Maverick is only “small” compared to large trucks.

[Mllombardi]

You got the point of the entire post while others did not. While the Maverick is indeed a compact (truck) as I stated in the first sentence of the OP, as a block of steel on wheels, it is not as compact as many so called midsize. You illustrated that point quite nicely with the Flex reference which is rather huge appearing. My wife hates it because it’s too big. I love the flex. I took the kids for a test drive in a turbo7-8 years ago and we still talk about that drive. . One guy at work was poo pooing the Mav as little and he shut up when I mentioned it’s bigger than his midsize Grand Cherokee.

Perfect.

Sponsored

 

[Stealth Raccoon]

The Maverick is literally a couple inches shorter than my 97 S-10, it's a bit thick in some areas, but it's still compact - especially by today's bloated standard!

 

[pjlawton]

I bought the Mav because I wanted a "small" truck. All the other smaller trucks (except the Santa Cruz right now) have gone to midsize including the Ridgeline and Frontier. If I'd wanted a midsize I would have bought a Ranger, Colorado, or Frontier. I like my Mav just like it is.

 

[Mike]

Smallest and shortest pickup truck avail. I call that compact. lol

 

[BlueSnake77]

Great point.

I hate how the Rav4, CR-V, etc are considered compact when they are clearly mid-sized these days. The new Rav-4 is practically the size of a 2000 Lexus RX 300.

They used to be compact, but not so much anymore.

The CR-V is indeed a compact SUV. It looks bigger than it is because of the fender bulges and porky (IMO)styling. It really isn't any bigger than my 2018 Escape and my Escape isn't really that big. It is about 1 inch wider and 8 inches taller than the 2012 Focus hatchback I had. Really it is just a big Focus. The Maverick is about 1 inch wider, 1 inch taller and about 21 inches longer. The Maverick is about as tall and wide as the average compact crossover. Where it is bigger is in length. The Maverick has a pretty long wheel base. Not my Escape in the picture of course. The picture is of a 2017 CR-V and Escape. The CR-V has only had minor trim changes. The body is the same in the 2022.

 

[jtpc2021]

The CR-V is indeed a compact SUV. It looks bigger than it is because of the fender bulges and porky (IMO)styling. It really isn't any bigger than my 2018 Escape and my Escape isn't really that big. It is about 1 inch wider and 8 inches taller than the 2012 Focus hatchback I had. Really it is just a big Focus. The Maverick is about 1 inch wider, 1 inch taller and about 21 inches longer. The Maverick is about as tall and wide as the average compact crossover. Where it is bigger is in length. The Maverick has a pretty long wheel base. Not my Escape in the picture of course. The picture is of a 2017 CR-V and Escape. The CR-V has only had minor trim changes. The body is the same in the 2022.

I’m talking about how “compact” classification has changed compared to the offerings of the CR-V and Rav4 from the late 90s and early 2000s.
If you park a new CR-V next to a CR-V from 20 years ago, you’d notice the difference.

But as to your perception that the new CR-V is small, that is your view and I can’t change that. I am just comparing to what compacts used to be. If you park a CR-V next to an F-350, then yes, it is “compact”.

 

[Halo9x]

The “compact” Maverick is indeed compact compared to an F150 but so are a lot of vehicles.
I’ve heard many say “it’s small” or call it a “trucklet”. This so called compact is 8” longer than an Outback, 6” longer than a Grand Cherokee, 2” longer than the biggest Land Rover Defender, and almost 2” longer than a Tesla Model X.

The Mav width is identical to the Outback yet no one refers to any of these vehicles as “compact”. This is a Jedi mind trick. Admittedly, Ford markets it as a compact truck and has re-created the compact truck market but this vehicle is far from compact.
When I get mine, I’m expecting someone at work with an outback or grand Cherokee to mention how nice it is “but it’s so small” and I’ll have to share the tale of the tape with them.

Maybe it’s a matter of perspective but when I look at the exterior, my Mav does seem smallish. Yet, once I get inside I feel like I'm in a larger vehicle. It’s certainly roomier than the ‘21 Corolla I traded in for the Maverick. The lay out of the controls, cubby holes and space between the front seats is more than adequate for two adults in the front. I'm not sure I would cram 3 adults in the back, however.

 

[Halo9x]

But who is cross shopping it against small trucks from the 70s? It has a crew cab. It's the same length as an extra cab first gen Tacoma from the 90s and over a foot shorter than a current one (and that's extra cab, not crew cab).

People talk about it being small as it is much smaller than any modern, similarly configured truck save the Santa Fe. No one thinks it's the size of an Escort. I drive a Transit Connect, which is similarly sized to the Maverick and it is massively smaller than my friend's Tundra. That's why people talk about it as a small truck, not because it's bigger than my father's 1992 Ranger with rear seats that fold in from the walls.

Here's a picture from the forum. This is what people are talking about when they say it's a small truck.

I completely agree. It is small on the outside, but I find it to be much larger feeling on the inside but the inside belies its smallish exterior dimensions. Once inside, I don’t feel like I'm driving a small truck. In the mid ‘80’s, I drove a Toyota mini truck and the Mav has much more room inside.

Sponsored