MarcusBrody

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
113
Reaction score
244
Location
Nevada
Vehicle(s)
Ford Transit Connect, BMW 318ti
I think they're in totally different classes honestly. If you can option a Maverick to $35k-ish (which would be absolutely absurd for this thing), it wouldnt come close to holding a candle to a base Ridgeline. The Ridgeline will always be the far more beefy, civilized, and have higher power/towing/payload.

They arent in the same class and just because you may be able to option the Maverick up close to the same cost doesnt mean anything. Its like the people that option a Tacoma up into the $40k range. I mean yea you can but why would you? The Tundra walks all over it when it comes to capabilities.

The only competition will come from the Santa Cruz but I think that will be more Ute-ish(which isnt a bad thing). The Maverick will be less nice to drive and likely not as fancy but it'll be able to occupy the slightly heavier duty crowd and fleet type buyers. The Santa Cruz will cost more to start (likely no low level fleet trims), look a lot cooler being more ute-like, and probably have better gizmos just because Hyundai is better at that. I think the Santa Cruz has a higher chance of being cross-shopped with the Ridgeline honestly. The Ridgeline is a fancy, civilized, more expensive mid-size. The Santa Cruz will be a fancy, civilized, more expensive "compact" if thats whats were gonna be calling these things.
But people cross shop things that aren't in the same class all the time if they're close to the same price. The biggest argument you hear when people are explaining why they bought a full sized truck when a midsized would be more than enough for them is "Well the full size was just a bit more, so I figured it would be silly not to go for it as I'm getting more for my money."
 

TruckGuySC

Well-known member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
129
Reaction score
199
Location
South Carolina, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger Lariat
I think they're in totally different classes honestly. If you can option a Maverick to $35k-ish (which would be absolutely absurd for this thing), it wouldnt come close to holding a candle to a base Ridgeline. The Ridgeline will always be the far more beefy, civilized, and have higher power/towing/payload.

They arent in the same class and just because you may be able to option the Maverick up close to the same cost doesnt mean anything. Its like the people that option a Tacoma up into the $40k range. I mean yea you can but why would you? The Tundra walks all over it when it comes to capabilities.

The only competition will come from the Santa Cruz but I think that will be more Ute-ish(which isnt a bad thing). The Maverick will be less nice to drive and likely not as fancy but it'll be able to occupy the slightly heavier duty crowd and fleet type buyers. The Santa Cruz will cost more to start (likely no low level fleet trims), look a lot cooler being more ute-like, and probably have better gizmos just because Hyundai is better at that. I think the Santa Cruz has a higher chance of being cross-shopped with the Ridgeline honestly. The Ridgeline is a fancy, civilized, more expensive mid-size. The Santa Cruz will be a fancy, civilized, more expensive "compact" if thats whats were gonna be calling these things.
It is due to SIZE, not PRICE! I want a well-appointed Maverick that is off-road capable (something NO RIDGELINE is capable of)

As far as the Ridgeline being “beefier”, as a 2019 RTL-E owner, all I can say is: 😆😆😆😆. A little Subaru Crosstrek has more ground clearance!

this thing is pathetic in terms of payload and towing capacity up against a Ranger or a Tacoma.
 

Tennessee

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
13
Reaction score
22
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fiesta ST
Towing and hauling is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is economy and maneuverability. The number one reason that former owners of full size trucks give for giving up their trucks is poor fuel mileage. Keep in mind that the vast majority of full size truck buyers don't really use them as trucks.

My daily driver is a Ford fiesta ST, and sometimes parking it in today's parking spaces can be a challenge! Even my St is large compared to its counterparts of yesteryear. Meanwhile, roads and parking lots have not changed all that much. Neither have single family home garages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

TruckGuySC

Well-known member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
129
Reaction score
199
Location
South Carolina, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger Lariat
Towing and hauling is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is economy and maneuverability. The number one reason that former owners of full size trucks give for giving up their trucks is poor fuel mileage. Keep in mind that the vast majority of full size truck buyers don't really use them as trucks.

My daily driver is a Ford fiesta ST, and sometimes parking it in today's parking spaces can be a challenge! Even my St is large compared to its counterparts of yesteryear. Meanwhile, roads and parking lots have not changed all that much. Neither have single family home garages.
How can a tiny Ford Fiesta be large? My previous company had one as a runabout. How can you get any smaller than a Fiesta and still have 4 wheels? 💁🏼‍♂️

With new homes, builders skimp on the garage. They are nowhere near as big as garages of yesteryear. I didn't notice when it was empty (and that's exactly why the builders do it, bc no one does) but after buying the home, that two-car garage was only big enough for 2 cars if each was a Ford Fiesta or Honda Fit. lol!

