Ford Fusion V6 Sport Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
·
299 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey all, the new Ford Maverick debuted a day or two ago and it's pretty neat!


Starting at $20k, the Maverick comes standard as a 4 door, 5.5 foot bed truck with a 2.5L hybrid engine. FWD powertrain is standard, with an available AWD drivetrain only available on the second engine option, the 2.0L EcoBoost. The Hybrid is capable of towing 2k pounds, the 2.0L EcoBoost 4k pounds. The truck has 1500 pound of payload as well. The Hybrid engine is targeting 40mpg, and the 2.0L is targeting 23mpg.

The Maverick is smaller than an Explorer, slightly larger than the Bronco Sport and based on a similar platform I believe. It is a full unibody construction as well, with a curb weight of around 3,700 pounds? The bed is capable of carrying a standard plywood sheet with the tailgate down, and it also ratchets to multiple different settings to facilitate this. The bed has space for 3 2x4 boards to help support the plywood sheets above it, or to act as simple dividers for whatever you wish.

The interior looks pretty nice, with I'd say a mix between an Escape and Bronco Sport. It also has cloth seats on nicer trims (which I personally love) and can only be optioned between an XL, XLT, and Lariat.

I prolly missed some stuff here, but what do y'all think! I figure most people will spec an XLT around 25k with most of the needed features, especially considering the 20k base trim doesn't even have cruise control. As far as design grows I'm okay with it, but I much prefer the Ranger and Bronco Sport over this. I think the front end could use some work, but the rest of the truck seems nice. The high beltline does give a slight "heavy" effect. I'm excited to see real world performance, especially off road with the 2.0L EcoBoost.

As far as future options, I would like to the 2.7L EcoBoost available as an option for maybe a sport trim, in the spirit of the old lowered Ford Lightnings. AWD needs to be added to the 2.5L Hybrid, although I think they haven't done this because they want the fuel economy to look as impressive as possible. The front end could do with a redesign, but that's a minor deal for me. All in a great package!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Hey all, the new Ford Maverick debuted a day or two ago and it's pretty neat!


Starting at $20k, the Maverick comes standard as a 4 door, 5.5 foot bed truck with a 2.5L hybrid engine. FWD powertrain is standard, with an available AWD drivetrain only available on the second engine option, the 2.0L EcoBoost. The Hybrid is capable of towing 2k pounds, the 2.0L EcoBoost 4k pounds. The truck has 1500 pound of payload as well. The Hybrid engine is targeting 40mpg, and the 2.0L is targeting 23mpg.

The Maverick is smaller than an Explorer, slightly larger than the Bronco Sport and based on a similar platform I believe. It is a full unibody construction as well, with a curb weight of around 3,700 pounds? The bed is capable of carrying a standard plywood sheet with the tailgate down, and it also ratchets to multiple different settings to facilitate this. The bed has space for 3 2x4 boards to help support the plywood sheets above it, or to act as simple dividers for whatever you wish.

The interior looks pretty nice, with I'd say a mix between an Escape and Bronco Sport. It also has cloth seats on nicer trims (which I personally love) and can only be optioned between an XL, XLT, and Lariat.

I prolly missed some stuff here, but what do y'all think! I figure most people will spec an XLT around 25k with most of the needed features, especially considering the 20k base trim doesn't even have cruise control. As far as design grows I'm okay with it, but I much prefer the Ranger and Bronco Sport over this. I think the front end could use some work, but the rest of the truck seems nice. The high beltline does give a slight "heavy" effect. I'm excited to see real world performance, especially off road with the 2.0L EcoBoost.

As far as future options, I would like to the 2.7L EcoBoost available as an option for maybe a sport trim, in the spirit of the old lowered Ford Lightnings. AWD needs to be added to the 2.5L Hybrid, although I think they haven't done this because they want the fuel economy to look as impressive as possible. The front end could do with a redesign, but that's a minor deal for me. All in a great package!
I agree with you on the 2.7L engine. Or at least a 2.3L I4 (or do they have that? I didn't see that). Anyhow I used to own a mid-80s Ranger and it was a great truck. Those were about the same size, I think, as these new Mavericks are. The new Rangers are about the same size, I think, as the old F-150s were. So this is probably a good size truck for someone like me, if I were to actually buy a truck. I'd want to see high-level trims though. I don't understand why the truck has to be huge to get good trims. They like to do the same thing with cars, too. If you buy one that's "too small" they don't give you access to all the options. This isn't just a Ford thing though, I think all manufacturers do that. I imagine it has to do with profitability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
On an unrelated note, I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the name "Maverick" since to me that means a late-60s (EDIT: See below, it's actually early-70s, and not actually very big for the time apparently, because cars tended to be pretty big back then) fairly big car, pretty basic grocery-getter for the time but just a good solid Ford car. Car. Not truck. So it's a little odd to me to see that name used on a truck but I guess I'll just have to get used to it.

We had a Maverick in the family and I remember it well, even after all these years. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
On an unrelated note, I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the name "Maverick" since to me that means a late-60s fairly big car, pretty basic grocery-getter for the time but just a good solid Ford car. Car. Not truck. So it's a little odd to me to see that name used on a truck but I guess I'll just have to get used to it.

