[Primrose]

I decided to take a crack at what the Maverick's dimensions could look like compared to the 2020 Ranger. I'd be curious to see what everyone else thinks. I roughly based it off of the Bronco Sport.

2022 Ford Maverick (Estimate)
Length: 190 inches
Width: 72 inches
Height: 70 inches
Wheelbase: 105 inches
Bed Length: 50 inches

2020 Ford Ranger:
Length: 210.8 inches
Width: 73.3 inches
Height: 71.5 inches
Wheelbase: 126.8 inches
Bed Length: 60-72 inches

 

[fordfan]

Compared to the Bronco Sport, the Maverick is about 2 inches less in width and 1 inch less in height. Length of the Bronco Sport is 172' which compare to Maverick dimensions here sure seems about right.

 

[NDL]

I decided to take a crack at what the Maverick's dimensions could look like compared to the 2020 Ranger. I'd be curious to see what everyone else thinks. I roughly based it off of the Bronco Sport.

2022 Ford Maverick (Estimate)
Length: 190 inches
Width: 72 inches
Height: 70 inches
Wheelbase: 105 inches
Bed Length: 50 inches

2020 Ford Ranger:
Length: 210.8 inches
Width: 73.3 inches
Height: 71.5 inches
Wheelbase: 126.8 inches
Bed Length: 60-72 inches

That puts the Maverick as being the same dimensions as the last generation Ranger, which, for me, is absolutely perfect.

I hope Ford gives the Maverick some ground clearance, and I hope it feels more like a truck, than a crossover with a bed.

 

[NY Yankee Pride]

I hope Ford gives the Maverick some ground clearance, and I hope it feels more like a truck, than a crossover with a bed.

I hope so as well but from those latest pictures I'm not getting a good feeling. In the picture where the Ranger is parked directly behind the Maverick it looks like the Maverick is quite a bit lower than the Ranger. The running boards on the Ranger make it look lower than it actually is so if you factor those out the Maverick looks much more car like in height. To be fair though it's not really easy to tell definitively in these picture plus these are early prototypes and the production vehicle might have much taller wheels/tires like the Ranger.

 

[NDL]

I hope so as well but from those latest pictures I'm not getting a good feeling. In the picture where the Ranger is parked directly behind the Maverick it looks like the Maverick is quite a bit lower than the Ranger. The running boards on the Ranger make it look lower than it actually is so if you factor those out the Maverick looks much more car like in height. To be fair though it's not really easy to tell definitively in these picture plus these are early prototypes and the production vehicle might have much taller wheels/tires like the Ranger.

I'm afraid that you're right, and from this perspective customers' perspective, the extra height is good when carrying small loads; it offers a more commanding view of the road, and it allows customers to change oil/transmission fluid quickly, without jacking the vehicle.

The upcoming Hyundai Santa Cruz is a unitbody "truck," with a surprising amount of ground clearance. I hope that Ford factors their competition, when they market the Maverick.

 

[NDL]

The upcoming Hyundai Santa Cruz is a unitbody "truck," with a surprising amount of ground clearance. I hope that Ford factors their competition, when they market the Maverick.

Since I can't edit the above post, here's what I mean:

Of course, Ford Marketing is interested in offering a product that's appealing to perspective customers. But there's a point at which marketing will tell the sales team: "we had to compromise on x,y,z; some customers won't like it, and it's your job to convince/shift them out of wanting x,y,z." In this case, while a decision may have been made to keep it lower to the ground, so as to share suspension parts with the Transit Van - which will keep production costs lower - the sales team will pitch it: "the vehicle is lower to the ground for better aerodynamics, which makes for better fuel economy. But if you want something higher off the ground, the Ranger might be a better choice. Lets walk over to the Ranger, and let me show you blah, blah, blah..."

 

[wheelgymnast]

Here's my take, based on latest spy shots and the Bronco Sport, for what it's worth.

