Ford Maverick debut

jv8 said:

yupididit said:

Oooo lots of judgey grumpy haters who know better than people who buy what they want. 

Though, no one needs a v8 miata, or 500hp wagon, or 11 $2000 E36 M3 boxes in their yard, or a 350hp hot hatch when a regular focus exist, or a v12 jaguar at 79 years old, or a late 70s big block luxobarge. AMG and M-cars? Wow what kind of machoman complex is this!?

I shall bow to yall superior automotive financial intellect and decision making! 

 

LOL - great point!

I really don't care what you buy. I was just pointing out that some people I know who have a whole lot of money still think that $35,000 is too much for any kind of a car. In fact people who have a whole lot of money tend to treat money more carefully than those who don't. Who am I to talk? I still have my high interest Summit Credit Card and use it from time to time. You will find that if you talk to some of these big money guys, and considering how much they are worth I am amazed at how much time they will waste explaining money to me, they do have an entirely different attitude towards money than the majority of the population. Listening to guys like that has helped me change my own spending habits and my own finances and for the better, even though I still sometimes spend stupid money on cars.  

As for the new Ranger. Meh. I really don't care for the big, tall pickup trucks. These things sit taller and the bed is taller making them harder to load. Is there an engineering reason why these things are so tall other than ground clearance for off road driving? I really don't need another Jeep. I also think these big four door trucks kind of look like rolling mushrooms with their curved lines. I'm sure there are a dozen safety and engineering reasons why they look they way they do. I don't care. They are still ugly. 

I'm still really not sure I need to spend $35,000 on something I may use every other weekend when I already have four cars sitting in the driveway. 

Schmidlap said:

John Welsh said:

In a modern vehicle, I just find the lack of cc inexcusable. If nothing else, at least the offering of it (as a line item option.)   On the Maverick it becomes a $2 200 option because you have to move up to XLT. 

It's surprising some of the things that are optional on Fords. I bought a 2018 F150 a few months ago and about 50% of the ones I looked at (all were XLTs) did not have rear defrost, something that I assumed was standard on every single car, especially in Canada. I'm really curious how many people bought those trucks assuming rear defrost was standard and then were shocked when it wasn't.

On a truck though. Rear defrost was extremely rare on trucks until very recently.

Schmidlap said:

John Welsh said:

In a modern vehicle, I just find the lack of cc inexcusable. If nothing else, at least the offering of it (as a line item option.)   On the Maverick it becomes a $2 200 option because you have to move up to XLT. 

It's surprising some of the things that are optional on Fords. I bought a 2018 F150 a few months ago and about 50% of the ones I looked at (all were XLTs) did not have rear defrost, something that I assumed was standard on every single car, especially in Canada. I'm really curious how many people bought those trucks assuming rear defrost was standard and then were shocked when it wasn't.

Ford and GM both play that game on the lower end models.  When they still made more cars, you'd need to go up to a midsize in order for cruise control to be standard.  Compacts/subcompacts required moving up from the base model, although I think dealers could also add it by switching to a steering wheel with the controls, and updating the software. 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

jv8 said:

yupididit said

 

 

As for the new Ranger. Meh. I really don't care for the big, tall pickup trucks. These things sit taller and the bed is taller making them harder to load. Is there an engineering reason why these things are so tall other than ground clearance for off road driving?

Higher bedsides allow them to advertise more cubic feet capacity.  As for the higher ground clearance, I suspect it is a combination of trying to make the suspension soft enough to ride more comfortable than trucks used to be, combined with the ever increasing payload weight capacity they are selling.  Depending on how it is equipped, a Ranger can have a payload of over 1 ton.  It can handle more weight than my 2004 F150 Heritage could.

jv8 said:

I've been driving a Ridgeline for 12 years (gen1 and now gen2) because it's exactly what I want - a crossover with an open bed and some occasional towing capacity.  I'm glad to see more options in the segment.  The Maverick looks good except for tow rating.  A U-Haul car transport is 2200 lbs empty.  That limits project cars to 1800 lbs if I want to stay within the Maverick 4000 lb rating.  The Ridgeline allows 2800 lbs on a U-Haul trailer.  I really don't want to dedicate the space to own and store a lightweight aluminum trailer.

A Ridgeline starts at $36.5k and gets combined fuel economy of 21mpg. A Maverick hybrid starts at $20k and will probably end up with a combined fuel economy around 35mpg (costing significantly less per mile). That price difference is enough to pay to tow a whole fleet of project vehicles home.

In reply to eastsideTim :

You have to figure that Ford's budgeting crew have been scouring the project with a fine-toothed comb so that they could drop that $20K bomb on the market. (Face it, if it started at $30K, would this thread be anywhere near this long?)  Perhaps the direct cost to Ford for cruise control is only a hundred bucks, but if they can find a handfull of such things......

In reply to racerdave600 :

I'z be what you call a supply chain professional and I can tell you the entire system is jacked right now.

