[fordfan]

Is it truck enough? Ford won't say much about the new 2022+ Maverick pickup, we'll have to wait for the official unveiling, but from what we've seen so far, do you think they did enough? If not, how else can it realistically be more of a pickup truck?

Here are some points to consider:
"Unlike the Ranger mid-size pickup, which is available in SuperCrew and SuperCab body styles, the compact Maverick is expected to sport only the latter setup. That means four real doors and a reasonably spacious rear seating area. Alas, it also means the Maverick is likely to offer just one rather stubby bed length.

For most pickup buyers, though, the Maverick's small-ish bed should do the trick. It wouldn't surprise us if Ford cribs a thing or two from the Honda Ridgeline, as well, and fits the little pickup's cargo box with an under-floor trunk, too.

Although we expect the Maverick to haul and tow reasonably heavy loads, we doubt it'll top or match the Ranger's maximum payload and towing capacities of 1,860 and 7,500 pounds, respectively. We wager the Maverick's payload and towing figures will fall closer to those of the Transit Connect van, which manages to haul a maximum of 1,550 pounds and can tow up to 2,000 pounds."

 

[Primrose]

Is it truck enough? Ford won't say much about the new 2022+ Maverick pickup, we'll have to wait for the official unveiling, but from what we've seen so far, do you think they did enough? If not, how else can it realistically be more of a pickup truck?

Here are some points to consider:
"Unlike the Ranger mid-size pickup, which is available in SuperCrew and SuperCab body styles, the compact Maverick is expected to sport only the latter setup. That means four real doors and a reasonably spacious rear seating area. Alas, it also means the Maverick is likely to offer just one rather stubby bed length.

For most pickup buyers, though, the Maverick's small-ish bed should do the trick. It wouldn't surprise us if Ford cribs a thing or two from the Honda Ridgeline, as well, and fits the little pickup's cargo box with an under-floor trunk, too.

Although we expect the Maverick to haul and tow reasonably heavy loads, we doubt it'll top or match the Ranger's maximum payload and towing capacities of 1,860 and 7,500 pounds, respectively. We wager the Maverick's payload and towing figures will fall closer to those of the Transit Connect van, which manages to haul a maximum of 1,550 pounds and can tow up to 2,000 pounds."

Based on the specs alone it should be plenty of truck for me. Hopefully I feel the same way whenever it gets revealed and I see it in person.

 

[BigB]

Same here Primrose.

 

[Patrick Cypress]

no, I would be okay with a Supercab, with a 6 foot bed. Not interested in a smaller bed. You know, there are about a zillion 10+ year old Ranger regular cab pickups, with 6 foot beds, still in service as delivery trucks, and I think Ford would be missing out on replacing them if they insist on only having a crew cab. Add 4x4, some decent convenience and powertrain options, and I'd probably get one. I have an F-250 crew cab and don't need or want another crew cab!

 

[Primrose]

no, I would be okay with a Supercab, with a 6 foot bed. Not interested in a smaller bed. You know, there are about a zillion 10+ year old Ranger regular cab pickups, with 6 foot beds, still in service as delivery trucks, and I think Ford would be missing out on replacing them if they insist on only having a crew cab. Add 4x4, some decent convenience and powertrain options, and I'd probably get one. I have an F-250 crew cab and don't need or want another crew cab!

I've been think about whether or not Ford launches the supercab Maverick first and then during the reveal or at a later date announce that a 2-door model will be coming after.

 

[fordfan]

no, I would be okay with a Supercab, with a 6 foot bed. Not interested in a smaller bed. You know, there are about a zillion 10+ year old Ranger regular cab pickups, with 6 foot beds, still in service as delivery trucks, and I think Ford would be missing out on replacing them if they insist on only having a crew cab. Add 4x4, some decent convenience and powertrain options, and I'd probably get one. I have an F-250 crew cab and don't need or want another crew cab!

I think it could be in the cards.