Ranger's crew specs:	Maverick guesstimate:
Wheelbase: 126.8	Wheelbase: 126.8
Ground clearance: 8.4, 8.9	Ground clearance: 5.9
Tire size: 16, 17, 18	Tire size: 16, 17
Overall length: 210.8	Overall length: 210.8
Overall width w/o mirrors: 77.8	Overall width w/o mirrors: 74.3
Overall height: 71.1	Overall height: 68.1
Curb weight: 4232	Curb weight: 3700
Bed length: 61	Bed length: 61
Payload: 1770	Payload: 1500
Max tow: 7500	Max tow: 2200

 

[NY Yankee Pride]

The upcoming Hyundai Santa Cruz is a unitbody "truck," with a surprising amount of ground clearance. I hope that Ford factors their competition, when they market the Maverick.

I hope they do. Who would want a truck, even a unibody truck, with the ground clearance of a car? My hope is that these are just early prototypes and not completely indicative of the final product.

 

[NDL]

If the Maverick is anything like the Transit Connect LWB, this will be her dimensions:

https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/product/2020/transit-connect-van/2020_Ford_Transit_Connect_Tech_Specs.pdf

Note that the Transit van has a miserable 5.7 inches of ground clearance - which is fine for a van format, but if Ford is going to use the Transit's underpinnings, I hope they make significant adjustments for Maverick duty.

 

[wheelgymnast]

I hope they do. Who would want a truck, even a unibody truck, with the ground clearance of a car? My hope is that these are just early prototypes and not completely indicative of the final product.

I can only speak for me, but I’d love a low ground clearance truck. I’ve had mini trucks in the distant past and found them very usable for what I need. Plus I’m short and tall trucks are essentially unusable for me. I never go off road, never change my own oil, and rarely need to carry heavy things. I do, however, pick up some sheet goods and lumber on a regular basis, as well as camp frequently. If I needed a larger, taller truck, well,... the ranger would do.
What the heck do I know though.

 

[NY Yankee Pride]

I can only speak for me, but I’d love a low ground clearance truck. I’ve had mini trucks in the distant past and found them very usable for what I need. Plus I’m short and tall trucks are essentially unusable for me. I never go off road, never change my own oil, and rarely need to carry heavy things. I do, however, pick up some sheet goods and lumber on a regular basis, as well as camp frequently. If I needed a larger, taller truck, well,... the ranger would do.
What the heck do I know though.

I can certainly understand that. I'm 6'4" so a tall truck with good ground clearance isn't an issue for me. But not everyone has the same needs. I think the last generation ranger that ended in 2011 was lower if if you opted for 2WD. Then the 4WD version was raised a bit. Or maybe I'm misremembering.

 

[NDL]

I can only speak for me, but I’d love a low ground clearance truck. I’ve had mini trucks in the distant past and found them very usable for what I need. Plus I’m short and tall trucks are essentially unusable for me. I never go off road, never change my own oil, and rarely need to carry heavy things. I do, however, pick up some sheet goods and lumber on a regular basis, as well as camp frequently. If I needed a larger, taller truck, well,... the ranger would do.
What the heck do I know though.

Okay...when you mention mini trucks, what are you thinking? A Ranger? S-10? I remember that Chrysler put out a k-car derived trucklet in the early 80's.

 

[wheelgymnast]

Okay...when you mention mini trucks, what are you thinking? A Ranger? S-10? I remember that Chrysler put out a k-car derived trucklet in the early 80's.

Good question. I had a series of three VW rabbit pickups. They were great, except for the rust. Obviously the maverick will be larger, but I still miss the tiny pickups.

 

[NDL]

Good question. I had a series of three VW rabbit pickups. They were great, except for the rust. Obviously the maverick will be larger, but I still miss the tiny pickups.

I forgot about the Rabbit pickups

As for their usefulness, how much weight could the bed carry? In other words, were they configured more to carry cumbersome objects, than they were in carrying heavy things? Could you put a hundred or two pounds of materials in the bed?

I can certainly see their value, as they were both economical, and easy to park.

