Sponsored

Is the Maverick worth it? Aligning expectations.

GaryHoosier

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
143
Reaction score
150
Location
Kenosha WI
Vehicle(s)
2010 Ford Escape, 2022 Ford Maverick 2.0L XLT AWD
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
If the 70s and 90s were any lesson, it is that the influx of "smart" and "value" designs rather than "budget" and "spartan" is a big improvement. I think aiming the vehicle at women has made for a better vehicle, if you're making a guy's budget truck you're probably going to make it 4x4 standard instead of 42mpg standard if you catch my drift.
I think I get your drift.
But in reality, starting in the early seventies, two factors comprised the catalysts for the dramatic changes in the automobile industry:
1) the onset of heavy government regulation (emissions and safety standards).
2) the rise of high-quality, Japanese imports.

With regard to item #1, the regulation has continued unabated. I'd love to see a breakdown of how much of the cost of a new vehicle is attributable to gov't mandates. Watch any old TV rerun or movie from the early 70's and take notice of the choking smog visible in all the outdoor shots of (primarily) L.A.

As to item #2?...it took the domestics a good 20-yrs to start producing vehicles which could go toe-to-toe with the Asian products. That competition turned-out to be good for everyone, especially the consumer.
Sponsored

 

Tbolt

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Threads
3
Messages
386
Reaction score
483
Location
Puyallup, Washington
Vehicle(s)
21' EcoSport SES, 22' Lariat Lux FX4 Eco Mav
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
You made fun of the logic but then agreed it has a more refined cab. From everything I've heard/read/watched the Santa Cruz is a much better driver than the Mav, but it costs more too so it should be better.

No need to be salty about Hyundai attacking a different market segment, you should be able to look at things objectively even if it is something you like or dislike. What I was saying is that the Santa Cruz is a 30's vehicle and the Mav is not, the styling is polarizing so while I think the Santa Cruz looks much nicer than the Maverick, it is different and I don't expect everyone to agree.
You have done it again. You keep mentioning that someone should be willing to buy it even if they dislike it for the sake of being ‘objective’.

What kind of millennial logic is that?

Guess what, both vehicles are worth what someone will pay. Your own personal assessment literally has zero bearing on anyone else.

I think other than the nice cab the Hyundai looks like ass and wouldn’t pay ten cents to own it. Others disagree. It’s a free market, none of us are waiting in line for the state to make our Lada available.
 

Arukoru

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Threads
6
Messages
338
Reaction score
520
Location
Atlanta
Vehicle(s)
2013 Chevy Cruze
I think I get your drift.
But in reality, starting in the early seventies, two factors comprised the catalysts for the dramatic changes in the automobile industry:
1) the onset of heavy government regulation (emissions and safety standards).
2) the rise of high-quality, Japanese imports.

With regard to item #1, the regulation has continued unabated. I'd love to see a breakdown of how much of the cost of a new vehicle is attributable to gov't mandates. Watch any old TV rerun or movie from the early 70's and take notice of the choking smog visible in all the outdoor shots of (primarily) L.A.

As to item #2?...it took the domestics a good 20-yrs to start producing vehicles which could go toe-to-toe with the Asian products. That competition turned-out to be good for everyone, especially the consumer.
Not sure how to take the gov regulation bit, I think we have pretty objective measures about that being beneficial over the years. For example road deaths per 100 million miles traveled were abysmal until the 80s, as you mentioned the smog was an immediate consequence, and leaded gasoline etc. I could go down the list a while but while yes it has cost a lot more to get a car over time (even accounting for inflation), we've all seen the benefits of that with safer more efficient cars.

The competition was really good to wake up domestic manufacturers, but on top of what you mentioned the 70s and 90s were practically the rock bottom of car design. There's a ton of factors and some of it was corporations betting on the wrong horse.
 

Arukoru

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Threads
6
Messages
338
Reaction score
520
Location
Atlanta
Vehicle(s)
2013 Chevy Cruze
You have done it again. You keep mentioning that someone should be willing to buy it even if they dislike it for the sake of being ‘objective’.

What kind of millennial logic is that?

Guess what, both vehicles are worth what someone will pay. Your own personal assessment literally has zero bearing on anyone else.

I think other than the nice cab the Hyundai looks like ass and wouldn’t pay ten cents to own it. Others disagree. It’s a free market, none of us are waiting in line for the state to make our Lada available.
I don't think you've understood what I'm saying. I would never tell someone they should buy something they dislike because it is objectively better. I might judge their taste or something like if you bought a $70k civic I think you're insane but that doesn't mean I would tell them they should've gotten a Stinger GT because it is objectively better.