Fords primary focus is probably to secure a base of people wanting a regular style pickup. These should make up the majority of buyers.
Then target the crowd wanting a workhorse version that's far more utilitarian.

 

[sdowiat]

No it's not.... but why did they go this direction? The little 4 cyl ( with available 6 cyl ) full frame 5 speed Ranger from the mid 90's could be had then for $10k with air, carpet and a decent little stereo. That's $17.5k today. ( See link below if you don't believe ) It would get ~20 city and 26 hgy MPG and was rated to tow 7k lbs! See second link below.

I had one... I used to tow my 16 ft bass boat and all my equipment ( 3500 lbs ) to the lake and pull it up and down the ramp with no problem. I used to tow little campers weighing 5000 lbs ... no problem and it did all that with just 112 Horsepower. ( see second link below )

So WHY are they offering us something ( with a bunch more horsepower ) that is significantly LESS capable than this? What is the deal?

10000 dollars in 1995 in today's money - Google Search

Used 1995 Ford Ranger Specs & Features | Edmunds

Detailed specs and features for the Used 1995 Ford Ranger including dimensions, horsepower, engine, capacity, fuel economy, transmission, engine type, cylinders, drivetrain and more.

www.edmunds.com

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

Let’s see
2002+ Ford Ranger 4x4 4.0
210hp 240lbft
1700lb payload
5500lb towing
$24,000 in 2002 ($35,000 in 2021)

2022 for maveric 2.0 AWD
250hp 280lbft
1500+lb payload
3500+lb towing
$35,000

If the Maverick isn’t truck enough for you then the old Ranger isn’t truck enough either.

 

[sdowiat]

Let’s see
2002+ Ford Ranger 4x4 4.0
210hp 240lbft
1700lb payload
5500lb towing
$24,000 in 2002 ($35,000 in 2021)

2022 for maveric 2.0 AWD
250hp 280lbft
1500+lb payload
3500+lb towing
$35,000

If the Maverick isn’t truck enough for you then the old Ranger isn’t truck enough either.

Your numbers are skewed and you are looking at a newer and much better equipped Ranger. I actually HAVE a '99 Ranger XLT 3.0 4x4 that I bought new in '99. The MSRP was about $18k ( I got it for $17k. ( see link below ) Its towing capacity is 7000 lbs... Double that of the Maverick. And Here in this example we are comparing a 99 ( instead of a 95 ) V6 auto instead of a manual and 4x4 instead of 2wd. That pushed the price up from ~$12k in '99 for a plainer 4 cyl 2wd to the $17k that I payed for a better equipped one.

Any trim level you look at, this new Maverick costs a lot more and delivers a lot less than the old Ranger did.

$17k in '99 is $27k today ( see the bottom link ) .. way less than the new 4x4 Maverick.

Autotrader - page unavailable

17000 in 1999 to now - Google Search

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

Your numbers are skewed and you are looking at a newer and much better equipped Ranger. I actually HAVE a '99 Ranger XLT 3.0 4x4 that I bought new in '99. The MSRP was about $18k ( I got it for $17k. ( see link below ) Its towing capacity is 7000 lbs... Double that of the Maverick. And Here in this example we are comparing a 99 ( instead of a 95 ) V6 auto instead of a manual and 4x4 instead of 2wd. That pushed the price up from ~$12k in '99 for a plainer 4 cyl 2wd to the $17k that I payed for a better equipped one.

Any trim level you look at, this new Maverick costs a lot more and delivers a lot less than the old Ranger did.

$17k in '99 is $27k today ( see the bottom link ) .. way less than the new 4x4 Maverick.

