Ford Maverick discussion

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 75 comments
  • 10,584 views
40mpg city is very impressive. 500 mile range is impressive. Are there any other non-diesel trucks that can even hit 30mpg city or highway? The Santa Cruz does 27 highway and the Ridgeline does 24 highway. I'm guessing that the Maverick's highway economy numbers are more down to earth (maybe 25-27?) but this thing should be a compelling alternative to something like a Honda Civic for people living in medium to high density areas that like to "get away" on the weekends. I can see this being a very popular vehicle in coastal CA and Portland and Austin etc - basically anywhere you have city-dwelling active lifestylers.
So apparently my prediction was pretty close - The Maverick is up over 100,000 pre-orders with the majority of those coming from CA, TX, and FL. Apparently LA & SF have a notable amount of those pre-orders. I think this thing could end up being a big deal for Ford - one of it's roughly once-a-decade "aha!" moments (Transit, Mustang, Taurus, Focus etc).
 
That wont happen. The strengths of a monocoque is also its weakness.

In a ladder frame its easy and cheap to make a dual cab, reg. cab, extra cab etc. and drop it on the ladder.

In a monocoque you need complete new structure and Ford doesnt want to do that.

Be that as it may, I think the whole world would love to just have access to the Maverick dual cab.

Personally I like the Ecoboost 2.0 4wd but its such an expensive option on the base.
 
So apparently my prediction was pretty close - The Maverick is up over 100,000 pre-orders with the majority of those coming from CA, TX, and FL. Apparently LA & SF have a notable amount of those pre-orders. I think this thing could end up being a big deal for Ford - one of it's roughly once-a-decade "aha!" moments (Transit, Mustang, Taurus, Focus etc).
Between the Maverick and Bronco Sport, Ford really has their bases covered. They knocked it out of the park. There have been a few missteps for sure, mainly from Covid, but the core ideas are really solid.
 
Last edited:
Between this and the Lightning, Ford is probably going to basically eliminate everyone else out of fleet markets except for the heavy duty applications. Utility companies will eat this thing up when it's pretty the size of the old Ranger.





I'd be surprised if Ford doesn't put together some sort of police spec of it too.
 
Last edited:
I'd be surprised if Ford doesn't put together some sort of police spec of it too.
Well I'd rather my city spend their tax money on electric vehicles than armored ones, that's for sure. And it would likely reduce maintenance and other long-term costs to boot.
 
Last edited:
No real surprise here...Straight Pipes first to review:



I wonder if the paid promotion qualifier is for Ford or for continental tires or their other sponsors.
 
There's been something uncharacteristically un-American about the Maverick that I haven't been able to put my finger on until this article explicitly described it.

According to Ford’s Scott Anderson, Interior Design Manager, one of the key inspirations for the Maverick was the low-cost city cars that have become commonplace in Europe. Not generally exported to North America, compact models from Renault, Peugeot, Citroen and others have turned design on a budget into a fine art. A colorful palette, along with playful shapes and moldings, combine with a ruthless focus on getting maximum value for money.

The language of vehicle luxury is a pretty strange one, shaped in no small part by interpretations of what’s “high end” from decades ago. That’s led to situations where plastic trim is given fake leather texturing and molded stitching; where every screw and fastening has its own little cap to hide it from view; and where seat fabrics try their best to ape leather.

It’s all absent in the Maverick, and the pickup is all the better for it. Ford’s dashboard, door, and center console plastics, for example, don’t try to pretend to be hide. Instead they have geometric surfacing that catches the light in interesting ways, or a more authentically “plastic” texturing that doesn’t try to disguise the underlying material. Recycling isn’t hidden away but made a feature, like the carbon fiber regrind – typically a waste product of manufacturing – blended in to give it a pattern.
It's almost deliberately cheap looking. But not in the traditional (American) way where you are left with a heavily value-engineered version of what was once a premium design in concept, but in a way where the designers were genuinely trying to provide a great and inherently low cost design from the start. The reference to the cheap European cars is perfect.

I really appreciate the truth in materials approach. I really really dislike the abundance of plastic plug concealing trim pieces in interiors. Give us some nice exposed fasteners! I haven't sat in one yet, but from the pictures I've seen, I actually adore the Maverick's interior. By comparison, I can look at the Santa Cruz's interior and think it's somewhat pretty (in fact probably prettier than the Maverick's), but it is pretty damned pretentious.
 
Last edited:
There's been something uncharacteristically un-American about the Maverick that I haven't been able to put my finger on until this article explicitly described it.


