Is Anyone Else Seeing What I Am Seeing?

[NDL]

I really like the Maverick. I like the simple, low cost, easy to clean and durable looking interior; I like her 200" length; her reasonably narrow body. I like her starting price; I like the utility of the bed, and the underneath storage feature of the rear bench seat. I like that Ford built integrated frame rails under the bed, and I like the Maverick's simple, yet durable, suspension. I had some concerns about the longevity of the base engine, but those concerns have been mitigated.

The thing I cannot get past - on paper, the Maverick has ample ground clearance - but her profile, when you look at the truck, it looks like a crossover, unitbody, SUV. Yes...it has the ground clearance of a truck, but her profile looks low to the ground. Some people might like a low step in height, but I prefer the feel of a higher step in feel of a body on frame truck. The Ranger is a little too costly for me, and the Ranger is simply too long; I won't go the Ranger route. But I cannot get past the "the Maverick looks like an SUV with a low step in height."

Am I alone with my visual impressions?

Sponsored

 

[Amakrida]

I would say, yes. Yes you're alone. But that's not true. I'm sure others feel that way. I just personally disagree and don't think it fits what Ford seems to be trying to do with this truck.

The more I read on here the more I think that people aren't getting the market Ford was aiming to grab. This truck can't be all things to everyone.

Being lower profile and smaller than a 'normal' truck is kinda the whole point of the Maverick.

I think a lot of people just want a Ranger, at a Maverick price. Imo.

 

[BeardedK]

If someone prefers the higher step-in height of a body on frame pickup, then they should buy a body on frame pickup. If someone doesn't like the look of the Maverick then they shouldn't buy the Maverick. I'm not trying to be an ass, but I've seen so many posts, in various places, about things like this and I don't get it.

Ford was pretty upfront about what this truck is and who it's designed for. If I'm going out rock climbing, or for some hard core off-roading, then the Maverick isn't my chariot of choice. In that case I'll take a Ranger/Tacoma/Colorado/F150/etc... If I need something to drive around the city or suburbs, make a trash or home improvement store run, then hands down I'd take the Mav.

This wont be my first truck, and probably won't be my last, and I'm certain it'll handle everything I need from it. I don't need Moab levels of trail running, just something I can drive on a beach (with recovery gear and AT's) from time to time. I don't need to tow a bajillion pounds, just a small utility trailer every now and then. If I have those heavier needs in the future I'll look towards vehicle solutions that can deliver that to me, otherwise I'll be just fine with my little "trucklette" and the gas savings that it can generate me.

 

[balucipher]

I mean, it is a unibody so you don't get the same visual effect of a body sitting on a frame. It also has been designed for "non-truck" people to bring into the truck world as Ford has discontinued sedans.

After seeing photos of them on the road, I get your point, but I think all the pros you mentioned really outweigh the appearance of it looking like a crossover SUV sorta.

 

[DavidS]

Some people might like a low step in height, but I prefer the feel of a higher step in feel of a body on frame truck.

Frankly, those people that are used to sedans and crossover SUVs are exactly who Ford is trying to court with this truck. If you're a truck guy (or gal) they would much prefer for you to shell out the extra money and get a "real" truck. I'm a bit in between the two.

I'm 6'3" and 275 pounds and consider myself a truck guy, although for financial reasons I've never owned a truck. (I did have a 1993 Explorer years ago.) My current car is a 2011 Kia Forte. So even a low slung unibody trucklet is a step in the right direction.

 

[Snax]

I drove a small ‘89 Toyota Pickup for many years, and it was wonderful. The Maverick will fill that void rather well. It’ll tow my small boat, carry my bikes, pick up stuff from Home Depot, etc. The great price sealed the deal. If I could buy a “new” Toyota truck like my old one for the price of a Maverick, would I? Yeah, probably—especially if it had 5 seats. But that’s not EVER going to happen. I’m really exited to receive my Maverick.

 

[kevingcp]

I drive a 2010 Rav4, moving from that to the Maverick seems like the perfect transition into truck ownership for me. I'm single, 30, and don't expect a family any time soon. I live in a bigger city with some offroad trails nearby and near winter weather spots so I went with AWD FX4 package. I expect to own the maverick for at least 4-5 years before I upgrade to a bigger truck.

 

[oljackfrost]

I really like the Maverick. I like the simple, low cost, easy to clean and durable looking interior; I like her 200" length; her reasonably narrow body. I like her starting price; I like the utility of the bed, and the underneath storage feature of the rear bench seat. I like that Ford built integrated frame rails under the bed, and I like the Maverick's simple, yet durable, suspension. I had some concerns about the longevity of the base engine, but those concerns have been mitigated.

The thing I cannot get past - on paper, the Maverick has ample ground clearance - but her profile, when you look at the truck, it looks like a crossover, unitbody, SUV. Yes...it has the ground clearance of a truck, but her profile looks low to the ground. Some people might like a low step in height, but I prefer the feel of a higher step in feel of a body on frame truck. The Ranger is a little too costly for me, and the Ranger is simply too long; I won't go the Ranger route. But I cannot get past the "the Maverick looks like an SUV with a low step in height."