And speaking of jacked; if the Maverick turns out to be as popular as I think it will be how much gouging do we expect?

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to eastsideTim :

You have to figure that Ford's budgeting crew have been scouring the project with a fine-toothed comb so that they could drop that $20K bomb on the market. (Face it, if it started at $30K, would this thread be anywhere near this long?)  Perhaps the direct cost to Ford for cruise control is only a hundred bucks, but if they can find a handfull of such things......

I suspect cruise is even cheaper than that ever since drive by wire.  It seems like a pure profit grab, since you're forced to go to the XLT to get cruise at all, instead of having it as part of some sort of convenience package like on the Ranger.

Tom1200 said:

In reply to racerdave600 :

I'z be what you call a supply chain professional and I can tell you the entire system is jacked right not.

And speaking of jacked; if the Maverick turns out to be as popular as I think it will be how much gouging do we expect?

20K will get you in the door. 

30K will get you the truck you want. 

35K if you want everything. 

eastsideTim said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

jv8 said:

yupididit said

 

 

As for the new Ranger. Meh. I really don't care for the big, tall pickup trucks. These things sit taller and the bed is taller making them harder to load. Is there an engineering reason why these things are so tall other than ground clearance for off road driving?

Higher bedsides allow them to advertise more cubic feet capacity.  As for the higher ground clearance, I suspect it is a combination of trying to make the suspension soft enough to ride more comfortable than trucks used to be, combined with the ever increasing payload weight capacity they are selling.  Depending on how it is equipped, a Ranger can have a payload of over 1 ton.  It can handle more weight than my 2004 F150 Heritage could.

I have a suspicion that high bed sides also result in a minor increase in highway MPG.

eastsideTim said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to eastsideTim :

You have to figure that Ford's budgeting crew have been scouring the project with a fine-toothed comb so that they could drop that $20K bomb on the market. (Face it, if it started at $30K, would this thread be anywhere near this long?)  Perhaps the direct cost to Ford for cruise control is only a hundred bucks, but if they can find a handfull of such things......

I suspect cruise is even cheaper than that ever since drive by wire.  It seems like a pure profit grab, since you're forced to go to the XLT to get cruise at all, instead of having it as part of some sort of convenience package like on the Ranger.

That's fairly commonplace these days, isn't it? Might be as simple as unlocking an imbedded feature. Just like the video game industry.

STM317 said:

jv8 said:

I've been driving a Ridgeline for 12 years (gen1 and now gen2) because it's exactly what I want - a crossover with an open bed and some occasional towing capacity.  I'm glad to see more options in the segment.  The Maverick looks good except for tow rating.  A U-Haul car transport is 2200 lbs empty.  That limits project cars to 1800 lbs if I want to stay within the Maverick 4000 lb rating.  The Ridgeline allows 2800 lbs on a U-Haul trailer.  I really don't want to dedicate the space to own and store a lightweight aluminum trailer.

A Ridgeline starts at $36.5k and gets combined fuel economy of 21mpg. A Maverick hybrid starts at $20k and will probably end up with a combined fuel economy around 35mpg (costing significantly less per mile). That price difference is enough to pay to tow a whole fleet of project vehicles home.

Point taken on the base model.  However, I used the Maverick configurator and optioned one like my Ridgeline and the Mav price was in the mid 30s.

Also, my RL had significant residual value on the back end compared to any Ford I've owned.

Tuning is going to be wild in 10 years. Unlock all the features like using a Game Genie.

I can tell you for sure that when this project started there was also a sister basic SUV based on it as well.  I don't mean based on it like the Bronco Sport and Escape, I mean the same vehicle with an SUV rear not truck bed.  It got killed as it would have pushed the price up too close to the  Escape/Bronco Sport.  Both these vehicles came sprang from the need for a low cost entry vehicle for the brand that the dealers were demanding after the decision to exist cars in NA.

They don't offer cruise control on the base vehicle as they want a sub $20K MSRP to advertise and get people in the door, then push them to the $25K+ version for the features they want, and that they want to sell you and you don't notice the difference in monthley payments.  I bet if enough fleet customers asked for crusie on a fleet version it would probably be added but in a way that made it effectivly impossible for a retail customer to want/buy.

On costs and wealth.  One thing I know is the older the money, the less likely they are to own a new(ish) or flashy car.  Also no one I know got rich by buying new cars.  All the really successful people I know spent 10-20 years driving E36 M3 boxes until they got to a point where a new car wasn't really a dent in their income/wealth.  The people leasing new Mercs/BMWs/Audi's etc are those who want to appear wealthy, not those who are.

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

 

They don't offer cruise control on the base vehicle as they want a sub $20K MSRP to advertise and get people in the door, then push them to the $25K+ version for the features they want, and that they want to sell you and you don't notice the difference in monthley payments.  I bet if enough fleet customers asked for crusie on a fleet version it would probably be added but in a way that made it effectivly impossible for a retail customer to want/buy.

