Maverick vs old Ranger

[Raymundo76]

I agree that an old Ranger is way more cost effective. But I am 76, and I do not want my last truck to be an old Ranger; you can't take it with you. I've been a cheap skate most of my life, which is why I can afford a base Lariat. AWD and towing are not my wants. Also I love my dogs, but not up front with me while driving.

Sponsored

 

[Maverickman74]

I owned two older Ford Rangers, both standard transmission, single cab, RWD for a total about 20 years. Loved those trucks but they were really crude. Extremely dangerous axle hop on rough roads - the old Rangers can literally kill you on a rough curve at speed - bounce you right into the other lane for a head-on. But they got 30 MPG and were real work trucks with longer beds while being a foot shorter in length.

Got my Maverick last week. Didn't like it much at first. It's slowly growing on me. Very nice bed. No axle hop. Decent amenities, though I held my nose at $31,500 delivered. Luxury package my arse - it's the minimal amenities package.

However it is an absolute whale - all the nice folks on this forum boasting about their nimble small Mavericks - you are smoking dope. It is bloated whale with a horrible turning radius. At least compared to my two Rangers. And they similarly bloated the bodywork for no reason except I think maybe to coddle fragile male egos. The hood is a monument to the American male's size insecurities. Stupidly so, because it blocks forward visibility for children and pets in front of the car in the driveway.

If my Ranger had been AWD, I'd still be driving it. Just like that guy. The Maverick got my dollar purely because it was the least bad choice for a small truck - even the SC is similarly bloated.

Twin I beam or TTB trucks were so manueverable its nuts. I normally drive my Comanche at work but it popped a radiator a few days ago so yesterday I had to lead a fire/rescue crew up into the forest. While my 96 Bronco is much wider than my Comanche it isnt much longer and it has that tight turning TTB. Their F350 had to back out of the trail but I was able to Austin Powers the Bronco in about 5 points to turn around to get back out of there to wait for the helicopter. That thing turns on a dime! Unfortunately it was too wide to make it to the compost pile so I had to load that up on the Kawasaki mule that I just detest, because of how much of a pain in the ass they are to fix and how fast they rust out.

I never had a 4x4 ranger, but I had a 91 4.0 5spd that felt like a Mustang, spun tires in ever gear, handled rough roads, and deep snow like a Hummer as long as you put 200lbs of sand in the bed.

 

[2seater]

I know, old thread, and some good comments. My Maverick Hybrid was picked up in June and ordered to be a summer only vehicle. My old 97 Ranger, a supercab 4.0l 4x4, five speed automatic. The last of the twin I beam front end and the last pushrod engine. Had it since new. Lousy mileage, so-so power wise. Had it's gremlins, mostly electrical, but it never left me stranded. The last few years it is a woods truck and winter driver. Only 97k miles on it. It is still pretty comfortable and squeak/rattle free. This week the Maverick went into storage to sleep for the winter and the old Ranger came out. It felt like stepping back to the 60's. Vague steering, flabby throttle response, rough ride, transmission unsure of what gear to be in and brakes that do not inspire confidence, etc.. I still like that old truck, but what a revelation when driven back to back.

 

[Ford Maverick Maniac]

Here is a size comparison video that may help you.

 

[Leuf]

I've owned five or six (lost count) older Rangers across the years, my current ride's a 2008. MPG is awful, ride is bumpy, but a dependable every day driver. I'll be lucky to get several thousand on trade or sell, but can't wait to replace it with a Mav . Photos I've seen of them side by side, basically same foot print, same-ish height, etc. Just prefer these smaller trucks.

Recently I saw a 2011 Ranger with around 60k miles for sale around here for $16k and it wasn't on the lot for more than a week or two. They had another one a little older and higher miles for $15k that sold quick as well. It might be worth more than you think now. At those prices I'd rather spend the extra $10-15k on a Maverick.

 

[Raymundo76]

Recently I saw a 2011 Ranger with around 60k miles for sale around here for $16k and it wasn't on the lot for more than a week or two. They had another one a little older and higher miles for $15k that sold quick as well. It might be worth more than you think now. At those prices I'd rather spend the extra $10-15k on a Maverick.

I do NOT want my last truck to be a 13 year old Ranger, my 2024 Mav is safer and more fun to drive. Besides you can't take it with you!

 

[MadeSmall]

Mav (with 245/70R17) vs. Tacoma vs. old Ranger

 

[Gschaef]

Had a 1994 Ranger XLT 4.0 6 cylinder engine that I purchased new and sold when I purchased a 2022 Maverick hybrid. Worst vehicle decision I ever made. The Ranger would go through brakes pretty quickly and it was normal to see the engine light come on to indicate another emission problem. Couldn’t get a part to fix the tailgate attachment on one side so I had to be careful opening and closing it. Certainly not the fastest truck but not bad once you got it up to speed. 19 mpg on the highway and 15 in town but only 115K miles. I thought it was time for an upgrade.

But what it really was is a reliable truck that I didn’t need to think about for almost 30 years. Instead I got a new truck that gave me nothing but trouble, was constantly at the dealership, and within 6 months I hated the dam thing so much that I traded it in. For a 2010 Ford Ranger XLT 4 cylinder and cash. “New” Ranger has 48K miles and is in great shape in and out. 28 mpg highway and 20 in town. No squeaks or rattles (still had none of those on my 1994). Same length as the Maverick so it fits in my garage. I park it and forget about it. It can sit for days and no battery worries. It starts every time. I now drive a truck instead of babysit one. And I still miss my ‘94. I have a 2024 Mav EB on order that will be built this year and I am undecided if I will take it. Rangers get ahold of you.

