The only mistake that Ford made on the Maverick is -

[Turtle]

THAT IS TOTAL HORSE HOCKEY… Do you sincerely believe that? That would mean every entity pushing to electrify the world had not considered the ramifications of the efforts. Know one is that shorts sighted, especially the government…

Guess you have never lived in a big city. As a child many, many years ago i spent many an evening spending 30 minutes just looking for a parking spot and now i would have to find one with a charger. I am not talking about fleet owners like taxis with their own garage. I am talking about the guy that has to park on the street and get up and move the car before 4am because of alternate side of the street regulations or no parking from 6am to 6pm. Now that i am old i have a home in the outer burbs with a 4 car garage. - funny how life changes but you can’t forget that many people are not so lucky. As far as the federal government - yes they will take care of the interstates but not the inner cities and local governments dont have the resources.

Sponsored

 

[BMCGC]

Decayed, I think you are missing my point, also I did not expand on my perspective to keep the post short.

Our situation is not uncommon, but does not represent a majority of vehicle owners in America.

We bought our home in a location where nearly all of our needs are with-in 10 miles of the house.

Owning an EV with a 50 mile range will satisfy our daily needs, my wife still works, I am retired.

A hybrid as a second vehicle will do everything else.

My wife's car gets about 5,000 miles of use a year, that can easily be replaced with an EV.

For all the hype about going green, one of the best solutions is to figure out a way to drive less miles a year without negatively impacting your life. that's what we did and it is working well for us.

 

[BMCGC]

The points some of you make are all valid and is exactly the reason why one shoe does not fit all.

With a few exceptions, we have failed miserably in our inner cities providing safe, economical and convenient transportation to the masses.

EV's are not the only solution but are a part of the solution.

 

[901Kenobi]

Your thought process is reasonable. However, Ford Has made the commitment to “de incentivize “ IC engines. Just look at the new plants announced in Memphis and Louisville. IMO, ICE will be a specific use engine in the not to distant future.

Hello from Memphis... Blue Oval City is about to usurp the local labor market more so than Amazon. Mechatronicians like myself are already in big demand.

 

[Platinum2]

.......IMO the ecoboost model is kind of a waste because ford already offers the ranger which is a little bigger but still comes with a 4 cylinder ecoboost. Worst still is optioning a maverick for the 4k tow package to tow stuff. The price of all the options puts you very close to the rangers price which can tow 7500lb if I remember right.

To compare a Ranger favorably to the Maverick, one would have to, at minimum, spec an XL 4x4 Crew Cab Ranger with the tow package. That is a $33.6K truck.

A Maverick XL with AWD, Crew Cab, and tow package rings in at $25.5K.

That's an $8100 difference. What do you get for the extra cash? Larger footprint, slightly larger box, slightly stronger engine, more tow capacity than a Maverick prospect would want, and a smaller interior. All built on an archaic platform with worse fuel efficiency. No thanks. YMMV.

 

[Turtle]

The points some of you make are all valid and is exactly the reason why one shoe does not fit all.

With a few exceptions, we have failed miserably in our inner cities providing safe, economical and convenient transportation to the masses.

EV's are not the only solution but are a part of the solution.

New York has the greatest mass transit system in the world but sometimes you still need a car and they are invaded every morning with cars from th burbs. Most of them cannot afford to live in the city even those that would want too. Enough on this subject i enjoyed and respect your opinion.

 

[BMCGC]

All built on an archaic platform with worse fuel efficiency. No thanks. YMMV.

I sure wouldn't describe the Ranger as an "archaic platform."

it's quite sophisticated and well tuned.

I don't see the Ranger or Maverick as a true off road vehicle. I see them as vehicles with off road capability, the Ranger having the edge as more capable. The same as tow platforms, both have limited towing capabilities. If towing anywhere near their max capability on a regular basis, I see a F150 or Super Duty as a better choice.

 

[Platinum2]

I sure wouldn't describe the Ranger as an "archaic platform."

it's quite sophisticated and well tuned.

