Easier to load stuff and lower sitting vehicles usually get better MPG. It isn't designed to be a serious off roader and there is enough clearance for what it is designed to do.

 

Your reply had me wondering: why didn't I think of that?

Makes sense

 

8.6" of ground clearance isn't exactly Focus territory.

 

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.

 

Um. Because they built it to be primarily an inexpensive urban truck?

 

Thus far, if online activity is any reliable indicator, most purchases have been in suburban/rural areas.

 

Unibody, add 4 inches of frame you have your height and larger tires would give more clearance. aka a RANGER.

 

Exactly!

 

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.

 

Ford built 1Maverick platform body, for several uses, the hybrid and the conventional truck market. Hybrid powertrains benifit from low wind resistance, being closer to the ground, while standard truck it's up to the owner what is the amount of drag you are comfortable with but you will pay for it at the pump and all of the aftermarket parts. First year models will be basic so Ford can see what sells, look at all of the Bronco packages available now but they had an idea of to market from the past.

 

I'm looking forward to its off-road capability with future version in the works currently.

Ford Maverick Rattler Up-Close With New Front Bumper!

We have new spy photos of the Maverick Rattler that give a more detailed look at the off-road focused trim and shows a new high-clearance front bumper design! New Off-Road-Focused Front Bumper While all current Maverick’s get same traditional front bumpers, this prototype shows signs of a new...

www.maverickchat.com

 

My thought on this topic is more like "Why have pickups gotten so tall over the last 20 years?" My 1981 Chevy C10 had a reasonable bed height and it was body on frame with enough ground clearance that I could slide underneath on a creeper without having to jack up the frame. I've been amazed at recent pickups that you can hardly reach into the bed from the sides and tailgates so high up that you need extra steps. It seems to me that the Maverick bed height id perfect and the ground clearance is sufficient for most paved and gravel road use, which is where most of us drive almost all the time. Granted it's not set up to be a serious off-road vehicle, but there are plenty of options out there for that already.

 

I think its funny that you think the Ranger has more ground clearance than the Maverick. According to Ford the Ranger has a Ground Clearance of 8.4", the Maverick has a Ground Clearance of 8.6". Remember that Ground Clearance is measured and the closest part of the truck to the ground. Which on the Ranger is probably the front axle or some part of the frame. the Maverick has a pretty flat under side and the lowest thing is the front or rear suspension. So while the Ranger may be taller overall and the cab is farther off the ground it really doesnt have more Ground Clearance. Also has less interior volume than the Maverick.