Ford Maverick debut

I drove a new Bronco Sport AWD 2.0 Ecoboost that a family friend bought today.  It was surprisingly nice, and fun to drive.  They only have 999 mostly city miles on it, but are happy with it so far. 

LanEvo said:

So, it's:

• unibody
• FWD
• 4-cylinder
• 4.5' bed
• tow rating of just 2k lbs.

Doesn't sound like a functional truck to me. How is this more useful than, say, a RAV4?

I could figure out a way to fit a kart in the bed. 
I could toss firewood in the bed.

I could fit mountain bikes or kayaks in the bed.

YMMV, and I hope you find the vehicle that fits your own personal use case. Ford makes 4 other trucks that hit all of your bullet points dead on!

In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :

Based on real world experience with an AWD 1.6 EB Escape, I’m guessing 20 ish city and upper 20’s (let’s say 28) highway and 25 combined for the 2.0 EB in the Maverick.   The company Escape is averaging close to 31 for the last 10K but then it’s mostly highway and we haven’t had real traffic in over a year.    That’s driving with traffic at 70-75.

AaronT said:

LanEvo said:

So, it's:

• unibody
• FWD
• 4-cylinder
• 4.5' bed
• tow rating of just 2k lbs.

Doesn't sound like a functional truck to me. How is this more useful than, say, a RAV4?

I could figure out a way to fit a kart in the bed. 
I could toss firewood in the bed.

I could fit mountain bikes or kayaks in the bed.

YMMV, and I hope you find the vehicle that fits your own personal use case. Ford makes 4 other trucks that hit all of your bullet points dead on!

And no one made a truck that fits my use case for a very long time until Maverick. Ridgeline is still a little too big and thirsty for me to daily.

And when comparing with SUVs lets talk about having to haul gas cans. I have to do that a lot. I don't want to have to make the thing even bigger to do that.

It just keeps going and going...

LanEvo said:

So, it's:

• unibody
• FWD
• 4-cylinder
• 4.5' bed
• tow rating of just 2k lbs.

Doesn't sound like a functional truck to me. How is this more useful than, say, a RAV4?

I like to think of the base Maverick as a RAV4 hybrid that likes to get dirty and starts about $8k less.

I have an '06 RAV4, the bed is a big advantage when it comes to things like kayaks.  It takes me about 1/2 hour to find my roof rails, find the kayak-specific roof rack attachment, load them up (it takes me longer because we bought the cheaper kayak attachment) and strap them down securely.  Getting the kayaks off the roof is awkward at best, and something my wife can't easily do on her own.  With a truck bed, I'd throw them in the back, run a strap over them, and call it done.  My wife could do the same.  We have a pond 5 min from our house where we can kayak at will, but it takes the fun out of it when I spend and hour to get the kayaks loaded/unloaded/loaded again.

Truck beds are also great for transporting stinky stuff (think dump runs, which I do at least 2x per week).  And I bag all the grass we cut, which means in the RAV4 I have to hitch up my HF 4x8 trailer, deal with maneuvering that around at the dump where I drop off my clippings, and then unhitching it all when I get home.  I've done it for years since I sold my '06 RAM 1500 Quad Cab with minimal complaining, but there are definitely some advantages to a truck.

I priced one out, as was impressed by how reasonable it remained from a price perspective, especially relative to what's out there on the market (new and used). I think it represents a good value, and if they made one with a hybrid, AWD option, I would probably give it a hard look.  Something like 36 MPG combined would be hard to ignore.

In reply to 11GTCS :

Thanks that's what I'm hoping for really.  High 20s on the highway at 70.  This would fit my needs better than anything I own currently.  I'm looking at 35k to 40k miles a year commuting after a 1-2 year training period at this next job.  I'm probably going to buy a Maverick new and wear it out.  It's going to be a pretty heavily optioned FX4 (AWD) Ecoboost model too.  I'm going to spend a ton of time in it so it may as well be nice.  A 4k tow rating might be passable.  When I need more I will rent something else.  I may just end up finding my dream 68-72 C10 one day too that I can work on and use for heavier towing as well. 

dj06482 (Forum Supporter) said:

I have an '06 RAV4, the bed is a big advantage when it comes to things like kayaks.  It takes me about 1/2 hour to find my roof rails, find the kayak-specific roof rack attachment, load them up (it takes me longer because we bought the cheaper kayak attachment) and strap them down securely.  Getting the kayaks off the roof is awkward at best, and something my wife can't easily do on her own.  With a truck bed, I'd throw them in the back, run a strap over them, and call it done.  My wife could do the same.  We have a pond 5 min from our house where we can kayak at will, but it takes the fun out of it when I spend and hour to get the kayaks loaded/unloaded/loaded again.

Truck beds are also great for transporting stinky stuff (think dump runs, which I do at least 2x per week).  And I bag all the grass we cut, which means in the RAV4 I have to hitch up my HF 4x8 trailer, deal with maneuvering that around at the dump where I drop off my clippings, and then unhitching it all when I get home.  I've done it for years since I sold my '06 RAM 1500 Quad Cab with minimal complaining, but there are definitely some advantages to a truck.

I priced one out, as was impressed by how reasonable it remained from a price perspective, especially relative to what's out there on the market (new and used). I think it represents a good value, and if they made one with a hybrid, AWD option, I would probably give it a hard look.  Something like 36 MPG combined would be hard to ignore.