I don't see the Ranger or Maverick as a true off road vehicle. I see them as vehicles with off road capability, the Ranger having the edge as more capable. The same as tow platforms, both have limited towing capabilities. If towing anywhere near their max capability on a regular basis, I see a F150 or Super Duty as a better choice.

You might not consider it archaic, but the current Ranger platform dates to 2010. In the automotive world, it's a dinosaur. It is also not sophisticated nor well-tuned by today's standards for the same reason. In fact, many reviews report experiencing poor ride/comfort including squishy, bouncy ride, etc. I think it was Edmunds that noted this in particular. However, I suppose there are others who think it rides great. It's interior is also smaller than the Maverick, another result of its dated design and less efficient packaging.

Lastly, this thread is titled "The only mistake that Ford made on the Maverick is -" and I don't believe there are many here who believe that Ford dropped the ball by not making it a "true off road vehicle," whatever that is. Additionally, I don't think anyone looking at towing 4000 lbs with any sort of consistency is looking at a Maverick. But, I think for a Maverick owner who encounters the need to tow a relatively heavy load (2 tons) once in a great while, Maverick will not disappoint. I'm not sure what your post is trying to communicate relative to the topic of the thread.

 

[Delzona]

Oddly enough, after seeing the Maverick and Santa Cruz in person, the Santa Cruz is more substantial.
Its roof, hood, and bed height are taller, making it seem bigger. (No lie. On paper they look similar, but the Maverick’s height numbers are not true)
The bed didn’t seem any smaller than maverick (maybe even felt larger due to its shape).

As to the Santa Cruz not being a truck: If it isn’t, then the Maverick isn’t either.
Both are vehicles with beds built off of SUV platforms with similar payload and somewhat similar towing abilities.

I still am curious about my Maverick build, but have to admit I like the overall larger size and height of the Santa Cruz. If only both had hybrids.

Uhmm, the Santa Crud isn't a truck, Hyundai doesn't even call it a truck, they call it a Sports Adventure Vehicle

 

[BMCGC]

My point is that what many see as a shortcoming in a Maverick or Ranger are people who want it to be something that Ford did not intend it to be.

An AWD Maverick is not an off road vehicle and a FX4 Maverick has limited off road capability.

The Maverick has limited towing capability.

I see many comments over multiple threads about off road and towing. If you have a need for either of those capabilities beyond what the Maverick provides you have three choices:

Live with it.
Modify the Maverick.
Step up to a more capable platform.

Lastly, is it a mistake that Ford did not design the Maverick with every possible option and capability that potential buyers want?

 

[Akuma72387]

Ya I use to own a 1995 Ranger that had I think 100hp but I still don't think I'll ever find a car as slow as the old 3cyl geo metro my grandfather had. Topped out around 50mph and you needed to be to the floor to make it up some of the hills. But as far as hybrids go not really my preference but I do wish that I had the sport mode in my maverick but I got the fx4 with 4k package so no sport or eco mode. That being said averaging almost the mpg I am without eco mode is pretty good so I wouldn't be surprised if someone the other people without the offroad pack see higher number than mine

 

[MimiE]

What?
Why would they do that? The reason for the maverick is to fill the EPA mileage fuel average for the brand and to do that they needed big MPG numbers for base model vehicles. They no longer make cars besides the mustang which means its all big suvs and trucks. CAFE standards are a thing and is a big reason why the maverick even exists

Also if this opinion is based on the fact that the ecoboost is available on lots but the hybrid is not clearly shows the demand is for the hybrid drivetrain. People want a small truck with good fuel economy at an affordable price. IMO the ecoboost model is kind of a waste because ford already offers the ranger which is a little bigger but still comes with a 4 cylinder ecoboost. Worst still is optioning a maverick for the 4k tow package to tow stuff. The price of all the options puts you very close to the rangers price which can tow 7500lb if I remember right.

The reason hybrids aren't on lots is that they can't sell them yet.

 

[Pizzacat_69420]

I sure wouldn't describe the Ranger as an "archaic platform."

it's quite sophisticated and well tuned.