It's almost deliberately cheap looking. But not in the traditional (American) way where you are left with a heavily value-engineered version of what was once a premium design in concept, but in a way where the designers were genuinely trying to provide a great and inherently low cost design from the start. The reference to the cheap European cars is perfect.

I really appreciate the truth in materials approach. I really really dislike the abundance of plastic plug concealing trim pieces in interiors. Give us some nice exposed fasteners! I haven't sat in one yet, but from the pictures I've seen, I actually adore the Maverick's interior. By comparison, I can look at the Santa Cruz's interior and think it's somewhat pretty (in fact probably prettier than the Maverick's), but it is pretty damned pretentious.
I can see it. It definitely seems like an idea we've seen in concept cars, the recycled materials and new applications of texture and color, but very rarely in American concept cars. The entire time I've been looking at photos and watching reviews I was totally aware of how basic the interior was but felt like "Yeah, that's decent". Just decent. I'd sit in it. I'd own one, hoping that the new materials and textures are actually durable.
So like a mid 2000s GM interior. Or a mid-1980s GM interior.
Well the point is that those Euro cars and the Maverick's interior are the opposite of those old GM interiors - GM stuck to the idea that cheap materials had to mimic expensive ones whereas the Euro ethos was that cheap materials are great if designed well. GM's approach was defined by an utter lack of "design" from the get-go. The Maverick's interior looks like a ton of design time was spent with a limited palette and the result is actually very thoughtful.

This sort of explains why Europeans tend to have higher expectations for interior "quality" while we Americans couldn't really wrap our heads around it. What were they looking for? How the hell could a hot hatch have a "nicer" interior than a Lincoln? Well, apparently it's because they actually thought about it.
 
GIF by NBA


Okay, can't stop my imagination. So... who will be the first to start swapping engines? What engines? Super Snake 5.2? LS(pick a number)? Rotary? Full EV? Engine in the back?

I can dig it. There are still basic 2wd utes sold here, but no ute culture like 4-5 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Just watched the savagegeese review yesterday (language warning):


The starting price of $19,995 is amazing. You can't complain much about anything after that, except that you probably won't be able to get it at that price any time soon.

I get more excited about these cars/trucks on the cheaper end of the spectrum than anything else these days.
 
Just watched the savagegeese review yesterday (language warning):


The starting price of $19,995 is amazing. You can't complain much about anything after that, except that you probably won't be able to get it at that price any time soon.

I get more excited about these cars/trucks on the cheaper end of the spectrum than anything else these days.

If you compare now to, say 1995, the amount of entry level cars (lets say $18k-$25k adjusted for inflation) and the amount of extremely expensive cars (let's say $250k+) has probably flipped, or in the very least converged. That is to say, there is more choice at the extreme end of the price scale now than there is at the bottom of it. Obviously the volume of sales hasn't flipped, but it does give you an idea of where the money is piling up...Cheap cars are becoming actually rare and I think that makes them kind of interesting.
 
Last edited:
If you compare now to, say 1995, the amount of entry level cars (lets say $18k-$25k adjusted for inflation) and the amount of extremely expensive cars (let's say $250k+) has probably flipped, or in the very least converged. That is to say, there is more choice at the extreme end of the price scale now than there is at the bottom of it. Obviously the volume of sales hasn't flipped, but it does give you an idea of where the money is piling up...Cheap cars are becoming actually rare and I think that makes them kind of interesting.
Yeah it's also interesting to see how much car you can get for the money, and the compromises made or what was prioritized. And they have to work with the increasing safety and other regulations, probably why everything is on a global architecture now.
 
If they develop a Tremor version of this, I'll strongly consider ditching my Toyota and getting one. It can do basically everything my Sequoia can do besides two four jet skis which I don't own and probably never will. It's a better driver, it's more efficient, a Tremor could do all the off-roading I plan to do, it's comfortable, it'll have a warranty. I suppose the only thing I've done in the Sequoia that this can't do is actually carry 7 people on multiple occasions but that's not really a deal breaker. It would be nice to get more than 20 mpg on the highway, especially in full off-road trim. That would actually be such a good all-round package that it would be worth $45 of $50k to me.
 
Last edited:
If they develop a Tremor version of this, I'll strongly consider ditching my Toyota and getting one. It can do basically everything my Sequoia can do besides two four jet skis which I don't own and probably never will. It's a better driver, it's more efficient, a Tremor could do all the off-roading I plan to do, it's comfortable, it'll have a warranty. I suppose the only thing I've done in the Sequoia that this can't do is actually carry 7 people on multiple occasions but that's not really a deal breaker. It would be nice to get more than 20 mpg on the highway, especially in full off-road trim. That would actually be such a good all-round package that it would be worth $45 of $50k to me.
I like that you can kind of read into the Maverick what you want. Lower & tune it and you have a modern day GMC Syclone. Put some rally armor mud flaps on one and you got yourself a mini rally raid truck. Kit it out with a roof rack and you have an Outback/Baja like campsite companion. I really want to test drive one.