I agree with this.  I think a lot of people are looking at load capacity but are ignoring the fact that an open bed helps with oversize items and stuff you don't want in the inside.  My wife has rabbits and we go on hay/grass runs every month.    I have to lay down the tarp in the minivan, throw in a hay bale (90lbs), get home and unload, pack in the tarp and then spend 30 minutes vacuuming out the extra hay and then suffer through the resulting hay fever whenever I drive the car for the next week.    I brought home a couple of upright video game machines to start my home arcade but had to lay them down to fit them in the van.  If I had a truck, they would have been much easier to load and unload.  Not to mention the trees and small shrubs I have had to pick up for the garden and all the tables and chairs my wife picks up at garage sales and thrift stores.

I've been looking at this and the Santa Fe.  My truck use is occasional and pretty light duty so I am more concerned about the driving experience.  The Mavericks potential 40+ mpg is nice but I have a feeling that the Santa Fe (looking at the base model) would be nicer to drive which would be like 80% of what I would need it for.  Either way, I am jazzed that I have two options to look at this year. 

I just came in to say that a "Maverick" isn't a truck, a Dodge Charger has 2 doors, a Mustang is a 2 door coupe, fastback or convertible.  Now get off my lawn.

In reply to maj75 (Forum Supporter) :

... and real Jeeps were always 2 door.  Now, since offering a 4 door Jeep Wrangler, something like 80% sold are 4 door. 

I think the same would happen if Mustang and Camaro were also offered as 4 door. 

In reply to John Welsh :

The Challenger was offered as a 4 door. It's called a Charger. You still see a lot of Challengers.  A lot of people had to ask for a 2 door Charger before the Challenger came out. At one point Dodge said it wasn't going to happen. 

AaronT said:

LanEvo said:

So, it's:

• unibody
• FWD
• 4-cylinder
• 4.5' bed
• tow rating of just 2k lbs.

Doesn't sound like a functional truck to me. How is this more useful than, say, a RAV4?

I could figure out a way to fit a kart in the bed. 
I could toss firewood in the bed.

I could fit mountain bikes or kayaks in the bed.

 

Forget the Maverick. I'm waiting for the Tesla Truck, complete with ramp to haul anything I want.  

If the gap from 4 door Wrangler to 2 door Wrangler is 20% I'll bet that it is even a smaller percentage of Chargers to Challengers. 

In reply to John Welsh :

And I still won't buy a four door Mustang. 

I'm not suggesting that you have to buy the 4dr, just that you could,like the Wrangler. 

John Welsh said:

I'm not suggesting that you have to buy the 4dr, just that you could,like the Wrangler. 

My XJ Cherokee is a much more attractive 4 door. 

Forget about the Maverick Pickup....

Just put this on an S-550 chassis and call it a day. 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

 

Forget the Maverick. I'm waiting for the Tesla Truck, complete with ramp to haul anything I want.  

Apples and oranges. The cybertruck is a massive thing. Costs a couple of dollars more also.

maj75 (Forum Supporter) said:

I just came in to say that a "Maverick" isn't a truck, a Dodge Charger has 2 doors, a Mustang is a 2 door coupe, fastback or convertible.  Now get off my lawn.

I get it.  But I kind of still want this new misnamed Maverick. 

Courier was probably the right name from past history but naming after a job or task probably pigion holes this broad category vehicle.   Also, the history with that name is not really that strong.  

Ranchero may be fitting too but the purists would go crazy.  

Being derived from the Bronco Sport, I'm somewhat surprised it was not given a Bronco-something name.  It seems that they want Bronco to be sub-brand.  But, I think they want Bronco to be a tougher, more stout brand.   Seems that the Sport was a necessary "volume model" even if it is a little "soft".  Adding another "soft" vehicle wouldn't aid the "hard-core " reputation they want for Bronco. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

 

Forget the Maverick. I'm waiting for the Tesla Truck, complete with ramp to haul anything I want.  

Apples and oranges. The cybertruck is a massive thing. Costs a couple of dollars more also.

I'm looking for oranges, not apples. I want to haul dirt bikes. The Tesla has a ramp. Nothing Ford makes has a ramp like that. Not even the bigger, more expensive Rangers and F 150s. All of these trucks are taller than the Tesla and most older trucks ever made and harder to load motorcycles into. I also like the styling better. The Maverick is just a downsized F 150 that looks a lot like the new Silverado and so on. The Tesla is an original design.

11GTCS said:

In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :

Based on real world experience with an AWD 1.6 EB Escape, I’m guessing 20 ish city and upper 20’s (let’s say 28) highway and 25 combined for the 2.0 EB in the Maverick.   The company Escape is averaging close to 31 for the last 10K but then it’s mostly highway and we haven’t had real traffic in over a year.    That’s driving with traffic at 70-75.

That's pretty good, thanks.

Most of my driving is highway so maybe the gas engine is a better option anyway. Gets me to 4k towing too which means the Rampage on a dolly is totally doable.

Read an article on motorbiscuit saying fuel economy for 2.0 is 23/31 city / highway.  

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/2022-ford-maverick-stronger-expected/

I may be placing an order soon.

I am not going to pretend I'm even thinking about this, but if it gets anywhere near promised, the Maverick has better city MPG than my Honda CR-Z in real world use.