 

[wheelgymnast]

1100 pounds was their limit, but I never put anything that heavy in mine. Here’s a few pics of specs from an 81 brochure:

I don’t want to thread jack this though. Sorry if it’s too much info.

 

[NDL]

I don’t want to thread jack this though. Sorry if it’s too much info.

Not at all; I appreciate you taking the time to educate me. For a small vehicle, the Rabbit had a surprisingly long bed.

 

[wheelgymnast]

Thinking about this today. One of the reasons I liked the VW, and the small Toyota’s, the Mazda b2500 before it was a ranger, the Mitsubishi might max, the dodge D50.... they all looked like exactly what they could do. There was no pretense. They were small trucks that were for small jobs, but still looked like a truck. That’s why I’m not a big fan of the new Hyundai truck. It’s too swooping for me. Even the big trucks are weird. They are capable of course, but they are just monster trucks with MOAR GRILLS. They are exhausting. I liked the 67-73 c-10s, they had just a little style, but simple. The later square bodies were good too. Even the ‘90’s chevy 1500 were decent looking. Then stuff went all crazy in the ‘00’s. The new maverick looks like it might have simple lines and offer a simple argument. A fine looking truck that can haul what most people need. That’s what I’m hoping at least. Anywho... that was a lot of chatter.

 

[NDL]

Thinking about this today. One of the reasons I liked the VW, and the small Toyota’s, the Mazda b2500 before it was a ranger, the Mitsubishi might max, the dodge D50.... they all looked like exactly what they could do. There was no pretense. They were small trucks that were for small jobs, but still looked like a truck. That’s why I’m not a big fan of the new Hyundai truck. It’s too swooping for me. Even the big trucks are weird. They are capable of course, but they are just monster trucks with MOAR GRILLS. They are exhausting. I liked the 67-73 c-10s, they had just a little style, but simple. The later square bodies were good too. Even the ‘90’s chevy 1500 were decent looking. Then stuff went all crazy in the ‘00’s. The new maverick looks like it might have simple lines and offer a simple argument. A fine looking truck that can haul what most people need. That’s what I’m hoping at least. Anywho... that was a lot of chatter.

Excellently said: the small trucks of yesteryear may have been built around unitbody construction, but they were honest vehicles, and purpose built.

I love that the Santa Cruz sits high up off the ground, but I don't care for it's look. And the Silverado...unless you opt for an uplevel trim package, they aren't my cup of tea.

And now you have the interior "screen" wars - which truck has the largest screen.

Silly.

***

FORD LISTEN UP: Since the Maverick will be sharing her platform with the Bronco Sport, I hope you will allow an off road/high ground clearance package on the Maverick. I will not buy a Ranger; I do not want a ten speed automatic, nor do I want a turbocharged engine. The Maverick seems a little more conventional, and it's perfectly priced and sized.

I would love to see the 2.5L normally aspirated engine paired to a manual gearbox or six speed auto.

 

[BillO]

I have had 3 of the old Rangers and I still have my 2003 Ranger. I really really really hope there is a two-door extended cab version. A tiny bed, four door version just does not do it for me. (Same comments for the Santa Cruz; it looks like it will be four door, tiny bed.) Maybe I will need keep my old Ranger for another few years.

Ford has not been doing very well the last few years. They are mostly follow-the-leader, trying to make one size fit all, and making very few people happy. They do the F-150 (and larger) rather well, but the list stops there. There seems to be a large, waiting market for a compact truck, but not for a sedan with a tiny bed tacked on the back.

 

[NY Yankee Pride]

I have had 3 of the old Rangers and I still have my 2003 Ranger. I really really really hope there is a two-door extended cab version. A tiny bed, four door version just does not do it for me. (Same comments for the Santa Cruz; it looks like it will be four door, tiny bed.) Maybe I will need keep my old Ranger for another few years.

Nissan is also finally updating the beyond ancient Frontier next year. So I'm hoping between Maverick, Santa Cruz & Frontier that at least one of them will suit my needs & wants for a small pick up.