Also the hybrid system comes with the CVT which also might not like towing. Whereas the EcoBoost has the 8-speed slushbox.
Also the hybrid system comes with the CVT which also might not like towing. Whereas the EcoBoost has the 8-speed slushbox.
I wonder if they can get the electric motor from the f150 lightening in there.
The Maverick uses dual motors inside the transmission.
Lightning is a big beefy electric direct drive. Not much similarity at all.
That said, if they do a full EV, that could be cool.
Personally, I want to see the Hybrid with an AWD rear suspension and an EV motor on the diff. Even if its only 20% power to the rear, it just needs to be enough to keep you from getting stuck, help pull a boat up a ramp, etc.
Demuro has a video on it if it hasn't already been posted
16 pages and counting! Wow.
If the level of interest on GRM is any indication, Ford has a hot seller on their hands.
It's my longest started thread ever! Thanks FoMoCo!
yupididit said:I wonder if they can get the electric motor from the f150 lightening in there.
They could call it the Lightning Lightning!
In reply to Mr_Asa :
So it is longer and slightly wider than a late sixties full size pickup. How far we have come.
I wonder why it wasn't badged "Courier".
OHSCrifle said:I wonder why it wasn't badged "Courier".
If it doesn't come with the Top Gun album stored somewhere in the infotainment system as an easter egg, Ford really missed an opportunity there.
In reply to barefootskater (Shaun) :
Is it wrong of me to want to drown this guy after the first five minutes?
DeadSkunk (Warren) said:In reply to barefootskater (Shaun) :
Is it wrong of me to want to drown this guy after the first five minutes?
Yes. How did you make it through 5 minutes of that?
Sorry. I know he can be annoying. Mostly I watched a few minutes to get a size reference, since I've seen him review so many other cars.
It looks like Ford left the Maverick off of the Maverick.
In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
It took you 5 ? I was ready at 3:17...all that head bobbing and hand waving and sing song voice effects
Doug is unique, but he's found a niche that works for him. I don't mind him.
I'm used to his Jay-Leno-on-Ritalin delivery by now.
I'm starting to get a sense that the 2020s are going to have a bit more of their own identity in contrast to the 2010s -- which were more like the 2000s Jr. And this truck is a part of it. Look at that multi-hued interior for example. Right around 2000 everything with interiors went to grayscale and stayed there except on high-end luxury models. I count at least 6 hues in the blue truck's interior.
I've done construction now for decades and the Maverick is pretty interesting really.
The work fleet for a long time has been a 1 ton full sized extended van, a 1/2ton extended van and the biggest Ranger they made in 91. The ranger with a rack is very very very handy because it's not 9 feet off the ground, it's at basically eye level which means if I'm taking rebar off the rack 2 people can take it off from the front and back together, it's amazingly handy. The ranger doesn't get great MPG ( I get 23mpg from mine) but it's better than the work Vans by roughly double. I can also fit it in much smaller places than the Vans which is handy on the job site. Smaller trucks make a lot of sense if you aren't towing. I don't tow, I don't do foundations much anymore and taking a multi hundred pound compactor out of a truck bed is much easier when it's below waist height than at shoulder height, loading it is much more so too.
Im not a fan of the Ridgeline, but the smaller, cheaper, much more MPG Maverick really holds my interest.
russde said:In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
It took you 5 ? I was ready at 3:17...all that head bobbing and hand waving and sing song voice effects
At least it isn't Donut Media click-bait shouty.
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.
Reported. This post violates community standards - personal attack
Got the phone call this morning. Looks like I start the new job soon. After a year of training I will be looking at moving and a fairly long commute. It sounds like I will be ordering a Maverick pretty soon. It solves a lot of problems for fuel mileage space, and can still do some lightish truck things which is good for me. I need to go drive a family friends Bronco Sport soon to see if I can live with the 2.0 ecoboost. I loathe overly slow vehicles. I wonder how long these are going to take to deliver.
Just took a road in central California. There were so many immaculate Ford F-150 quad cabs, you'd think that there was a convention. Here's the thing: I don't recall seeing a single one with any sign of being used for work. They were glorified station wagons.
gumby said: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.
Reported. This post violates community standards - personal attack
Your 1994 Buick is too slow for safe onramp merges and has sketchy brakes BEFORE you hook up that 5k trailer.
Actually, now that I think about it, as long as the trailer has brakes, it probably improves the stopping distance overall...
Was thinking more about the maverick's competition while on a drive. The Transit Connect/Nissan NV200 are the obvious competition from a business standpoint, but from a personal use standpoint, it's way wider. And based on MSRP numbers, it makes the Maverick look pretty good. I'm ignoring used cars and only considering new cars right now, though I suspect midsized and full sized used crew cabs are going to be a part of what it is compared against. I'm guessing this will end up pulling people out of subcompact/compact CUVs, as it is still practical, but more "manly".
Subcompacts:
*I know these two tend to have thousands in discounts, even now, so they will come out way cheaper than the Maverick, despite the higher MSRP.
Compacts:
So, the Maverick is in the price range of typical subcompact CUVs, and way cheaper than all the compact SUVs, except the Trailblazer. I'm not going to take the time to try to set the comparison up feature for feature, but I will operate under the assumption that most of the compact CUVs are more well equipped than a base Maverick, so it is probably better to compare to the XLT, which at $22,280 is still cheaper. I expect this will be enough to attract a lot of people away from CUVs, as long as they don't mind driving a larger vehicle.
You'll need to log in to post.