Hence why I'm so interested in the Maverick. Once again, the right size for my needs, but I want to be able to option it the way you can a Ranger and F-150.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

Tennessee

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
13
Reaction score
22
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fiesta ST
When I was growing up, four wheel drive was exotic. The vast majority of light trucks were used on farms to do work. They were two wheel drive with open differentials. By today's standards they did not have a great deal of ground clearance, but they didn't need it because they didn't go "four-wheeling." Farmers typically put deeply lugged tires with flat faces on the back of their trucks, and waited for a good weather if they had work to do that was off-road, not just to keep from getting stuck but also because they didn't want to tear their place to pieces. If they needed more capability than that, they probably would use their tractor.

I'm sure those Old Farmers would have bought four wheel drive trucks if they had been available and they could afford it. But the idea that vehicles which don't have 9 inches of ground clearance and pull less than 9,000 lb are useless for work is just silly.
 

Tennessee

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
13
Reaction score
22
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fiesta ST
How can a tiny Ford Fiesta be large? My previous company had one as a runabout. How can you get any smaller than a Fiesta and still have 4 wheels? 💁🏼‍♂️

With new homes, builders skimp on the garage. They are nowhere near as big as garages of yesteryear. I didn't notice when it was empty (and that's exactly why the builders do it, bc no one does) but after buying the home, that two-car garage was only big enough for 2 cars if each was a Ford Fiesta or Honda Fit. lol!

Hence why I'm so interested in the Maverick. Once again, the right size for my needs, but I want to be able to option it the way you can a Ranger and F-150.
My St weighs about 2600 lb. I had a friend in college who had a Honda Civic which weighed 1900 lb! I suppose a big part of that is the amount of metal it takes to meet today's safety standards. You are right, builders often skimp on the garages. In another life I drew an awful lot of house plans, and my minimum garage size was 24x24, which are the outside measurements. I noticed that a lot of comparable garages were drawn at 22x22. If you did anything but park a car in the garage like that, you would run out of room. Nobody uses garages just to park cars! Standard garage door height was 7 ft. For a lot of full size trucks, I bet that isn't enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

theek

Well-known member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
58
Reaction score
128
Location
Ottawa Canada
Vehicle(s)
Honda CR-V, Subaru CrossTrek
You don't need a frame to build a truck:

If Ford did something like this, and the rear panel on that protoyype cab sure looks reinforced, then you might be surprised by both payload and rigidity:

1617465527617.png


Source: https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405

Ford knows trucks, and knows physics. Honda did them a solid by showing how it could be done. I suspect we'll be surprised by the capability.

It would also explain why it can only be sold in a crew cab offering.


Source: https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405
 

TruckGuySC

Well-known member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
129
Reaction score
199
Location
South Carolina, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger Lariat
When I was growing up, four wheel drive was exotic. The vast majority of light trucks were used on farms to do work. They were two wheel drive with open differentials. By today's standards they did not have a great deal of ground clearance, but they didn't need it because they didn't go "four-wheeling." Farmers typically put deeply lugged tires with flat faces on the back of their trucks, and waited for a good weather if they had work to do that was off-road, not just to keep from getting stuck but also because they didn't want to tear their place to pieces. If they needed more capability than that, they probably would use their tractor.

I'm sure those Old Farmers would have bought four wheel drive trucks if they had been available and they could afford it. But the idea that vehicles which don't have 9 inches of ground clearance and pull less than 9,000 lb are useless for work is just silly.
There are many old things that still function and perform their jobs... a more recent example is flip-phones. They make phone calls fine, they have basic location, and can text message...

But it doesn’t mean they’ll be flying off the shelves anytime soon..

It’s called: progress
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

TruckGuySC

Well-known member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
129
Reaction score
199
Location
South Carolina, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger Lariat
You don't need a frame to build a truck:

If Ford did something like this, and the rear panel on that protoyype cab sure looks reinforced, then you might be surprised by both payload and rigidity:

1617465527617.png


Source: https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405

Ford knows trucks, and knows physics. Honda did them a solid by showing how it could be done. I suspect we'll be surprised by the capability.

It would also explain why it can only be sold in a crew cab offering.


Source: https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405
I hope you’re right. I need at least 4,000 lb. tow capacity.

Ford showed they knew what they were doing with the Bronco Sport. They made it truly off-road capable (something Honda did not w the Ridgeline).

There are limitations w unibody.. for instance the Honda Ridgeline AWD only has 5,000 lb. towing capacity vs. The 7500 lb. tow capacity of the Ranger 4WD. My Ridgeline is not happy towing my boat, and boat and trailer combined is only 3900 lb.

The other limitation w unibody is, it makes it very expensive to create multiple cab styles/configurations (something we hear complained about a lot on this forum). Whereas w BoF, it’s much easier and less expensive to mix and match cab and bed sizes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

Tennessee

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
13
Reaction score
22
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fiesta ST
There are many old things that still function and perform their jobs... a more recent example is flip-phones. They make phone calls fine, they have basic location, and can text message...

