Ford Maverick Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Maverick is perfectly sized, but I continually wonder why engineers set the truck up to sit so low? Part of me wonders if they did this, so not as to have the truck compete with the Ranger. Is there the possibility of Ford remedying the situation with a Ford approved, dealer installed, lift kit?

I noticed that companies are coming out with lift kits - sadly none are available for FWD models - but i've noticed some camber issues with aftermarket lift kits, plus I wouldn't want to do anything to void the manufacturers warranty - hence my hesitation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
That's what I can't figure out: on paper, the Maverick has clearance; both the Maverick & the Ranger have similar clearance on paper. But when you look at both models side by side, the Mav looks a lot lower.
I think it's a function of styling. The Ranger has that up-swept skid plate in the front that draws your eye up higher and makes it look like (at least from the front) the truck is higher than it is. Also, the Maverick is more square-shaped than the Ranger, which is more rectangular, which can fool your eyes into thinking it's higher up than it is.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
The Maverick is perfectly sized, but I continually wonder why engineers set the truck up to sit so low? Part of me wonders if they did this, so not as to have the truck compete with the Ranger. Is there the possibility of Ford remedying the situation with a Ford approved, dealer installed, lift kit?

I noticed that companies are coming out with lift kits - sadly none are available for FWD models - but i've noticed some camber issues with aftermarket lift kits, plus I wouldn't want to do anything to void the manufacturers warranty - hence my hesitation.
Um. Because they built it to be primarily an inexpensive urban truck?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I think it's a function of styling. The Ranger has that up-swept skid plate in the front that draws your eye up higher and makes it look like (at least from the front) the truck is higher than it is. Also, the Maverick is more square-shaped than the Ranger, which is more rectangular, which can fool your eyes into thinking it's higher up than it is.

That makes sense; thanks for taking the time to make/find a comparative picture
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
The Maverick is perfectly sized, but I continually wonder why engineers set the truck up to sit so low? Part of me wonders if they did this, so not as to have the truck compete with the Ranger. Is there the possibility of Ford remedying the situation with a Ford approved, dealer installed, lift kit?

I noticed that companies are coming out with lift kits - sadly none are available for FWD models - but i've noticed some camber issues with aftermarket lift kits, plus I wouldn't want to do anything to void the manufacturers warranty - hence my hesitation.
Unibody, add 4 inches of frame you have your height and larger tires would give more clearance. aka a RANGER.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Why does it need to be high? Lower vehicles handle better, less susceptible to roll over, better fuel economy, easier to load, easier to get in and out and suit a much wider demographic. If you are one of the very few that actually venture offroad and need the extra ground clearance then Ford offers several other vehicles to meet your needs. The interest and sales numbers show that Ford got it right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
How do you know that? And why do you think Ford knew that when they designed it? AND why would Ford want to build two trucks that are competitive?
Mine was a simple question; maybe it wasn't the brightest one, considering the replies I have gotten.

The Ranger is too expensive and too big; I like the Maverick. I just wish that it was a little higher; I am not too thrilled with the aftermarket kits I have been seeing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Why does it need to be high? Lower vehicles handle better, less susceptible to roll over, better fuel economy, easier to load, easier to get in and out and suit a much wider demographic. If you are one of the very few that actually venture offroad and need the extra ground clearance then Ford offers several other vehicles to meet your needs. The interest and sales numbers show that Ford got it right.
My thinking is that since the Maverick is a truck, it should sit a little higher. The Santa Cruz appears to sit higher, and I wish that the Maverick did the same. I have no issues with how the Santa Cruz is set up, but I don't like the Santa Cruz.

This thread reminds me that there's a demographic that wants something a little lower, for the reasons that you've stated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Why does it need to be high? Lower vehicles handle better, less susceptible to roll over, better fuel economy, easier to load, easier to get in and out and suit a much wider demographic. If you are one of the very few that actually venture offroad and need the extra ground clearance then Ford offers several other vehicles to meet your needs. The interest and sales numbers show that Ford got it right.
The High truck trend reminds me of some sort of useless clown car.