Ha, like if you want cruise you also have to get a flashing yellow safety light on the roof.

GCrites80s said:

Ha, like if you want cruise you also have to get a flashing yellow safety light on the roof.

LOL, they'd sell out imidiatly as it would be a badge of pride for Bro-rollers.

I finally messed with the builder.  Were I going to buy one new, I'd probably go with a 2.5XLT with no options, although the luxury package would be nice.  One option that seems to be missing is an auto dimming rear view mirror, but maybe that's not as important when sitting up a bit higher.

Is anybody else here old enough to remember when the original Ford Maverick came out? That was about 1969 to 1970. They had billboards advertising them at $1995. That's right. Less than $2,000 for a stripped new car. Their whole ad campaign back then was $1995. Of course by the time you ordered the 8 Track Tape Player, air conditioning and dealer stripes it was probably closer to $2,500 with tax and license. Now $20,000 is considered low end. How times have changed. 

The internet tells me... 

$1,995 in 1969 is worth $14,633.35 today

The original Maverick didn't come the a glove compartment and I'm sure it didn't have cc either!  No mandated abs and back up camera either.

Tom1200 said:

In reply to racerdave600 :

I'z be what you call a supply chain professional and I can tell you the entire system is jacked right now.

And speaking of jacked; if the Maverick turns out to be as popular as I think it will be how much gouging do we expect?

If you're talking about "market adjustment", the. I'd guess there will be dealers that try it. 

It's become acceptable enough that even Kia dealers are adding market adjustments. They tried to do it on Kia Sportage we just bought with the nightfall package.

John Welsh said:

The internet tells me... 

$1,995 in 1969 is worth $14,633.35 today

The original Maverick didn't come the a glove compartment and I'm sure it didn't have cc either!  No mandated abs and back up camera either.

That original Maverick was probably just rolling scrap by 100k miles too

John Welsh said:

The internet tells me... 

$1,995 in 1969 is worth $14,633.35 today

The original Maverick didn't come the a glove compartment and I'm sure it didn't have cc either!  No mandated abs and back up camera either.

Only two of my cars have cc and abs. My 1978 Motorhome has an aftermarket back up camera. I wouldn't mind having one of the original Mavericks. Make mine a 302 with no cc. 

STM317 said:

John Welsh said:

The internet tells me... 

$1,995 in 1969 is worth $14,633.35 today

The original Maverick didn't come the a glove compartment and I'm sure it didn't have cc either!  No mandated abs and back up camera either.

That original Maverick was probably just rolling scrap by 100k miles too

Looks like an original Maverick is the equivalent of a base Mitsubishi Mirage today price wise, then.  The Mirage even has cruise control 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

jv8 said:

yupididit said:

Oooo lots of judgey grumpy haters who know better than people who buy what they want. 

Though, no one needs a v8 miata, or 500hp wagon, or 11 $2000 E36 M3 boxes in their yard, or a 350hp hot hatch when a regular focus exist, or a v12 jaguar at 79 years old, or a late 70s big block luxobarge. AMG and M-cars? Wow what kind of machoman complex is this!?

I shall bow to yall superior automotive financial intellect and decision making! 

 

LOL - great point!

I really don't care what you buy. I was just pointing out that some people I know who have a whole lot of money still think that $35,000 is too much for any kind of a car. In fact people who have a whole lot of money tend to treat money more carefully than those who don't. Who am I to talk? I still have my high interest Summit Credit Card and use it from time to time. You will find that if you talk to some of these big money guys, and considering how much they are worth I am amazed at how much time they will waste explaining money to me, they do have an entirely different attitude towards money than the majority of the population. Listening to guys like that has helped me change my own spending habits and my own finances and for the better, even though I still sometimes spend stupid money on cars.  

As for the new Ranger. Meh. I really don't care for the big, tall pickup trucks. These things sit taller and the bed is taller making them harder to load. Is there an engineering reason why these things are so tall other than ground clearance for off road driving? I really don't need another Jeep. I also think these big four door trucks kind of look like rolling mushrooms with their curved lines. I'm sure there are a dozen safety and engineering reasons why they look they way they do. I don't care. They are still ugly. 

I'm still really not sure I need to spend $35,000 on something I may use every other weekend when I already have four cars sitting in the driveway. 

Ehhh, I'm going to cast doubt on the assertion that people with a whole lot of money are collectively more careful with money, they just have a ton more ceiling above the point of diminishing returns. It's much easier to recognize a rich person being frugal than a regular person being frugal because we're really used to seeing rich people be not frugal. There's also the people who view collecting money as a hobby. It's kind of like someone getting a high score in a video game: satisfying for them, but ultimately meaningless.  

How long can you drive on Hybrid only , 

is it a "plug in" hybrid ?

And what size is the ICE engine ?

is the hybrid set-up already in other Ford models  or is it a brand new design ?

Trying to talk my friend into ordering one......

OHHH and are there any federal tax credits ?