2025 Maverick refresh and other rumors (from display manager at auto show)

[Mervin the Maverick]

Regardless of what the Display guy said, I seriously doubt that Ford will do a Hybrid Four-Wheel Drive. The weight it would add would effect the fuel economy, and Ford NEEDS the higher fuel economy to deal with CAFE and Biden.

Sponsored

 

[bgn]

One of the display folks at the Seattle Auto Show told me that I'd be waiting a year to get my Maverick in a very strange tone. This was in November of 2021.

I got it a month later.

These folks are not some Ford insiders.

 

[eRock92]

** Of course, this is my speculation as my engineering degree is in civil, not mechanical or automotives in the slightest. **


I think people are forgetting that the Maverick is a unibody design. In order for Ford to make a double or single cab Maverick, there would have to be significant changes to the C2 platform. The CrewCab and 4.5-ft bed combo allowed Ford to make the Maverick without the windsail connection that we've seen on the Chevy Avalanche, Honda Ridgeline, and Hyundai Santa Cruz. I bet that the Maverick is already pushing the C2 platform to its limits as it is considering how long it is and the fact it has no rear pillar to support the back end unlike the CUVs and sedans that platform already supports. If the bed is any bigger, I suspect there would be significant stresses on the frame where the cabin and bed meet. This would end up requiring a rather large "sail" to transfer the load, probably an even bigger sail if the cab gets any smaller.

I think the double/single cab folks are better of hoping for a single cab Ranger as the body-on-frame construction allows that much more easily than the unibody construction. If Ford did attempt this with the Maverick, it would probably require a whole new platform thus additional research and engineering, thus driving up the cost. Remember, the Maverick was described as a "white space" vehicle in that stakeholder meeting leak from several years ago. In order to nickel-and-dime us consumers, they probably built the Maverick with as few major adjustments to the C2 platform as possible to maximize the profit from it.

 

[rmay635703]

Yea extended cab is not going to happen. The uni body platform doesn't allow for it. But the Ranger platform in on a frame and is shared with another framed vehicle.

Booyah , you'll need to get a wrecked one.

Definitely has happened, just not the Maverick

https://jalopnik.com/2024-ford-rang...tm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=facebook

 

[thev8man]

Definitely has happened, just not the Maverick

https://jalopnik.com/2024-ford-rang...tm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=facebook

Booyah
Two things
That's still on a frame, and that's is the world's F150. The Maverick isn't even close to being available fully here.

I wish you the best

 

[Maverickman74]

** Of course, this is my speculation as my engineering degree is in civil, not mechanical or automotives in the slightest. **


I think people are forgetting that the Maverick is a unibody design. In order for Ford to make a double or single cab Maverick, there would have to be significant changes to the C2 platform. The CrewCab and 4.5-ft bed combo allowed Ford to make the Maverick without the windsail connection that we've seen on the Chevy Avalanche, Honda Ridgeline, and Hyundai Santa Cruz. I bet that the Maverick is already pushing the C2 platform to its limits as it is considering how long it is and the fact it has no rear pillar to support the back end unlike the CUVs and sedans that platform already supports. If the bed is any bigger, I suspect there would be significant stresses on the frame where the cabin and bed meet. This would end up requiring a rather large "sail" to transfer the load, probably an even bigger sail if the cab gets any smaller.

I think the double/single cab folks are better of hoping for a single cab Ranger as the body-on-frame construction allows that much more easily than the unibody construction. If Ford did attempt this with the Maverick, it would probably require a whole new platform thus additional research and engineering, thus driving up the cost. Remember, the Maverick was described as a "white space" vehicle in that stakeholder meeting leak from several years ago. In order to nickel-and-dime us consumers, they probably built the Maverick with as few major adjustments to the C2 platform as possible to maximize the profit from it.

I dont buy the unibody strength claims. While yes it would obviously drive up cost. Jeep figured this out a long time ago. With the XJ based MJ Comanche they simply followed the existing rear lower structures and stampings and layered up more sheet metal on it until it was sgnificant enough for cross bracing and shaping into a rear "frame". I know safety standards have changed in 40 years but the Comanche chassis was capable of hauling 2200lbs and towing 5000lbs. A move like this with a increased tow rating would really make sense in sales absolutely locking down the small fleet truck market. Weight wouldnt increase much given the rear upper portion of the cab would be replaced by the added rear strength.