Autotrader - page unavailable

17000 in 1999 to now - Google Search

2002 was the first year for the Mazda 4.0L v6. That BASE MSRP was 22k MSRP (so 34k today.)and where are you getting that 7000lb towing cap?because everything I have found is under 5500. Prove me wrong if you can.

either way 20 years later the new Maverick 2.0 is way better than the old 4x4 4.0 ranger. Unless your towing in which case get the new ranger with the max towing package for $32,000 with 7500 towing cap

 

[sdowiat]

2002 was the first year for the Mazda 4.0L v6. That BASE MSRP was 22k MSRP (so 34k today.)and where are you getting that 7000lb towing cap?because everything I have found is under 5500. Prove me wrong if you can.

either way 20 years later the new Maverick 2.0 is way better than the old 4x4 4.0 ranger. Unless your towing in which case get the new ranger with the max towing package for $32,000 with 7500 towing cap

2002 was the first year for the Mazda 4.0L v6. That BASE MSRP was 22k MSRP (so 34k today.)and where are you getting that 7000lb towing cap?because everything I have found is under 5500. Prove me wrong if you can.

either way 20 years later the new Maverick 2.0 is way better than the old 4x4 4.0 ranger. Unless your towing in which case get the new ranger with the max towing package for $32,000 with 7500 towing cap

That's one of the MAIN duties of a truck- TOWING! Pulling things somewhere. Boats, Lawn Mowers, Snowmobile trailers, Utility Trailers, RV Trailers, Horse Trailers... Thats what a TRUCK does.... that what a truck is all about.

Unless you just like how a truck looks and want to be some sort of lightweight Urban Cowboy then this El Camino ( and I did like SOME El Caminos ) type rig won't do what a truck does. I suspect that without a frame under it that it really can't... It would be the same as trying to tow with the Escape which its based on. You might could tow a single jet ski.... but I'd be nervous about that as it is FWD ( unless you pay big and get the AWD ) and the tongue weight on the rear and the angle of a boat ramp LESSENS your grip with the front tires.

It feels so silly having to think about whether the FRONT TIRES will get enough grip to pull a jet ski up a boat ramp... With a real truck, weight on the back and the angle HELP you get grip.



Right here at Edmunds.com it states 6000 lbs with a 3.0 automatic regular cab. I'm pretty sure my lower gear ratio ( 4.11 ) went to 7k with the automatic. The 5 speed was a good bit less and I was never clear why.

Used 1995 Ford Ranger Specs & Features | Edmunds

Detailed specs and features for the Used 1995 Ford Ranger including dimensions, horsepower, engine, capacity, fuel economy, transmission, engine type, cylinders, drivetrain and more.

www.edmunds.com

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

That's one of the MAIN duties of a truck- TOWING! Pulling things somewhere. Boats, Lawn Mowers, Snowmobile trailers, Utility Trailers, RV Trailers, Horse Trailers... Thats what a TRUCK does.... that what a truck is all about.

Unless you just like how a truck looks and want to be some sort of lightweight Urban Cowboy then this El Camino ( and I did like SOME El Caminos ) type rig won't do what a truck does. I suspect that without a frame under it that it really can't... It would be the same as trying to tow with the Escape which its based on. You might could tow a single jet ski.... but I'd be nervous about that as it is FWD ( unless you pay big and get the AWD ) and the tongue weight on the rear and the angle of a boat ramp LESSENS your grip with the front tires.

It feels so silly having to think about whether the FRONT TIRES will get enough grip to pull a jet ski up a boat ramp... With a real truck, weight on the back and the angle HELP you get grip.



Right here at Edmunds.com it states 6000 lbs with a 3.0 automatic regular cab. I'm pretty sure my lower gear ratio ( 4.11 ) went to 7k with the automatic. The 5 speed was a good bit less and I was never clear why.

Used 1995 Ford Ranger Specs & Features | Edmunds

Detailed specs and features for the Used 1995 Ford Ranger including dimensions, horsepower, engine, capacity, fuel economy, transmission, engine type, cylinders, drivetrain and more.

www.edmunds.com

after doing some digging you MIGHT be right with the 4.11 gearing. But to my point. If your going to be towing over 3500lbs you need a bigger truck period. (Aka ranger)
I would not want to tow more than that with a light weight AWD (FWD bias) unibody truck. Plus you would need a trailer brake.