But it doesn’t mean they’ll be flying off the shelves anytime soon..

It’s called: progress
Good point!
 

MarcusBrody

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
113
Reaction score
244
Location
Nevada
Vehicle(s)
Ford Transit Connect, BMW 318ti
I hope you’re right. I need at least 4,000 lb. tow capacity.

Ford showed they knew what they were doing with the Bronco Sport. They made it truly off-road capable (something Honda did not w the Ridgeline).

There are limitations w unibody.. for instance the Honda Ridgeline AWD only has 5,000 lb. towing capacity vs. The 7500 lb. tow capacity of the Ranger 4WD. My Ridgeline is not happy towing my boat, and boat and trailer combined is only 3900 lb.

The other limitation w unibody is, it makes it very expensive to create multiple cab styles/configurations (something we hear complained about a lot on this forum). Whereas w BoF, it’s much easier and less expensive to mix and match cab and bed sizes.
There are plenty of unibody vehicles that tow more than the Ridgeline, though. Land Rover has a few, the Grand Cherokee, the Cayenne, heck even Ford's own Transit 150 can tow 7500 in some configurations. I'm not saying that body on frame doesn't make it easier to build a vehicle that can tow a lot, but being unibody isn't a disqualifier for decent towing if it's a design concern. Given the 7 pin plugs we're seeing on these, I'm hoping that it was for Ford!
 

theek

Well-known member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
58
Reaction score
128
Location
Ottawa Canada
Vehicle(s)
Honda CR-V, Subaru CrossTrek
The Maverick is likely a harbinger of a unibody truck future especially as the world moves to electric vehicles.

The current Ranger tows 7500 pounds. The 2022 Ranger will probably tow more in some configs, and do more, with a bump up in price.

The Ranger won't be $25,000 anymore, it will be closer to $30,000. It could be as simple as the Maverick tows 5000 pounds with the largest engine, the Ranger 7500-10,000, and the F-150 10,000-15,000. I very much doubt they'll fail here. The base kit might tow only 2500 pounds but I suspect a special towing package with an oil cooler will raise that to 5000. This might be limited to a hybrid setup or the 2.0L.
 

the1mrb

Well-known member
First Name
Matt
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
226
Location
Duluth, MN
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger XLT FX4
You don't need a frame to build a truck:

If Ford did something like this, and the rear panel on that protoyype cab sure looks reinforced, then you might be surprised by both payload and rigidity:

1617465527617.png


Source: https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405

Ford knows trucks, and knows physics. Honda did them a solid by showing how it could be done. I suspect we'll be surprised by the capability.

It would also explain why it can only be sold in a crew cab offering.


Source: https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405
There are plenty of unibody vehicles that tow more than the Ridgeline, though. Land Rover has a few, the Grand Cherokee, the Cayenne, heck even Ford's own Transit 150 can tow 7500 in some configurations. I'm not saying that body on frame doesn't make it easier to build a vehicle that can tow a lot, but being unibody isn't a disqualifier for decent towing if it's a design concern. Given the 7 pin plugs we're seeing on these, I'm hoping that it was for Ford!
I've been trying to explain this to people for awhile! Just because it's a unibody doesn't mean it will be incapable. You can make any unibody very capable with the right amount of design and engineering. And I believe Ford is the kind of company that can and will do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

TruckGuySC

Well-known member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
129
Reaction score
199
Location
South Carolina, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger Lariat
The Maverick is likely a harbinger of a unibody truck future especially as the world moves to electric vehicles.

The current Ranger tows 7500 pounds. The 2022 Ranger will probably tow more in some configs, and do more, with a bump up in price.

The Ranger won't be $25,000 anymore, it will be closer to $30,000. It could be as simple as the Maverick tows 5000 pounds with the largest engine, the Ranger 7500-10,000, and the F-150 10,000-15,000. I very much doubt they'll fail here. The base kit might tow only 2500 pounds but I suspect a special towing package with an oil cooler will raise that to 5000. This might be limited to a hybrid setup or the 2.0L.
Just curious, why would an all-electric have to be a uni-body? 🤷🏼‍♂️

The all-electric F-150 that Ford has demo’d pulling a million pound freight train is BoF..

see for yourself:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

rtcraft89

Well-known member
First Name
Trey
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
67
Reaction score
160
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
Mercedes E-500
You don't need a frame to build a truck:

If Ford did something like this, and the rear panel on that protoyype cab sure looks reinforced, then you might be surprised by both payload and rigidity:

1617465527617.png


Source: https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405

Ford knows trucks, and knows physics. Honda did them a solid by showing how it could be done. I suspect we'll be surprised by the capability.

It would also explain why it can only be sold in a crew cab offering.


Source: https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405
Thank you for this. Very good article.
 
Top