Regular cab, 6ft bed, 1700lb payload, and 5000lb tow rating would be the ideal truck for every small company in the landscaping, farm supply, roadside assistance, parts store, subcontractor, roofing, handyman, pool service, on and on and on. It would also make a fun truck for old retired folks and you single peoples first truck.

It also provides Ford an opportunity to remedy the ease of which the rear frame portion fold up from small accidents.

 

[OneAlienBoi]

there would be very low retail sales of a supercab and even as long as a 5.5' bed.

but I would bet fleet sales could be huge. little need for the rear seats in trades or almost any business use except ride-sharing.

But is it worth investing hundreds of millions of dollars more into developing a model to appeal to fleets? Keep in mind, that would be Ford investing hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in making their product less profitable, assuming an even more bare bones two door maverick was created to undercut the current price.

I just don't really see the business case if I'm being honest. The maverick is basically outselling everything that isn't a full sized truck, even outselling the Tacoma, it's doing great. No need to change what isn't broken.

 

[Grabber Rick]

Yea extended cab is not going to happen. The uni body platform doesn't allow for it. But the Ranger platform in on a frame and is shared with another framed vehicle.

Booyah , you'll need to get a wrecked one.

They cold make the front of the bed fold down like the avalanche. They could beef up the rear of the cab. Having a pass through design would be nice.

 

[colinl]

But is it worth investing hundreds of millions of dollars more into developing a model to appeal to fleets?

No. But luckily, no, it's not hundreds of millions to develop a supercab or even 2 door maverick with a longer bed.

I am not in the industry but if we're all tossing out wild guesses I would say more like 5 to 10 million. Bet there's a way to guess at that from Ford's sec 10k filings.

 

[MavJet]

Regardless of what the Display guy said, I seriously doubt that Ford will do a Hybrid Four-Wheel Drive. The weight it would add would effect the fuel economy, and Ford NEEDS the higher fuel economy to deal with CAFE and Biden.

There is no way Ford will build a 4 wheel drive hybrid Version. They would need to take out the CVT transmission. It’s not strong enough. (Personally I can’t stand the CVT) The 8 speed is needed for the 4 wheel drive. This would put the fuel economy up to the eco Boost. No value.

 

[Darnon]

There is no way Ford will build a 4 wheel drive hybrid Version. They would need to take out the CVT transmission. It’s not strong enough. (Personally I can’t stand the CVT) The 8 speed is needed for the 4 wheel drive. This would put the fuel economy up to the eco Boost. No value.

Ford has been using the same CVT transmission for years with AWD in the Escape Hybrid and is rated at the same MPG as the FWD version.

 

[Mvrck]

Regardless of what the Display guy said, I seriously doubt that Ford will do a Hybrid Four-Wheel Drive. The weight it would add would effect the fuel economy, and Ford NEEDS the higher fuel economy to deal with CAFE and Biden.

It only adds about 200 pounds total in production so not very much weight. The 2025 Maverick hybrid awd powertrain is already being sold in for Europe vehicles and gets excellent fuel economy in the euro tests

 

[Scott Asheville]

https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe_pic/home

** Of course, this is my speculation as my engineering degree is in civil, not mechanical or automotives in the slightest. **


I think people are forgetting that the Maverick is a unibody design. In order for Ford to make a double or single cab Maverick, there would have to be significant changes to the C2 platform. The CrewCab and 4.5-ft bed combo allowed Ford to make the Maverick without the windsail connection that we've seen on the Chevy Avalanche, Honda Ridgeline, and Hyundai Santa Cruz. I bet that the Maverick is already pushing the C2 platform to its limits as it is considering how long it is and the fact it has no rear pillar to support the back end unlike the CUVs and sedans that platform already supports. If the bed is any bigger, I suspect there would be significant stresses on the frame where the cabin and bed meet. This would end up requiring a rather large "sail" to transfer the load, probably an even bigger sail if the cab gets any smaller.

