- Thread starter
- #1
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...
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?
- 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 | |
Platform | Ford Global C-car Platform |
Engine |
|
Transmission | 6-speed automatic 6F-35 6-speed manual B6 5-speed manual iB5 8-speed automatic 8F35 (2019-present) |
Wheelbase | |
Length | |
Width | 72.2 in (1,830 mm)[11] |
Height | |
Curb weight |
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: