What changes to Maverick engineering would you like for the next evolution?

[Betsch-kb]

Add auto day/night rear view mirror with Home Link (I retro fitted my Mav last week and love it).

I really want the "mode" setting to stay where it was when I turned the truck off. My RAV-4 modes stay at the last setting, so if Toyoda can do it, Ford can.

I agree with better materials inside.

Fog lights on the front bumper.

Other than that, I love this little truck, it is just right for "old farts" like me.

Sponsored

 

[Surly Old Bill]

I agree. Raising the roofline 6" would make the Maverick look disproportionate to say the least. Can't have something for nothing. That's one reason why the Tacoma up until the 4th gen had a car-like seating position. It had a higher ride height compared to the Frontier, but that meant it had less floor-to-ceiling space in the cab, so the seats were low-slung.

Aerodynamics are a big factor in the CAD/CAM design of vehicles.
Another factor is consumer wariness of anything that looks "different". That is one reason why pickups have looked exactly the same for the last 60 years (CyberTruck as an example to prove this wariness phenomenon).
With pickup design, there is a consumer demand for increased ground clearance (or the appearance of it), but increasing the cab height along with that creates aerodynamic drag and thus effects fleet mpg averages. So, the seating becomes more like sitting on a pillow on the floor rather than like sitting at a desk as the floor of the pickup rises and the ceiling stays the same. Also, raising the roof height would "look different", and mfgs would lose market share.
Now that efficiency has improved, a mfg could make a practical pickup that has higher ergonomic quality seating position and still achieve acceptable mpg. But it would "look different".
On topic: I went from being a pickup guy to a van guy when I bought my first Sprinter in '05. The secured, dry storage for tools and materials and ability to easily transform it for camping made it far superior to a pickup for my uses. After 10 years, I replaced it with a Transit(not Connect). I have become spoiled by the driver seating position of these vans with upright seating and still over a foot of headroom; as well as being able to stand up fully and walk within them. Returning to a pickup style of driver position made me realize how much worse it is. Thus, if I were to have a change in Maverick vehicle design/engineering, a more upright seating position would be a big plus. It might not "look" like every other pickup made in the last 60+ years, though.
Artist's concept of a taller headroom pickup would basically be a Transit(not Connect) with a pickup bed:
definitely not appealing to your average pickup buyer.

 

[AZ Hybrid]

I purchased an xl and it has enough electronics for me. I personally didn’t like the high visibility orange and 2025 blue on the xlt interiors. The water bottle holders in door are nice but all the bottles I have don’t seem to fit. I would like to see the seat warning go away quicker after you buckle up. And more time to say yes when being asked if I want to return to eco mode or just have it automatically stay in last mode

 

[notfast]

On topic: I went from being a pickup guy to a van guy when I bought my first Sprinter in '05. The secured, dry storage for tools and materials and ability to easily transform it for camping made it far superior to a pickup for my uses. After 10 years, I replaced it with a Transit(not Connect).

I've found that my perfect vehicle is a "crew van". That is, a SWB cargo van but that has an additional row of factory-installed seats (plus headliner and side-curtain airbags).

What stopped me dead is that crew vans are considered motor trucks and do not fall under the pickup truck exception, so technically I'd have to stop at weigh stations. I doubt I'd ever be stopped for blowing past one (I see legit work vans and pickup trucks with service bodies do it all the time), but I'd rather not give the cops a reason.

A slightly more realistic option would be to get a Transit cab and chassis and throw a pickup bed on it. Why not just get a pickup truck? Well the Transit is AWD instead of 4WD (better for rain/sleet/slush), has the Duratec V6, has a taller cab as you mentioned, and because it has a shorter nose, a Transit cab and chassis with an 8' bed has the same nose-to-tail length as an F-150 regular cab with a 6.5' bed.

Cost still makes it prohibitive. SWB AWD C&Cs are basically non-existent on the second-hand market and I don't need one that badly to spend the money on a new one compared to buying a used F-150 RCSB 4x4 with the Duratec for half the price.

 

[Robot-Wrangler]

More seat adjustability like an 8-way seat option would be fantastic. Ventilated seats would be great too. Fog/driving lights controlled from the headlight switch would be a nice touch. Putting controls back on the dash isn't likely though would be safer and preferred by drivers overall.

 

[Rwills]

Gadgets, gew-gaws, body shape, electronics, engine systems; anything.

Personally, I'd like the driver height to be another 6" taller (eye level off the road), via increased seat height and accompanying raised interior ceiling height. Mainly to allow a more comfortable "bus driver" sitting posture for long drives, instead of the low-to-the-floor, legs sticking out in front posture used now.

Of COURSE an available 6' minimum bed length via shortened passenger cab that just has front seats and a small space behind them.

Door bottle holders that actually work.

Take the heater, ac, and radio controls out of the computer screen. It's a scam. If screen goes out you have to spend thousands to get your controls to work again

 

[Fcnrwy]

Just a small item... A carry-over from a current thread....
Recess the Third Brake Light housing... So, those Box Cap folks, can have a water-proof install..