3500lbs is more that enough for your small boat or uhual style trailer

 

[sdowiat]

Thanks, I appreciate that... and I concede that YOU may be right in that it may only be 6,000 lbs that it can pull. I can't find proof of 7k. And if the Maverick can pull 3,500 lbs ( can it ) then for most people it would be plenty.

And, you are right in that more that 3,500 you need trailer brakes. I have a boat now that weighs that ( single axle and no brakes ) which I pull with a 4 x4 Expedition... And it's a handful. Really needs brakes. But THAT can be solved with brakes and regardless of the tow vehicle it needs brakes.

My issue is this; I've been clamoring for the return of a small truck like the Ranger was for a long time... and I don't understand why they are so reluctant to give us THAT. Is the demand really so low? They sold them literally by the Millions... I think I read that 3.5 Million of the little Rangers alone were sold. WHY won't they give us THAT at a reasonable low cost? Adjusted for inflation I'm coming up with one would should cost about $18k.

The only reason ( provided that there is demand which I think there is... Look at the Tacoma and the Frontier ) is this; If you need to do any kind of REAL truck stuff, they want to make good $ off it. I suspect a they lost money back in the day with people wheeling in and looking for cheap transportation and a basic Ranger being the cheapest thing on the lot they took it. I suspect Ford wants to make you PAY for getting a TRUCK. They would really like to steer you to a full sized one where their real profit is at. But I think lots of people ( like me ) LIKE little trucks.

In an old Ranger, it was easy and cheap to change a transmission or an engine if you needed to. ( which was rare... but still cheap )_ Its not gonna be the same with this new thing. Once it's 10 years old ( not too old in Old Ranger years- Mines 22! ) it's gonna be a tossup as to whether it's worth fixing and you aren't going to be able to work on much yourself like with the old one. ( Like an Escape is now ) A 10 year old Ranger was still a plenty good vehicle worth fixing.

And, it's just hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that a young GUY, just getting started in life, would not want & need a little truck. I used mine constantly. Has life & expectations of young folks changed that much?

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

Thanks, I appreciate that... and I concede that YOU may be right in that it may only be 6,000 lbs that it can pull. I can't find proof of 7k. And if the Maverick can pull 3,500 lbs ( can it ) then for most people it would be plenty.

And, you are right in that more that 3,500 you need trailer brakes. I have a boat now that weighs that ( single axle and no brakes ) which I pull with a 4 x4 Expedition... And it's a handful. Really needs brakes. But THAT can be solved with brakes and regardless of the tow vehicle it needs brakes.

My issue is this; I've been clamoring for the return of a small truck like the Ranger was for a long time... and I don't understand why they are so reluctant to give us THAT. Is the demand really so low? They sold them literally by the Millions... I think I read that 3.5 Million of the little Rangers alone were sold. WHY won't they give us THAT at a reasonable low cost? Adjusted for inflation I'm coming up with one would should cost about $18k.

The only reason ( provided that there is demand which I think there is... Look at the Tacoma and the Frontier ) is this; If you need to do any kind of REAL truck stuff, they want to make good $ off it. I suspect a they lost money back in the day with people wheeling in and looking for cheap transportation and a basic Ranger being the cheapest thing on the lot they took it. I suspect Ford wants to make you PAY for getting a TRUCK. They would really like to steer you to a full sized one where their real profit is at. But I think lots of people ( like me ) LIKE little trucks.

In an old Ranger, it was easy and cheap to change a transmission or an engine if you needed to. ( which was rare... but still cheap )_ Its not gonna be the same with this new thing. Once it's 10 years old ( not too old in Old Ranger years- Mines 22! ) it's gonna be a tossup as to whether it's worth fixing and you aren't going to be able to work on much yourself like with the old one. ( Like an Escape is now ) A 10 year old Ranger was still a plenty good vehicle worth fixing.