I did say however that the Santa Cruz is objectively better. It might help if we play pretend and substitute the Santa Cruz for idk let's say an F150 Lariat. Is the F150 Lariat objectively better in every possible way aside from economy than the Maverick? Of course and only an idiot would pretend otherwise. But it costs more and woah this is crazy but the Santa Cruz also costs more than the Mav in most cases.

Reminder that the thread is called
Is the Maverick worth it? Aligning expectations.

So if you're aligning your expectations to a 33k car, I think it is safe to say that's a bad idea and it is not "worth it" in my opinion. If you're married to the design or the hybrid or something then it could be worth it for you personally. I'm not saying if you spent over 30 you're an idiot or something, I ordered the Lariat which is just shy of 30 itself so obviously I don't think I got some incredible value or anything. But I like it and I can afford it so therefore I bought it. If there was a hybrid Santa Cruz for the same price I would've purchased that not just because I personally prefer the way it looks but because it is objectively a better vehicle but once again let's chant our mantra

"The santa cruz costs more and therefore it shouldn't be surprising that it is a nicer vehicle"
 

Mikknj

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Mikk
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
476
Reaction score
452
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
Maverick XLT Luxury CO360
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Amen to that!
Only make it a stick!
When (if) my Mav shows up, I’ll post shots of my ‘92 reg cab Toyota PU, alongside the Mav. I suspect that they will be close to identical in dimensions, other than bed length. I also suspect that they will handle similarly. One of the first things that I did, back in ‘92, was jump into the JC catalog, and, among other things, put on a large sway bar, better shocks, tires and alumies saved from my ‘85 centerfold truck. Body-on-frame, those improvements, I believe, brought that truck up to where the unibody Mav already is.
CARF standards have to go then- this the reason I think the primary reason that vehicles have grown so huge- the larger footprint allows manufacturers to sell larger with lower Gas Mileage requirements. Have to lobby to get rid of CARF and replace it. The EV vehicle movement will help for efficiency but we need to start loving smaller cars and trucks. This will happen if manufacturers start making great smaller vehicles again.
 

Sponsored

GaryHoosier

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
143
Reaction score
150
Location
Kenosha WI
Vehicle(s)
2010 Ford Escape, 2022 Ford Maverick 2.0L XLT AWD
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Not sure how to take the gov regulation bit, I think we have pretty objective measures about that being beneficial over the years. For example road deaths per 100 million miles traveled were abysmal until the 80s, as you mentioned the smog was an immediate consequence, and leaded gasoline etc. I could go down the list a while but while yes it has cost a lot more to get a car over time (even accounting for inflation), we've all seen the benefits of that with safer more efficient cars.

The competition was really good to wake up domestic manufacturers, but on top of what you mentioned the 70s and 90s were practically the rock bottom of car design. There's a ton of factors and some of it was corporations betting on the wrong horse.
I think we're mostly in agreement on all of this. And let's not ignore the 900-lb gorilla : computerization has fundamentally revolutionized everything about how our vehicles work.
We'll be in BIG trouble when the bad guys set off that EMP device!
 

Mikknj

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Mikk
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
476
Reaction score
452
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
Maverick XLT Luxury CO360
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Not sure how to take the gov regulation bit, I think we have pretty objective measures about that being beneficial over the years. For example road deaths per 100 million miles traveled were abysmal until the 80s, as you mentioned the smog was an immediate consequence, and leaded gasoline etc. I could go down the list a while but while yes it has cost a lot more to get a car over time (even accounting for inflation), we've all seen the benefits of that with safer more efficient cars.

The competition was really good to wake up domestic manufacturers, but on top of what you mentioned the 70s and 90s were practically the rock bottom of car design. There's a ton of factors and some of it was corporations betting on the wrong horse.
I think the regulations have a positive effect on safety, some regulation is really a good thing. But the consumers have to force regulators to keep their eye on price vs effects. People need safe clean cars and unregulated industries don't govern themselves well at all. Like everything it's complicated and a balance - of all things.
 