I don't see the Ranger or Maverick as a true off road vehicle. I see them as vehicles with off road capability, the Ranger having the edge as more capable. The same as tow platforms, both have limited towing capabilities. If towing anywhere near their max capability on a regular basis, I see a F150 or Super Duty as a better choice.

You might not consider it archaic, but the current Ranger platform dates to 2010. In the automotive world, it's a dinosaur. It is also not sophisticated nor well-tuned by today's standards for the same reason. In fact, many reviews report experiencing poor ride/comfort including squishy, bouncy ride, etc. I think it was Edmunds that noted this in particular. However, I suppose there are others who think it rides great. It's interior is also smaller than the Maverick, another result of its dated design and less efficient packaging.

Lastly, this thread is titled "The only mistake that Ford made on the Maverick is -" and I don't believe there are many here who believe that Ford dropped the ball by not making it a "true off road vehicle," whatever that is. Additionally, I don't think anyone looking at towing 4000 lbs with any sort of consistency is looking at a Maverick. But, I think for a Maverick owner who encounters the need to tow a relatively heavy load (2 tons) once in a great while, Maverick will not disappoint. I'm not sure what your post is trying to communicate relative to the topic of the thread.

I wouldn't consider anything if if hasn't been refreshed within the last 3 years.

 

[IPunchCholla]

In 1900 how far did people live from work?

I'm guessing no further than one could walk, ride a bicycle, ride a horse, or take a street car.

Now some people commute as much as 100 miles one way. The average commute is 17 miles one way.

In the future, perhaps people will live closer to work and not require as much energy for commuting.

An EV with even a 50 mile range will be more than enough for many commuters and not require a charge to return home. I could generate enough solar on my roof to power my house and keep two EV's charged year round.

We have a 2014 Leaf. It gets about 70-80 miles of range. It is our city car. We never really drain it below half way. Even just charging it off of 110 would only take about 3-4 hours a day. I installed a level 2 charger and it charges to full in 2.5 hours from empty. Charge has never been a problem in the two years I've owned it. Plus, I get free parking at work if I'm charging. There are a number of 200 mile range cars at around 30k after taxes (which is what I am paying for my Lariat Lux.) if the average commute is 17 miles, then, even if you are doubling that on a daily basis, you should only have to charge every three days. I live in a electric vehicle hostile state, and it would be no problem to find charges, mostly free, to plug my vehicle into while shopping for groceries.

We have a the Leaf and an E150. It isn't my vehicle and the wife's vehicle, its the vehicle for the job. The van is for going long distances and moving big things. The Leaf is for everything else. Needless to say the Leaf gets driven far more than the van.

But we buy vehicles on marginal use case. And the manufacturers have gotten very good at convincing us we will need those marginal uses far more than we actually will. AWD is a great example. Many people need it, no doubt, but many more buy it because they may need it once or twice a year. In the Maverick's case AWD will cost about 8k more over 5 years if half your driving is on the freeway. So about $800 each time people use it.

The marginal use case that has me going for the maverick over an electric sedan? I DH mountain bike in Angel Fire about 12 times a year. It is around 180 miles from my house to AF. The closest charging in AF right now is Wagon Wheel, about 60 mile away. If I got the Lightning (base) I couldn't drive to AF, drive up to the National Forest to camp, back to AF, back to NF, back to AF back to home without having to drive 120 miles to recharge. 300 miles of range would do it, but the vehicles I am willing to buy that can do that range would take too big a hit in range carrying two bikes or cost too much and wouldn't be able to do a rooftop tent, drive down some rough two-track, etc. So the Maverick fits the bill pretty good.

Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh, yeah. The only mistake ford made was not to get me my maverick yesterday.

 

[BMCGC]

I would think that that NM would be a EV friendly state, especially in the Albuquerque area.

I surfed used Leafs for sale, seems an 8 year old car runs about 14-15k on Carvana or Carmax.

I would like an EV, but we only fill the Accord up every 3-4 weeks so it makes better financial sense to keep what we have.

Sponsored