I'm just glad the Maverick is going to have a sliding rear window...
Sponsored
From these images, I'd guess the Maverick will be about ~197 to 200 in, with my guess being closer to the latter. The Bronco is 172.7 in. The Ranger is 210.8. Doing some pixel measuring, it seems like the Maverick is about .935 of the ranger and 1.158 of the Bronco Sport. Obviously the images aren't perfectly aligned (esp. the Ranger image) and it's unclear whether the Maverick has it's final bumper, etc., but I think that it's a close guess and it would make sense.Bronco Sport over Maverick Testing Mule
Maverick Testing Mule in front of Ranger
This would be ideal for me. For the second row, would you expect the leg and head space to be similar to the Bronco Sport?From these images, I'd guess the Maverick will be about ~197 to 200 in, with my guess being closer to the latter. The Bronco is 172.7 in. The Ranger is 210.8. Doing some pixel measuring, it seems like the Maverick is about .935 of the ranger and 1.158 of the Bronco Sport. Obviously the images aren't perfectly aligned (esp. the Ranger image) and it's unclear whether the Maverick has it's final bumper, etc., but I think that it's a close guess and it would make sense.
The Bronco Sport has a cargo space length of 33 in behind the rear seats and a width of 41.5 in between the wheel wells, so if this is 26 inches longer, I'd expect maybe a 4.5 ft bed.
That was my assumption, but I was just going by leaked exterior photos so who knows if it's an accurate assumption.This would be ideal for me. For the second row, would you expect the leg and head space to be similar to the Bronco Sport?
Not to revive an old thread, but had to give you kudos for your incredibly accurate guesses!From these images, I'd guess the Maverick will be about ~197 to 200 in, with my guess being closer to the latter...... I'd expect maybe a 4.5 ft bed.
A couple of bolts probably. I've had all the seats out of my explorer for cleaning. It was simple. On the mav you can't remove the under seat storage bins and it's not clear how much room you would gain. OTOH you may be able to use the seat fasteners on a piece of plywood to cover them up. You could even cover the plywood with some kind of upholstery appropriate for basset hound.Having a "no rear seat" would be great. Only thing going back there are grocery bags or Basset Hounds. If not an option, I wonder how hard it would be to remove the seat.
I am also a smaller car owner. I’ve had 2 focus and drive a 1997 ranger and I’m 6’6” and 340 lbs and I have plenty of head and leg room in the maverick. Even in the back seat if I am behind myself.Never under estimate the interior size of smaller vehicles. I've been an econobox owner since 1989, with Ford Festivas, Scion Xb 1st Gen., and Nissan Cubes. At 6 ft and at least 250# the small cars offered more head and leg room for me that most SUV and larger cars that I tried. I assume that the crewcab on the Maverck will allow me to move the front seat far enough for leg room, like my extended cab older Ranger does.
Is the upright seats and higher floor that gives it more room. Agreed that the backseat is much roomier than it looksI am also a smaller car owner. I’ve had 2 focus and drive a 1997 ranger and I’m 6’6” and 340 lbs and I have plenty of head and leg room in the maverick. Even in the back seat if I am behind myself.