Ford Maverick debut

In reply to karplus2 :

You have to jump to the XLT to get cruise control. Lame, I know. 

John Welsh said:

Dam you Ford and your holding of Cruise Control (cc) hostage.

Also, forced into Ford Co-pilot360 to get a sliding back-glass. A manual sliding back-glass requires an electronics package add-on....

eastsideTim said:

karplus2 said:

I am having a hard time figuring out if you can get cruise control on the base model based on the configurator. That seems like something that should come on all vehicles regardless of trim level.

Looks like you have to go with the XLT or higher to get it.  However, once supplies are up, I suspect it'll become a dealer installable option.

Theoretically, that would just be a steering wheel.  For the CC switches.  The rest of cruise control is integrated in the ECU.  And with the modern systems, I'm not even sure how to even specify cruise control or not (things have changed a lot in the last few years).

It's kind of lame to offer the "beater" version just to not make it a realistic vehicle.  It seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy- cheap cars don't sell.  The actual reality is that cheap cars should not even be available- profit is just not there.

Colin Wood said:

In reply to tremm :

I might be able to weigh in as a 26-year-old, though just know I don't speak for everyone my age.

For me, the appeal of Maverick–as well as the Santa Cruz–is the size. I don't really like the idea of owning a modern full-size truck. I think they are too big, and I don't really want (or need) a body-on-frame vehicle.

As well, both the Maverick and the Santa Cruz are crossovers that are kind of like trucks, not trucks that are kind of like crossovers if that makes any sense.

Above all, I just like the idea of a smaller vehicle that can hold me, my wife, my kid and whatever dirty things the kid brings home with her. 

I have 24 and 26 year olds.   My daughter is pretty well set for the foreseeable future with a ‘17 Focus she just bought, she likes the Maverick concept and size but is pissed it doesn’t offer a stick option.  She’s very committed to 3 pedal vehicles.   My son’s ‘06 ZX3 will be enjoying semi retirement now that he’s more local and able to walk to work.  We had a roughly 30 text exchange the other night about the Maverick, I’m pretty sure he’ll be looking at one seriously in a year or so after he’s had a chance to save up a bit. Heck, I’ll probably end up with one.  Checks a lot of boxes for me.  I’m guessing that this will be a home run for Ford if they can produce them in quantity without new model hiccups.  

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

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.

And lead to state DOT cosplay

In reply to 11GTCS :

Yes it does check lots of boxes.  I'm considering selling my Colorado and getting one of the new job comes through.  After a year of training my commute will be 1 hr or so each way.  I've decided the Colorado just doesn't get good enough mileage for this.  I was thinking of getting a small fun car to do the commute, but I just don't want to spend coin and have an additional car around to insure, maintain etc.  I also have equity in the Colorado now due to the insane car market and can flip that into the Maverick or pay down or off my wife's 2018 Tiguan.  Economically it would be a win/win too.  I can still go camping with it, run errands for car parts, etc.  If I need to tow something it'll tow smaller things or probably work with a tow dolley and most of my cars, or I can rent something bigger.  I think having 5 cars around is enough, I don't need a 6th.  My son is 21 and also like this vehicle.  It may encourage him to save some bucks. 

I'd be going for a 4WD XLT or Lariat myself since I like to go some places camping that I don't think FWD will do so well at. 

I'm going to go figure out how the interior dimensions compare to my wife's Tiguan and my Colorado right now to see if this really is viable.  If it is and the job offer gets finalized, I may be going to my local Ford dealer soon to reserve one and put down some cash.  I know they only want $100 to reserve which is very low. 

Very interesting.  The cabin size front and rear is within 1" of the Colorado in every dimension (head, leg, hip, shoulder) for both the front and rear seats.  The vehicle is lower, a bit shorter, but about the same width.  So it will seat 4 in relative comfort and can work for 5 on shorter trips.  I may have to go drive a Bronco Sport if I can find one..... to see if the powertrain is acceptable.  Of course one of our friend families has one.... maybe I can drive it for a bit. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Very interesting.  The cabin size front and rear is within 1" of the Colorado in every dimension (head, leg, hip, shoulder) for both the front and rear seats.  The vehicle is lower, a bit shorter, but about the same width.  So it will seat 4 in relative comfort and can work for 5 on shorter trips.  I may have to go drive a Bronco Sport if I can find one..... to see if the powertrain is acceptable.  Of course one of our friend families has one.... maybe I can drive it for a bit. 

If the powertrain is the same as what they were doing in the Fusion hybrids I’d say you’ll be fine.  We put 1,300 miles on a rental Fusion hybrid on a trip 3 years ago.  I thought it was comparable to the performance of our 1.6 EB Fusion but with significantly better fuel economy.  I remember returning to Las Vegas from Zion NP it averaged close to 50 mpg cruising at 75-80 with traffic.   The car would run full electric for several miles at a time and then go back to the engine. Couldn’t really notice the transition unless you were watching the dash display.  If you end up with the AWD / EB version I’d guess high 20’s on the highway.  My work vehicle is an AWD Escape with 1.6 EB and it does 30 -31 on the highway with similar weight to what a Maverick appears to be. 

In reply to 11GTCS :

Highway fuel economy in the upper 20s for the Ecoboost/AWD option isn't a bad guess, but it would be a little disappointing to me honestly. Both the Ranger and 2wd/2.7l Ecoboost F150 are both rated at 26mpg highway. If the Maverick ends up in the upper 20s, that's not a lot of separation. 30-32mpg highway would be enough to distinguish it though I think.

For me I generally go by city or mixed mileage.  And the Hybrid has a giant advantage there obviously.

As I saw someone say on another forum, look at this as a Prius with a bed (that's less expensive than a Prius), not a truck.  That's my general outlook at the moment.

So, lets talk towing. 

