Sponsored

Maverick vs. Ranchero

Old Ranchero

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Threads
26
Messages
2,587
Reaction score
3,497
Location
CO
Vehicle(s)
2018 F-150 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2022 Maverick
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Since Ford chose to revive the Ranger & Bronco nameplates on modernized platforms, I'm puzzled why Ford decided NOT to follow the same pattern with the uni- body entry level compact truck slotted under the lightest duty body on frame pickup? Having previously owned a 1964 Falcon Ranchero in my late teens, to me it's a no brainer to call this new little compact Ranchero instead of using the 1970's "pony car" Maverick name. Seems there's a lot of similarities to the mission of 1960-65 Falcon Rancheros to this Maverick too. Some examples:

- car like handling and creature comforts with expandable feature options for those that don't need full on work truck but want some load capacity in open bed
- slotted below lightest duty body on frame truck (it was the F-100 back in the 1960's) and lower MSRP
- available platform to build on: Falcon wagon back then, Transit Connect now
- more compact size for easier around town driving, parking, climbing in/out, etc.
- more versatile as daily driver/commuter but can still haul and tow a minimal amount for other uses.

Additionally, we have some people that want a bare bones fleet type vehicle, some want choices of engines, many want a longer bed (myself included), some want more tech and options, etc. Most aren't sold on need for crew cab only (old Ranger had regular and Super cab- I had both) And guess what? The Transit Connect actually has all that- including SWB or LWB options, AND the general dimensions seem to align with what most people were expecting/hoping the COMPACT Maverick would be: see below...


Powertrain
Dimensions
PlatformFord Global C-car Platform
Engine
Transmission6-speed automatic 6F-35
6-speed manual B6
5-speed manual iB5
8-speed automatic 8F35 (2019-present)
Wheelbase
  • SWB: 104.8 in (2,660 mm)[11]
  • LWB: 120.6 in (3,060 mm)[11]
Length
  • SWB: 173.9 in (4,420 mm)[11]
  • LWB: 189.7 in (4,820 mm)[11]
Width72.2 in (1,830 mm)[11]
Height
  • SWB: 72.6 in (1,840 mm)[11]
  • LWB: 72.0 in (1,830 mm)[11]
Curb weight
  • SWB Wagon: 3,630 lb (1,650 kg)[11]
  • LWB Wagon: 3,979 lb (1,805 kg)[11]


I like the styling of the Maverick unibody, but it seems to me it would have been a more straightforward and cost effective way to get it into production by using that body on the existing Transit Connect platform which has a lot more options already in place. I realize having more than 1 body style (cab, bed length) would be more expensive than on a body on frame vehicle- but am I wrong to think the expanded range of imaginable options would cast a wider net of potential buyers and more than make up for extra tooling & assembly cost using existing global underpinning platforms already in place?
Sponsored

 
Last edited:

Stan

New member
First Name
Stan
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
2
Reaction score
4
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
Ranger
I'll bet there were many discussions and meetings about the name. I believe there's a time-factor in keeping the rights to a name and maybe "Maverick" was getting close to that time where other auto companies could use the name. Hence the occasional "Cobra" or "Mach I" product.
As far as why not use the C1 platform, I think that has been answered in other threads.
Sponsored

 
 




Top