I've been strongly considering getting the base hybrid as a way to save money. My commute via bus into SF every day is $13 (yeah, Bay Area for you). That's $260/mo. If I ride my bike, it's free...but that's 26 miles each way. I could drive, but the toll is $7 going into the city and there is nowhere to park for free.

I could, however, get a hybrid Maverick for presumably $160/mo (after a chunky down payment) and then cart my bike to as close to the GGB as I can get and bike into the city from there. That would be roughly 144 miles of driving every month and at 40mpg with ~$4.40/g gas, that's only like ~$16/mo in fuel. Add in some marginal insurance cost and it might honestly be a net return vs taking the bus. So I would be making money to buy a Maverick...if I stuck to the plan every day.
 
@Eunos_Cosmo I have one question about the plan: How does the cost of the truck factor in?
Well, if I could get my hands on a base model and put $10,000 down, my monthly payment on a standard 60 month would be like $160/mo. I mean, I wouldn't do this to strictly to save commute costs, because that would rely on me to be very strict about doing the drive'n'bike every day, which could get tedious. But, I would save money every time I did it, and I would have a cool little truck.
 
But, I would save money every time I did it, and I would have a cool little truck.
Minus $10,000.

If the idea of losing $10,000 to "save money" every month sounds like a decent one, you'd probably save more money by getting a different job and moving to a cheaper part of the country. I mean hell, I could get a job in hawaii and literally live on the beach for free like some locals do. That would save me at least $900 a month in rent.
 
Last edited:
Minus $10,000.

If the idea of losing $10,000 to "save money" every month sounds like a decent one, you'd probably save more money by getting a different job and moving to a cheaper part of the country. I mean hell, I could get a job in hawaii and literally live on the beach for free like some locals do. That would save me at least $900 a month in rent.
Again, I only entertain the idea because I need another vehicle in the first place. Can you please let me self-rationalize in peace?
 
Again, I only entertain the idea because I need another vehicle in the first place. Can you please let me self-rationalize in peace?
Nope. We need your bank details, a spreadsheet of your daily spending, your retirement plans, blood sample and the names of your future grand kids. Just in case you decide to skip town.
 
Again, I only entertain the idea because I need another vehicle in the first place. Can you please let me self-rationalize in peace?
Life's short, buy stuff.

I'd actually consider a Maverick once I move back to Michigan. I feel like I almost have to own a pick-up in northern Michigan and a 250hp AWD small truck sounds like it would be fun on the dirt roads. Plus with a 2,000 tow capacity, I could tow my dad's side-by-side or his boat without any issue, meaning I could borrow them much more frequently. I'd probably consider one more though if Ford made it electric. I like the idea of the F-150 Lightning, but I don't like the idea of a $70k F-150. A $45k Maverick EV would be better, even if the range isn't as far.
 
Life's short, buy stuff.

I'd actually consider a Maverick once I move back to Michigan. I feel like I almost have to own a pick-up in northern Michigan and a 250hp AWD small truck sounds like it would be fun on the dirt roads. Plus with a 2,000 tow capacity, I could tow my dad's side-by-side or his boat without any issue, meaning I could borrow them much more frequently. I'd probably consider one more though if Ford made it electric. I like the idea of the F-150 Lightning, but I don't like the idea of a $70k F-150. A $45k Maverick EV would be better, even if the range isn't as far.
I want somebody reputable to build a cabover EV pickup. Canoo has their concept, but I don't have much faith that Canoo will ever see the light of day. A big hood isn't necessary with an EV, so why not shorten up the wheelbase?

EVify this:
crewcab.png
 
We should all collectively move to hybrids until full EV tech is good enough I think
We would've done that sooner if Toyota and Honda weren't insistent on making hybrids miserable. They not only invented the vehicles, they invented the public's opinion of them. Literally nobody has made Hybrids both accessible and desirable until now, until Ford did. Twenty-five years of lameness until Ford of all companies came along and build a hybrid that people actually want and can use for things other than being

D9ey9MxWsAEdx63.jpg:large
 
Last edited:
I mean Ford did somewhat bring the car to the masses. It should be the company that starts a revolution, no matter how many years. Yes?
 
Back