Am I alone with my visual impressions?

Funny, when I first saw the Maverick I was surprised at how “lifted” it looked. Visually more than an older 2WD Ranger. I was elated at the standard 8.3” of ground clearance.

 

[MarcusBrody]

I'm actually just the opposite. I don't like the look of high, body-on-frame vehicles with their differential pumpkin or shock mounts hanging way down below. It seems silly to me to have to deal with the extra height for entry/loading/center of gravity related driving dynamics when the actual ground clearance is being limited by parts that hang much lower.

 

[Hack]

I like the low step height. And, If it's too high, my wife will want a running board. (And I don't.)

 

[L3fty]

I'm actually just the opposite. I don't like the look of high, body-on-frame vehicles with their differential pumpkin or shock mounts hanging way down below. It seems silly to me to have to deal with the extra height for entry/loading/center of gravity related driving dynamics when the actual ground clearance is being limited by parts that hang much lower.

Exactly! The only "lift" method I'm a fan of is adding bigger tires as that actually raises all the things that hang down low. I have the 235/65r17s coming on it and will probably try to squeeze another .5-1" onto the diameter when I replace those in a few years.

 

[theek]

I'm tired of climbing into a truck like I'm climbing a tree.

 

[Big_T]

****It also has been designed for "non-truck" people to bring into the truck world as Ford has discontinued sedans.****

Nailed it.

 

[bgn]

I drive a 2010 Rav4, moving from that to the Maverick seems like the perfect transition into truck ownership for me. I'm single, 30, and don't expect a family any time soon. I live in a bigger city with some offroad trails nearby and near winter weather spots so I went with AWD FX4 package. I expect to own the maverick for at least 4-5 years before I upgrade to a bigger truck.

Are you me? Only difference is I'll be coming from a 2002 Accord.

 

[NDL]

The more I read on here the more I think that people aren't getting the market Ford was aiming to grab. This truck can't be all things to everyone.

Being lower profile and smaller than a 'normal' truck is kinda the whole point of the Maverick.

I think a lot of people just want a Ranger, at a Maverick price. Imo.

Fair point; I would be shopping the Ranger if not for the higher price, but my main complaint about the Ranger is her size. The Ranger is simply too long, and I wish that it were narrower.

If someone prefers the higher step-in height of a body on frame pickup, then they should buy a body on frame pickup. If someone doesn't like the look of the Maverick then they shouldn't buy the Maverick. I'm not trying to be an ass, but I've seen so many posts, in various places, about things like this and I don't get it.

Your points are fair. Again...my thing is a visual thing, and I wondered if I were off.

I mean, it is a unibody so you don't get the same visual effect of a body sitting on a frame. It also has been designed for "non-truck" people to bring into the truck world as Ford has discontinued sedans.

After seeing photos of them on the road, I get your point, but I think all the pros you mentioned really outweigh the appearance of it looking like a crossover SUV sorta.

I suppose your right; the unitbody construction plays its role. However...as I type this, about the only likeable thing of the Santa Cruz is how it sits. Even the Ridgeline has truck like proportions (to me).

All in all, I am not complaining a bit about the Maverick: I like her excellent design and execution, it's just from the front...I wondered if I were the only one with this perception.

Frankly, those people that are used to sedans and crossover SUVs are exactly who Ford is trying to court with this truck. If you're a truck guy (or gal) they would much prefer for you to shell out the extra money and get a "real" truck. I'm a bit in between the two.

Good points

I drove a small ‘89 Toyota Pickup for many years, and it was wonderful. The Maverick will fill that void rather well. It’ll tow my small boat, carry my bikes, pick up stuff from Home Depot, etc. The great price sealed the deal. If I could buy a “new” Toyota truck like my old one for the price of a Maverick, would I? Yeah, probably—especially if it had 5 seats. But that’s not EVER going to happen. I’m really exited to receive my Maverick.

Much agreed; I currently own a last gen Ranger, and I love her size. Newer pickups have gotten way too big. The Maverick is perfectly sized.

Funny, when I first saw the Maverick I was surprised at how “lifted” it looked. Visually more than an older 2WD Ranger. I was elated at the standard 8.3” of ground clearance.

I have a last gen Ranger; from the front, the Ranger sits like a truck, while the Maverick has a crossover appearance from the front. Again...it's more a visual thing than it is a functional issue. Mine is not a complaint, but a query .

***

I do understand the complaints regarding the Maverick are largely unrealistic or unwarranted. I wondered how everyone else viewed the front proportions of the Maverick. I do love just about everything on the Maverick; I think the future will record the Maverick as being a groundbreaking vehicle - in terms of units sold/popularity, her simple design and execution, low price, etc. It's been a long time since any automaker offered something like this.

Sponsored