 

[TheShark]

However it is an absolute whale - all the nice folks on this forum boasting about their nimble small Mavericks - you are smoking dope. It is bloated whale with a horrible turning radius. At least compared to my two Rangers. And they similarly bloated the bodywork for no reason except I think maybe to coddle fragile male egos. The hood is a monument to the American male's size insecurities. Stupidly so, because it blocks forward visibility for children and pets in front of the car in the driveway.

Bloated, compared to my '23 Bronco the Maverick feels like a Mustang.

I think the styling was dictated by trying to make the Maverick fit into the Ford family of trucks, it takes many of its styling queues from it's bigger brother the F-150. I think overall Ford did a great job with the Maverick, taking a platform shared with the Escape and Bronco Sport and making it look and feel like a truck.

 

[Raymundo76]

Bloated, compared to my '23 Bronco the Maverick feels like a Mustang.

I think the styling was dictated by trying to make the Maverick fit into the Ford family of trucks, it takes many of its styling queues from it's bigger brother the F-150. I think overall Ford did a great job with the Maverick, taking a platform shared with the Escape and Bronco Sport and making it look and feel like a truck.

Could not have said it better/

 

[Mike1597]

I owned a new first gen extended cab, long wheelbase ranger. It was bare bones (no air) with the 2.3 (4 cylinder) and 5 speed manual gearbox. It was a great truck except the 4 banger was only rated at 90hp (same engine used in the pinto). It was the slowest vehicle I ever owned; the only thing that made it safe on the highway was the speed limit back then was 55mph.

I remember driving in the Ozark mountains in Missouri with max speed dropping to about 35-40mph and engine revving to 4,500+ rpm while easily being passed by a VW Beatle doing 50+.

The truck looked great in black with red interior, but the heat was unbearable in the hot summer.

 

[OrCoaster]

I just sold my 1996 Ranger XLT, 4 WD, 3.0, 5 speed. I owned it for 20 years and kept it nice all that time. I didn't get super mileage with it nor was it the fastest pickup I ever drove. But it did me well all those years and it was only the last couple of months that I realized it was getting old and things were starting to fail due to age more than wear.

I always enjoyed the ride in it. It was lifted a few inches and visibility was better than my current Maverick. But I didn't mind parting ways with it. I didn't use it for the truck it was and the Maverick suits my style better.

The new owner of the Ranger was a youngster out of college who needed a truck he could count on and not have to be dumping his hard-earned savings into all the time. His mechanical skill set was fairly small.

 

[TheShark]

Never owned a Ranger but I had a '84 S-10, '92 S-10, and a '94 S-10. I'll never forget driving from Chicago to NC in the '84 back in the late 80's, when I hit the mountains near Asheville the poor S-10 was struggling trying to make it up the mountain, the engine kept overheating and I had to pull over several times to let it cool down, finally made it. The 1.9L Isuzu engine didn't have much power. The '84 didn't have A/C, it really didn't have much of anything but it was cheap, I think I paid $1500 for it with about 30k miles on it. Not having A/C wasn't too bad in Chicago but in NC that was a different story. I owned a series of the S-10's when I didn't have much money, I remember I could get a Cavalier or an S-10 for the same amount of money, I choose wisely because the S-10 was way better.
I'd be afraid of what a new S-10 would look like, probably like another of their insipid SUV's.

 

[Leuf]

Never owned a Ranger but I had a '84 S-10, '92 S-10, and a '94 S-10. I'll never forget driving from Chicago to NC in the '84 back in the late 80's, when I hit the mountains near Asheville the poor S-10 was struggling trying to make it up the mountain, the engine kept overheating and I had to pull over several times to let it cool down, finally made it. The 1.9L Isuzu engine didn't have much power. The '84 didn't have A/C, it really didn't have much of anything but it was cheap, I think I paid $1500 for it with about 30k miles on it. Not having A/C wasn't too bad in Chicago but in NC that was a different story. I owned a series of the S-10's when I didn't have much money, I remember I could get a Cavalier or an S-10 for the same amount of money, I choose wisely because the S-10 was way better.
I'd be afraid of what a new S-10 would look like, probably like another of their insipid SUV's.

I drive a 2001 S10 with the 4.3L and it has no problem with power. It just drains its pathetic 15 gallon tank in a hurry. It's supposed to be 19 gallons but Chevy silently put 15 gallon tanks in some of them. I still get compliments about how good that body style looks but I agree that today Chevy would screw it up like they did with the Blazer.

 

[TheShark]

I drive a 2001 S10 with the 4.3L and it has no problem with power. It just drains its pathetic 15 gallon tank in a hurry. It's supposed to be 19 gallons but Chevy silently put 15 gallon tanks in some of them. I still get compliments about how good that body style looks but I agree that today Chevy would screw it up like they did with the Blazer.

I had the 2.8L V6 in the 92 and the 4.3L in the 94, both engines had adequate power but as you say neither were stingy on gas. I liked the styling on both the first and second gen. The first gen had the classic squared off pickup look of the 80's. I splurged on the '94 and bought a extended cab!
The Mav really does remind me of my old S-10's probably like many old Ranger owners.

Sponsored