Jerry

 

[Paulyz]

Gadgets, gew-gaws, body shape, electronics, engine systems; anything.

Personally, I'd like the driver height to be another 6" taller (eye level off the road), via increased seat height and accompanying raised interior ceiling height. Mainly to allow a more comfortable "bus driver" sitting posture for long drives, instead of the low-to-the-floor, legs sticking out in front posture used now.

Of COURSE an available 6' minimum bed length via shortened passenger cab that just has front seats and a small space behind them.

Door bottle holders that actually work.

I'd luv the option of the Maverick sitting higher, at least 2 inches. Maybe 5,000 towing capacity, and option of heated seats & power seats without an entire package.

 

[Oakland]

Take the heater, ac, and radio controls out of the computer screen. It's a scam. If screen goes out you have to spend thousands to get your controls to work again

This!
If anyone at Ford is reading this, do away with the touch screen stuff on all models. VW is going back to knobs. Touch Screens are a distraction while driving and you can see it a million miles away ....touch screens will have to be replaced at some point if you own your vehicle for a long period.

I would like to see a Maverick with round headlights similar if not better than what the Bronco has.

 

[Surly Old Bill]

This!
If anyone at Ford is reading this, do away with the touch screen stuff on all models. VW is going back to knobs. Touch Screens are a distraction while driving and you can see it a million miles away ....touch screens will have to be replaced at some point if you own your vehicle for a long period.

I would like to see a Maverick with round headlights similar if not better than what the Bronco has.

similar to home washer/dryers, the SCREENS are the weak point, and if the screen goes out, you can't operate anything, and they are the most expensive part to replace.
I suspect some agile-minded designer/engineer will incorporate a dual control system in vehicles where you can use the touch screen OR actual knobs and switches. Maybe physical controls will be behind a flip-down panel, to be accessed if the screen decides to retire. Tesla had several problems early on with their screen-only system. I wonder, if like airbags, the early adoption problems will dissapear. No one even worries that their airbag will randomly go off and punch them in the face anymore.

 

[Dr. No]

I would like them to engineer better reliability into the vehicle.

 

[Packer Bill]

My biggest gripe is a lack of a heads up display for the Lariat trim. My 2019 Mazda CX-5 has it!

 

[riparian]

...On hybrids get the 12V out of the cab so there's less safety concerns in having it charge more fully. Then have it charge more fully....

Yep. I'm convinced the hybrid system itself is solid (based on my experience with previous vehicles as well as the Maverick). Ford just needs to fix 12v charging.

 

[Escapologist]

Cost still makes it prohibitive. SWB AWD C&Cs are basically non-existent on the second-hand market and I don't need one that badly to spend the money on a new one compared to buying a used F-150 RCSB 4x4 with the Duratec for half the price.

Every time I was looking at 2024s the dealers seemed to have a lot of chassis cabs they were knocking down 10s of thousands, even 2023s. So IDK if you'll see something more reasonable in another area if you check what dealers are trying to clear out.

Seems odd that that shape kicks you into commercial requirements, here it's on weight, so if you got a half ton, maybe 3/4 ton it wouldn't kick in. Though they have special "derated 3/4 ton" for RVers in the F250s. That is also a "loophole" for private use, registering as RV, but I think you gotta have appliances and a sleeping bed.

 

[notfast]

Every time I was looking at 2024s the dealers seemed to have a lot of chassis cabs they were knocking down 10s of thousands, even 2023s. So IDK if you'll see something more reasonable in another area if you check what dealers are trying to clear out.

Most of the chassis cabs around here are the longer wheelbases for box vans or service bodies. I'd want the shortest chassis cab option available, plus AWD, which makes for slim pickings.

Seems odd that that shape kicks you into commercial requirements, here it's on weight, so if you got a half ton, maybe 3/4 ton it wouldn't kick in. Though they have special "derated 3/4 ton" for RVers in the F250s. That is also a "loophole" for private use, registering as RV, but I think you gotta have appliances and a sleeping bed.

It's more California's strict vehicle classification. Basically every other state does it by weight. The threshold is typically over 10000lbs GVW, which is also why F-250s and F-350s can be rather conveniently factory-ordered with a de-rated 10000lb GVW package that does nothing physical and just has a different weight printed on the door sticker.

To the letter of the law, California requires all "motor trucks" regardless of GVW to stop at weigh stations. Cargo and crew vans are federally classified as a "truck" on the door jamb sticker, so they are supposed to stop. Pickup trucks are exempt if they meet a few requirements (GVW under 10000, unladen weight under 8000, pickup-style bed under 9 feet long, service bodies or flatbeds don't count as a pickup bed).

In practice, cargo and crew vans basically never stop at scales in California, along with F-450s (14000lb GVW) with pickup beds or a Ford Ranger with a flatbed, even though all of those are legally "motor trucks" that do not fall under the "pickup truck" exception. CHP could technically pull each one over, but they have bigger fish to fry. They're looking for overweight semis and box trucks, not the cable TV or plumber van.

Sponsored