GaryHoosier

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
143
Reaction score
150
Location
Kenosha WI
Vehicle(s)
2010 Ford Escape, 2022 Ford Maverick 2.0L XLT AWD
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
CARF standards have to go then- this the reason I think the primary reason that vehicles have grown so huge- the larger footprint allows manufacturers to sell larger with lower Gas Mileage requirements. Have to lobby to get rid of CARF and replace it. The EV vehicle movement will help for efficiency but we need to start loving smaller cars and trucks. This will happen if manufacturers start making great smaller vehicles again.
If you think cars have gotten "so huge", stand next to a '61 Cadillac.
Monstrous the Whale.
You could probably fit a couple of Civics in its TRUNK, lol.
 

Mikknj

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Mikk
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
476
Reaction score
452
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
Maverick XLT Luxury CO360
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
If you think cars have gotten "so huge", stand next to a '61 Cadillac.
Monstrous the Whale.
You could probably fit a couple of Civics in its TRUNK, lol.
Oh that's a great point... I did forget how the older cars were so huge too.. I guess I was thinking modern and how to make safe efficient transportation. The older cars got something like 12 miles per gallon until the 80s downsized to those stripped out crappy boxes - that got 30-40 mpg but were death traps.
 

GaryHoosier

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
143
Reaction score
150
Location
Kenosha WI
Vehicle(s)
2010 Ford Escape, 2022 Ford Maverick 2.0L XLT AWD
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Oh that's a great point... I did forget how the older cars were so huge too.. I guess I was thinking modern and how to make safe efficient transportation. The older cars got something like 12 miles per gallon until the 80s downsized to those stripped out crappy boxes - that got 30-40 mpg but were death traps.
Two things to keep in mind:

- the laws of physics; a 6000# mass will always win-out in a collision with a 3000# mass, no matter how many airbags/safety harnesses/crumple zones are designed into the littler one.

- in 1961, gasoline was probably 20-cents per gallon tops.
 
Sponsored

Decayed

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
yes
Joined
Oct 18, 2021
Threads
47
Messages
3,126
Reaction score
4,820
Location
Directly above the center of the Earth
Vehicle(s)
a car
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Two things to keep in mind:

- the laws of physics; a 6000# mass will always win-out in a collision with a 3000# mass, no matter how many airbags/safety harnesses/crumple zones are designed into the littler one.

- in 1961, gasoline was probably 20-cents per gallon tops.
The price of gas alone drove a lot of the changes. Single digit mpg cars were no longer viable as a daily driver for anyone with a longer commute.

Ironically the one sector that got a lot bigger since was pickup trucks. Since the 90's they have ballooned in size creating the pent up demand for smaller pickups that Ford is hitting with the mav.
 

DryHeat

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
DryHeat
Joined
Aug 18, 2021
Threads
8
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
3,379
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Patriot
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
the laws of physics; a 6000# mass will always win-out in a collision with a 3000# mass, no matter how many airbags/safety harnesses/crumple zones are designed into the littler one.
That's true if all other factors are equal, but those "other factors" have a big impact on the outcome.

It turns out that being ejected from the vehicle (one of the things those airbags and safety harnesses are designed to avoid) is a big predictor of whether you are going to die or not. There are lots of data collections available on the web. Here's a snippet from one of them:

"Data from over 25 years ago suggest that individuals ejected from the vehicle during an MVC are up to 8 times more likely to die compared to those who are not, with a mortality rate between 7% and 11% for those ejected during an MVC." New cars on the highways: Trends in injuries and outcomes following ejection - ScienceDirect

So who knows? You might be better off in a smaller vehicle with airbags and harnesses than in one of those early 60s cruisers with nothing but a spear-like steering column between you and the windshield.
 

GaryHoosier

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
143
Reaction score
150
Location
Kenosha WI
Vehicle(s)
2010 Ford Escape, 2022 Ford Maverick 2.0L XLT AWD
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
That's true if all other factors are equal, but those "other factors" have a big impact on the outcome.

It turns out that being ejected from the vehicle (one of the things those airbags and safety harnesses are designed to avoid) is a big predictor of whether you are going to die or not. There are lots of data collections available on the web. Here's a snippet from one of them:

"Data from over 25 years ago suggest that individuals ejected from the vehicle during an MVC are up to 8 times more likely to die compared to those who are not, with a mortality rate between 7% and 11% for those ejected during an MVC." New cars on the highways: Trends in injuries and outcomes following ejection - ScienceDirect

So who knows? You might be better off in a smaller vehicle with airbags and harnesses than in one of those early 60s cruisers with nothing but a spear-like steering column between you and the windshield.
Very good point about Ejection.

I'd personally like to see technology which would incapacitate mobile phones whenever a vehicle is in-gear. They're a menace.
 
 




Top