And, it's just hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that a young GUY, just getting started in life, would not want & need a little truck. I used mine constantly. Has life & expectations of young folks changed that much?

I think the issue is, most little old Rangers we’re lower trims that only could tow 4000lbs. Even now I don’t see to many v6 Rangers rolling around. And they never tow anything.

I think it’s just fords plan to
Maverick - Small light life style/ Part hauling/ Service truck
Ranger - towing, hauling truck

I would personally take the Ranger for towing and hauling anything.

And the next Generation ranger has been spied testing several times now. Including a single cab long bed. Perfect for the working man. And that SHOULD start at under 30k for RWD. And towing 5500+. So I think that’s going to be fords answer for that market.

 

[fordfan]

Let’s see
2002+ Ford Ranger 4x4 4.0
210hp 240lbft
1700lb payload
5500lb towing
$24,000 in 2002 ($35,000 in 2021)

2022 for maveric 2.0 AWD
250hp 280lbft
1500+lb payload
3500+lb towing
$35,000

If the Maverick isn’t truck enough for you then the old Ranger isn’t truck enough either.

Well put.

When I first saw the Maverick prototype, it hit me that small pickups from the 90's and are coming back.
The formula worked very well back then and should easily now with pickup and SUV sales being the strongest ever now.

 

[Mav-trunklet]

Well put.

When I first saw the Maverick prototype, it hit me that small pickups from the 90's and are coming back.
The formula worked very well back then and should easily now with pickup and SUV sales being the strongest ever now.

I want a Maverick because I miss two my Toyota Mini trucks I owned 1982 & a 1993. Those 22r engines were unbelievably strong and reliable. I often wondered why the mini truck of yesteryear ended with all car makers. I never tow…just want the little bed for trips to Home Depot, yard sales, etc. I would never even need a hitch! The cherry on top is the availability of a hybrid engine to save a lot of $$ on gas.
My biggest anxiety is that it’s a Ford when I actually trust Toyota’s/Honda a whole lot more due to better quality builds, a lot less problems, and RELIABILITY.
Atho I have Mav ordered, I’m still having to take a leap of faith to buy one.

 

[Milkaholics]

I want a Maverick because I miss two my Toyota Mini trucks I owned 1982 & a 1993. Those 22r engines were unbelievably strong and reliable. I often wondered why the mini truck of yesteryear ended with all car makers. I never tow…just want the little bed for trips to Home Depot, yard sales, etc. I would never even need a hitch! The cherry on top is the availability of a hybrid engine to save a lot of $$ on gas.
My biggest anxiety is that it’s a Ford when I actually trust Toyota’s/Honda a whole lot more due to better quality builds, a lot less problems, and RELIABILITY.
Atho I have Mav ordered, I’m still having to take a leap of faith to buy one.

The 8 year/100K warranty in the hybrid engine is what convincing me to trust a first year build from Ford. I loved the previous Ford Ranger, and wanted another smaller Ford truck again. I am also getting it to show Ford and other manufacturers that we want smaller trucks again.

 

[Twistedcarguy]

I am also very interested in a smaller more fuel efficient smaller truck for daily use. I think Ford is very much hitting the mark with this vehicle. I would like a slightly larger bed, but since I will have the bigger truck for when I need it, that won't be a problem in my world. I very much enjoyed the Rangers that I had back in the nineties, but I do like the concept of a more usable back seat and realize the smaller bed is a trade off. The hybrid drive train will allow me will allow me to do probably 80% of my truck required driving with a vehicle that gets more than double the MPG I'm currently getting with my Ram.

 

[theonetruetom]

It's enough truck for 90% of the time I need a truck, and car enough for 100% of the time I need a car. Plus it'll fit in my garage. This is a winning setup for me.

 

[RHP]

If I wanted a "real" truck I would have ordered a not maverick truck. I don't consider a unibody vs framed truck to be in the same category. If you guys want a ranger style truck buy a ranger. lmao . Maybe you should compare the sport trac to the maverick.