I think the double/single cab folks are better of hoping for a single cab Ranger as the body-on-frame construction allows that much more easily than the unibody construction. If Ford did attempt this with the Maverick, it would probably require a whole new platform thus additional research and engineering, thus driving up the cost. Remember, the Maverick was described as a "white space" vehicle in that stakeholder meeting leak from several years ago. In order to nickel-and-dime us consumers, they probably built the Maverick with as few major adjustments to the C2 platform as possible to maximize the profit from it.

I want a single cab truck that's smaller than the Maverick, but I also don't expect to get it on the Ford C2 platform, because I doubt it would make economic sense for Ford. Also CAFE rules dis-incentivize OEMs from making smaller trucks (typical government perverse incentives). So I don't think a smaller truck will be ICE (or even hybrid).

I do hope we'll see a BEV truck in the next few years that's smaller than the Maverick. Ford has hinted at one just yesterday. Toyota has hinted at one. Canoo has one in evaluation by the Army, but they might not even be in business next week. A company called "TELO Truck" has a mule, but I'm dubious they'll be in business tomorrow morning. Still, hope springs eternal.

 

[eRock92]

https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe_pic/home


I want a single cab truck that's smaller than the Maverick, but I also don't expect to get it on the Ford C2 platform, because I doubt it would make economic sense for Ford. Also CAFE rules dis-incentivize OEMs from making smaller trucks (typical government perverse incentives). So I don't think a smaller truck will be ICE (or even hybrid).

I do hope we'll see a BEV truck in the next few years that's smaller than the Maverick. Ford has hinted at one just yesterday. Toyota has hinted at one. Canoo has one in evaluation by the Army, but they might not even be in business next week. A company called "TELO Truck" has a mule, but I'm dubious they'll be in business tomorrow morning. Still, hope springs eternal.

I think you have the right perspective. Current BEV technology seems to require the batteries to be mounted in a frame. IIRC, almost all current BEV are a cab on top of a battery/motor "frame" (and if I'm wrong, please correct me). A small single cab truck for property and/or local driving would be very beneficial to many industries, especially ones that have the means to have a charging station to plug their vehicle(s) back in at the end of the day thus negating the need for a huge battery.

 

[eRock92]

I dont buy the unibody strength claims. While yes it would obviously drive up cost. Jeep figured this out a long time ago. With the XJ based MJ Comanche they simply followed the existing rear lower structures and stampings and layered up more sheet metal on it until it was sgnificant enough for cross bracing and shaping into a rear "frame". I know safety standards have changed in 40 years but the Comanche chassis was capable of hauling 2200lbs and towing 5000lbs. A move like this with a increased tow rating would really make sense in sales absolutely locking down the small fleet truck market. Weight wouldnt increase much given the rear upper portion of the cab would be replaced by the added rear strength.

Regular cab, 6ft bed, 1700lb payload, and 5000lb tow rating would be the ideal truck for every small company in the landscaping, farm supply, roadside assistance, parts store, subcontractor, roofing, handyman, pool service, on and on and on. It would also make a fun truck for old retired folks and you single peoples first truck.

It also provides Ford an opportunity to remedy the ease of which the rear frame portion fold up from small accidents.

I highly doubt the Comanche model would work either of the CAFE or safety standards of today. I don't think the weight of the reinforced frame would help fuel efficiency (the main goal of the Maverick) nor with crash crumple zones for safety standards. Also, I think you're over simplifying the Comanche's frame a little bit as my Google search is showing it was more of a hybrid between a BOF and the Cherokee's unibody construction. Plus, the XJ Cherokee that the Comanche was based off of was designed as an off-road vehicle. Ford's C2 is not an off-road platform; that's why people have called the Bronco Sport a "soft roader" as it's literally just a boxy Escape with a shorter wheelbase and a dual clutch transmission.

I will say this: if Ford did try a Comanche model, it would have to be 1) on a new platform 2) support a hybrid powertrain for CAFE standards, and 3) be shared with the (recently retired in the US) Transit Connect van. This way, the two commercial purposes of the platform can sustain each other. However with the amount of fleet Mavericks that are around the country and the Transit Connect being recently discontinued in the US, I still think you are better off hoping for the SCAB long-bed Ranger coming to the US as the SCAB variant already exists in other parts of the world.

Sponsored