My normal usage is tow dolly or flat tow  when moving cars, and a 5x10 light duty trailer of straw and girl scouts or a lawnmower or something. 

What would the needed capacity be? Does the truck see the full weight of what is  being towed? 

Im trying to figure out if i can legitimately use this thing as the truck i need. I know my 95 Silverado does all this with no problem, but im seriously considering the maverick to replace three cars in the driveway with one if the new job goes through. 

How heavy are the cars you are towing?  I'm guessing a dolly is... 350lbs?  So you have 3650lbs remaining to work with.  Yes, it sees the full weight.

STM317 said:

In reply to 11GTCS :

Highway fuel economy in the upper 20s for the Ecoboost/AWD option isn't a bad guess, but it would be a little disappointing to me honestly. Both the Ranger and 2wd/2.7l Ecoboost F150 are both rated at 26mpg highway. If the Maverick ends up in the upper 20s, that's not a lot of separation. 30-32mpg highway would be enough to distinguish it though I think.

But Ranger/Maverick are apples and Oranges. Yes they aren't that different size wise (besides the Maverick being narrower) but the chassis, suspension and weight differences should make them significantly different feeling. When it comes to trucks, mileage is often not entirely intuitive. For instance, my dad used to use a Ford van as his race transport, and he started off with a Small block, but found that the big block offered considerably better performance and economy. Similarly, Domestic V8 pickups often get better mileage than the V6 Ridgeline.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Fair point. We'll have to wait and see. But a big chunk of hwy fuel economy seems to come down to aerodynamics and gearing. The Maverick has a smaller frontal area and what should be a more efficient drivetrain layout than these other trucks.

My 01 Ranger with the 2.3/5spd got 30mpg pretty regularly on the highway.  That was a truck with zero concern for aerodynamics, no direct injection or other fuel saving tricks, and antique transmission/differential. A 6th gear to drop the cruising rpms and some time in a wind tunnel probably would've gotten it up to mid 30s. If an F150 with twice the HP and three times the torque of my old truck can get close to those numbers with current design and tech I'd personally be a bit disappointed if the Maverick can't at least match what my 20 year old truck was doing.

Maybe the goal with this thing is to get as many vehicles traded in as possible for their dealers. Like 2-3 trade-ins per Maverick.

That is pretty impressive, but the Maverick will beat those numbers for sure.  I'm not sure by how much with AWD though.   

STM317 said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Fair point. We'll have to wait and see. But a big chunk of hwy fuel economy seems to come down to aerodynamics and gearing. The Maverick has a smaller frontal area and what should be a more efficient drivetrain layout than these other trucks.

My 01 Ranger with the 2.3/5spd got 30mpg pretty regularly on the highway.  That was a truck with zero concern for aerodynamics, no direct injection or other fuel saving tricks, and antique transmission/differential. A 6th gear to drop the cruising rpms and some time in a wind tunnel probably would've gotten it up to mid 30s. If an F150 with twice the HP and three times the torque of my old truck can get close to those numbers with current design and tech I'd personally be a bit disappointed if the Maverick can't at least match what my 20 year old truck was doing.

In my shop fleet is a little Nissan parts runner. It's great for around town, but it get's absolutely terrible gas mileage from it's 4-banger. Total head-scratcher. Should have gotten a Ranger, I suppose.

ProDarwin said:

That is pretty impressive, but the Maverick will beat those numbers for sure.  I'm not sure by how much with AWD though.   

I'd expect the Maverick to smoke the older Ranger's rating, but I also take the older fuel economy ratings with a grain of salt. They've evolved the tests over the years, and tend to be more accurate now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. I'd hope the Maverick could be in the ballpark of 30hwy, 26 or 27 combined with the ecoboost/AWD. Just my personal opinion.

I says ,based on nothing more than my opinion and prior  performance to EPA estimates , that a Maverick would get 26-28 hwy mpg in my hands. I routinely get 2 mpg less than the EPA , largely because I doubt their tests are run at the posted speed limit plus 5-10.

STM317 said:

I also take the older fuel economy ratings with a grain of salt. They've evolved the tests over the years, and tend to be more accurate now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. 

The image I posted is with the numbers 'corrected' to be more in line with the new tests.

"I says ,based on nothing more than my opinion and prior  performance to EPA estimates , that a Maverick would get 26-28 hwy mpg in my hands. I routinely get 2 mpg less than the EPA , largely because I doubt their tests are run at the posted speed limit plus 5-10."

The EPA highway test is done at 48mph. That's why trucks a lot of times do a lot worse than their EPA highway numbers in 70mph+ driving but cars don't lose as much MPG at those speeds.

I'm curious about tow ratings and vehicles over time. For example, I'm thoroughly convinced that this Maverick rated to tow 2k lbs would be infinitely easier and safer to drive with 6k lbs hooked up than a 1991 roadmonster (that happens to have been rated for 6k lbs) with 6k lbs hooked up. 

The hybrid system might not like towing very well.

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm curious about tow ratings and vehicles over time. For example, I'm thoroughly convinced that this Maverick rated to tow 2k lbs would be infinitely easier and safer to drive with 6k lbs hooked up than a 1991 roadmonster (that happens to have been rated for 6k lbs) with 6k lbs hooked up. 

I don't think I'd go that extreme, but I think standards for tow ratings got tightened up at some point in recent history.  I seem to recall the older rangers could be rated to tow up to 5000 lbs, and I think I'd trust an ecoboost Maverick to pull that weight more safely, despite the 4K limit.  

GCrites80s said:

The hybrid system might not like towing very well.

I'm very curious about this.  I'm guessing battery cooling is the only potential issue here .  I wonder if they have done anything specific to address that.  The new tow ratings are to the SAE spec which is pretty demanding from a performance standpoint.