Exactly, there’s no wrong choice if you get what you wantIf I had a real need for awd would have no regrets about going that direction. But the hybrid is def next level
Sponsored
Exactly, there’s no wrong choice if you get what you wantIf I had a real need for awd would have no regrets about going that direction. But the hybrid is def next level
I think that is my favorite color….nice rideMine just hauled a peleton exercise bike. Can theirs?
No worries my Maverick is handling everything that I need and I am getting awesome MPG too.
I’ll keep my little truck and be very happy.
Thanks!I think that is my favorite color….nice ride
Not at all surprised. Others are very surprised when I’ve mentioned it. Two colleagues at work had The same response when I mentioned the Maverick. Both said “it’s small“ and when I pointed out to these outback and grand Cherokee drivers that it’s bigger than their vehicles, shock came across their faces. That’s what precipitated this whole thread in the first place.Why would you compare a small truck to other types of vehicles when referring to its size? Are you surprised that something with a 4.5ft bed behind it's rear seats is as long/longer than a midsize SUV?
It is a compact TRUCK not a compact car. That verbage means everything.Not at all surprised. Others are very surprised when I’ve mentioned it. I didn’t coin the term “compact” for the Maverick. I’m just pointing out that this so-called compact block of steel is bigger than many other blocks of steel that are considerably smaller and are not called compact. Irony can be so ironic sometimes. Comparing it to other vehicles is no less valid than comparing a Maverick to an F150 or a minivan to a Sprinter/Transit (in the world according to II Kings 9:20).
My opening statement said “the Maverick is indeed a compact”. I think people may have missed that. No where have I stated that the Maverick is not a compact truck. The point here is that the maverick is not a compact vehicle when compared to other smaller vehicles that are considered midsize. When compared to an F150, the Maverick is tiny, but so is a grand Cherokee. I’ve had this conversation at length with a couple of colleagues who can’t argue that pointIt is a compact TRUCK not a compact car. That verbage means everything.
That is an awesome picI mean, it's not the same size as a 70's Ford Courier, but it's not much bigger than my 77 F-100 single cab short bed truck. Mine's been lowered a few inches and it's still an inch or so taller than the Maverick as far as the height of the cab goes. My truck has a 4" shorter wheelbase than the Maverick as well, for reference.
I didn't take a lot of time to eyeball things when I saw this one, but my truck is definitely wider than the Maverick.
Actually I’m right and you just confirmed it. Read the first sentence that says “the Maverick is indeed compact”. It doesn’t get any clearer than that.OK, let me show you where you are just wrong. The mav is a compact TRUCK, not a compact car.
No one in this world would argue that an 06 Ranger was not a compact truck so here are the specs compared.
One thing that should be noted is that the length of the Ranger is without the rear bumper so add at least 4 inches to that.
Category Ranger Mav Mav Difference Wheelbase 125.9 121.1 -4.8Length 203.6 199.7 -3.9Width 69.4 72.6 3.2
The driving position feels lower than in my Forester, so it's a no go. One of the appeals of a truck to me is a nice high perch. Mav isn't a small vehicle, but it's the smallest pickup besides the Santa Cruz.I was next to a Tacoma and I felt I was almost just as high up, people that say they’re tiny must be coming from a F350