They look stupid and are useless for everyday tasks, tires wear uneven, suspensions are unreliable and forget towing a normal trailer without some type of low drop hitch,
Try hand loading/unloading one and good lord does that suck, takes twice as long, worse if you need to enter the bed.

Maybe the folks who buy them never use the bed?

I owned old 2wd suburbans for many years and used them as a bench seat pickup for decades because they were comfortable to load/unload and crawl around in, the newer trucks sat too high to load my booth and supplies into, my hope is the Maverick sits low enough to load up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
The High truck trend reminds me of some sort of useless clown car.

They look stupid and are useless for everyday tasks, tires wear uneven, suspensions are unreliable and forget towing a normal trailer without some type of low drop hitch,
Try hand loading/unloading one and good lord does that suck, takes twice as long, worse if you need to enter the bed.

Maybe the folks who buy them never use the bed?

I owned old 2wd suburbans for many years and used them as a bench seat pickup for decades because they were comfortable to load/unload and crawl around in, the newer trucks sat too high to load my booth and supplies into, my hope is the Maverick sits low enough to load up.
I've got a last gen Ranger XL, stock; 189" in length, and I love her height. She's been so good to me, I can't part with her: perfect length/width; easy ingress/egress; she doesn't need to be jacked to change the fluids; when I speak to ground clearance, that's what I had hoped the Maverick would be.

The current Ranger is too big, a little more than what I want to spend, and quite frankly, I don't need all that power; the Maverick is compact, economical, cheap, and simple.

In the end, I will suck it up, but I wish that Ford made an alternative option for folks like me: a literal inch or two extra wouldn't have made the vehicle less usable in urban areas, but that extra inch, inch and a half, would be nice on rutted roads, not needing to use ramps to do oil changes, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
I've got a last gen Ranger XL, stock; 189" in length, and I love her height. She's been so good to me, I can't part with her: perfect length/width; easy ingress/egress; she doesn't need to be jacked to change the fluids; when I speak to ground clearance, that's what I had hoped the Maverick would be.

The current Ranger is too big, a little more than what I want to spend, and quite frankly, I don't need all that power; the Maverick is compact, economical, cheap, and simple.

In the end, I will suck it up, but I wish that Ford made an alternative option for folks like me: a literal inch or two extra wouldn't have made the vehicle less usable in urban areas, but that extra inch, inch and a half, would be nice on rutted roads, not needing to use ramps to do oil changes, etc.
Funny how things have changed. The new Ranger is sized like a 90's F-150.
I guess Ford and Hyundai wish they entered this market sooner and eventually we might see others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Funny how things have changed. The new Ranger is sized like a 90's F-150.
I guess Ford and Hyundai wish they entered this market sooner and eventually we might see others.
Exactly, and the next gen Ranger will be bigger yet. It seems as though Ford is positioning the next gen Ranger as a non traditional alternative to the F150, as it will have a coil spring rear suspension, floor shift (only), etc

Side by side pictures show the last gen Ranger and the Maverick being nearly identical in height, yet the last gen Ranger appears to have a lot more ground clearance, at least from the front of the vehicle.

I am glad that Ford brought a simple, cheap, truck, back to the market, but her (from the front) ground clearance is something I wish they had did differently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
That's what I can't figure out: on paper, the Maverick has clearance; both the Maverick & the Ranger have similar clearance on paper. But when you look at both models side by side, the Mav looks a lot lower.
8 inches is all I have on my PriusV wagon, it hasn't been a problem on any of the places I drive, following friends in their big full size pickup trucks. Have gotten stuck once in a soft spot but the 4x4 was standing by....I could have winched it out but the strap was easier. Just remember "4 wheel drive will get you twice as stuck twice as far in." I know my limitations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
That's what I can't figure out: on paper, the Maverick has clearance; both the Maverick & the Ranger have similar clearance on paper. But when you look at both models side by side, the Mav looks a lot lower.
That's because the Ranger is Body on Frame and the Mav is Unibody. Sure they have the same ground clearance, the Ranger is measured from the lowest part of the frame while the Mav is measured from the lowest part of the body. That's why the Mav actually has more interior volume than the Ranger, its cab isn't smaller because the body has to sit on a frame to support it, thus making the Ranger smaller inside even though from the outside it is taller.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top