality build with functionality can be found in KEI class Japanese minitrucks. Check em out in youtube, proof a small truck can do crazy things with the correct setup and design. They only have 660cc engines! Torque machine? No, but they have potential as a LD truck.
Kei trucks are cool but you wouldnt want to drive one as your only vehicle, going on the highway and such. The Maverick is supposed to be an entry level vehicle that will be an affordable truck for people who own one vehicle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Kei trucks are cool but you wouldnt want to drive one as your only vehicle, going on the highway and such. The Maverick is supposed to be an entry level vehicle that will be an affordable truck for people who own one vehicle
That's what my experience was, this is a nice alternative that appeals to me, vehicles as old as KEI trucks aren't suitable as daily drivers, but collectors pieces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I want to thank everyone for their replies.

One poster mentioned the Ridgeline, and another poster mentioned the Comanchee; both vehicles are great mentions.

I don't care for the Ridgeline; it's too carlike for me; if I wanted a car, that's what I would buy. I am not a fan of hybrid vehicles (crossovers and such); they have their place, but a truck is a truck. If Ford had not moved the Ranger to the middle of the pack, I most certainly would have bought a new Ranger - but they killed the manual transmission option, and it's too big.

The Comanchee was a great mention, for while it was unitbody in construction, its' structure had some heft, and the solid rear axle was simple and durable.

I did notice that the Transit has a trailing beam type suspension, and if they use that setup on the Maverick, it should be both durable, and inexpensive. If they beef up the unitbody structure as it was on the Comanchee, the Maverick would be more than truck like - and I don't want truck like. I don't want a car that looks like a truck; a Comanchee or an El Camino compromise is as far as I will go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I dislike unitbody vehicles, but as a current (last generation) Ranger owner, the new Ranger is too expensive; too big; I don't care for the automatic only transmission, and I wonder what the lifespan of her turbocharged engine is.

Enter Maverick: At 190 inches, it's the perfect length; with a manual transmission option - that too, suits my needs perfectly. I also like that it has a normally aspirated engine.

The one question that I have: can its' chassis take a beating? Not a heavy beating, but would the Maverick be a suitable/durable vehicle to be used to deliver auto parts?

What about the engine? The Transit engine specs show a base engine with little torque, at high RPMS. I don't expect the Maverick to be a torque monster, but will it have something equivalent to a 2.3-2.5L normally aspirated engine?

If the chassis is durable (not off road durable, but enough such that I can put light-mid weight stuff, wood, etc., in the bed); if it has a decently torquey engine, and a manual transmission option, and if it comes in a super cab, I definately know what my next vehicle will be. One final thing: I hope the Maverick looks like a truck, as opposed to more of a crossover vehicle.
It is odd that I can't find any mention to how they are addressing the possibility of chassis flex that unibody is at risk of. The Ridgeline at least has information on how they engineered extra support in the middle of the truck to avoid chassis flex and make it more truck capable. The fact that Ford or any of the reviewers don't mention anything like this makes me worried you really are limited to city driving and also play it safe by avoiding the max tow weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
It is odd that I can't find any mention to how they are addressing the possibility of chassis flex that unibody is at risk of. The Ridgeline at least has information on how they engineered extra support in the middle of the truck to avoid chassis flex and make it more truck capable. The fact that Ford or any of the reviewers don't mention anything like this makes me worried you really are limited to city driving and also play it safe by avoiding the max tow weight.
I guess to some extent aftermarket companies can help us with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
It is odd that I can't find any mention to how they are addressing the possibility of chassis flex that unibody is at risk of. The Ridgeline at least has information on how they engineered extra support in the middle of the truck to avoid chassis flex and make it more truck capable. The fact that Ford or any of the reviewers don't mention anything like this makes me worried you really are limited to city driving and also play it safe by avoiding the max tow weight.
All of the underneath shots show that Ford integrated two beefy frame rails to support the bed; Ford did this right.

I do wish that auto manufacturers would spend more time explaining how they engineered products; today's publications and press releases are pretty pitiful in this regard.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top