We had a Maverick in the family and I remember it well, even after all these years. :cool:
I have a different memory of my Maverick as a small car with a 302 V8 that moved along pretty good in those days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
I have a different memory of my Maverick as a small car with a 302 V8 that moved along pretty good in those days.
Hi @dtd I hope I didn't come across as putting down that old Maverick. What I meant was I actually have quite fond memories of it. I don't think I realized it came with the 302 though. I thought the one my grandparents had was a V6, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway it was a good car, definitely a solid car all the way around. I was just pointing out when I think of "Maverick" I don't think of a truck, but that's probably more a reflection on me than on anything else. The new Maverick looks like a decent small truck, although like I said I'd want a high-spec trim (maybe even higher than they offer).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Hi @dtd I hope I didn't come across as putting down that old Maverick. What I meant was I actually have quite fond memories of it. I don't think I realized it came with the 302 though. I thought the one my grandparents had was a V6, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway it was a good car, definitely a solid car all the way around. I was just pointing out when I think of "Maverick" I don't think of a truck, but that's probably more a reflection on me than on anything else. The new Maverick looks like a decent small truck, although like I said I'd want a high-spec trim (maybe even higher than they offer).
I believe the Maverick was a bigger car in the 60's. Mine was early 70's and most had a 6 cyclinder I got the V8 option. For me being my first new car I liked it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
628 Posts
Hi gang. The original Maverick was introduced in April 1969 as a 1970 model and was always classified as a compact car.
It was a relatively small car, only a step up in size from the sub-compact Pinto, which was introduced for the 1971 model year.

Yes, it eventually did have a 302 V-8 (only 210 HP) available in the 1971 model year, but that was only because the three available "straight 6" engines were very weak, due to the early smog regulations/equipment years. But even the available 210HP 302 V-8 was relativelyy weak (in comparison to ~two years before or recent times), due to those new smog regulations and equipment. Of course, that was the case for all engines in those early smog regulations/equipment years. It was the death knell for the original muscle cars

Hope this information helps and good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
I guess I'm the odd ball, I'm trying to figure out the point of the small bed. Why not offer a Bronco sport that can tow 4k, that way I can have the enclosed space and use a utility trailer for when I need to haul stuff. It's so much easier to load a utility trailer then a truck bed. If stuff is still in pallets, I'll pull the sides and the fork lift guy can put it in the trailer without breaking a sweat.
 

·
Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
·
299 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I guess I'm the odd ball, I'm trying to figure out the point of the small bed. Why not offer a Bronco sport that can tow 4k, that way I can have the enclosed space and use a utility trailer for when I need to haul stuff. It's so much easier to load a utility trailer then a truck bed. If stuff is still in pallets, I'll pull the sides and the fork lift guy can put it in the trailer without breaking a sweat.
I have heard this argument. I think some people just prefer a bed and some prefer a trailer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
I drove F250s for years in the 80s-90s and eventually put a dump insert in my last one. Also built a dump trailer and had a 2axle equipment trailer. When I got rid of the last truck and bought an Expedition I thought I might regret it, but it turned out to be the best combo for me. Lots of passenger capacity, secure enclosed hauling space, and could easily tow the trailers for the really heavy/messy jobs. But the caveat is how much space all that takes up. I hate having stuff parked outside, cluttering up the looks of my house, vulnerable to weather and criminals. My outbuilding is 32x54 and I’ve got a three car attached garage purpose built around a lifted F250 w/plow, so I have the luxury to keep it all indoors. Most people don’t even have a driveway big enough for their personal vehicles, let alone room for multiple trailers, so I understand the idea behind a small light truck from just a space constraint perspective. Even though I’ve got room for the big vehicles, I don’t have any now because I just don’t need that kind of capability anymore. I’ve actually considered buying and fixing up an old Ranchero (which is what this Maverick should have been called unless that was cultural appropriation or some nonsense) to do light hauling of messy bulky stuff, so I really get the Maverick concept for that kind of use too. I just think it’s ugly and overdone for the purpose it would serve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkArkAngel

·
Registered
2018
Joined
·
290 Posts
It's a city vehicle for hipsters in screamo bands, it's not a real truck. Also, you wouldn't cross-shop it against the FFS...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
It's a city vehicle for hipsters in screamo bands, it's not a real truck. Also, you wouldn't cross-shop it against the FFS...
This seems like a great business move on Fords part for this exact reason. There isn't really a 'truck' in this size any more; even the newer rangers are fairly large (albeit, not compared to standard trucks these days). If I was younger and looking for relatively inexpensive, versatile "do it all" vehicle, this would definitely be on the list (and after watching Ford's marketing video, that seems to be squarely where this is aimed).

What I would really love to see is another body on frame truck the size of a third generation Ranger with the 2.7. That would suit my surburbanite needs just dandy, although, I barely drive the one car I have now, so I really couldn't justify having both that fantasy truck and my FFS hah!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,537 Posts
I actually like it. It's a great move and seems to be targeted at those that don't really want, don't have the space, or just can't afford an F-150 or Ranger but still could occasionally use the bed.

I watched the demo of the bed systems (linked below) and they really seemed to have put a decent amount of thought into simple features that make basic tasks easier, especially when carrying things like outdoor/sporting equipment or occasional trip to home improvement stores where an SUV may not cut it. I saw another article this morning about similar type of simple features on the interior that make some things easier.

 

·
Premium Member
2017 Fusion Sport, 401A, Driver Assistance Package, 33k miles; 1999 Expedition 5.4 4x4
Joined
·
299 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I actually like it. It's a great move and seems to be targeted at those that don't really want, don't have the space, or just can't afford an F-150 or Ranger but still could occasionally use the bed.

I watched the demo of the bed systems (linked below) and they really seemed to have put a decent amount of thought into simple features that make basic tasks easier, especially when carrying things like outdoor/sporting equipment or occasional trip to home improvement stores where an SUV may not cut it. I saw another article this morning about similar type of simple features on the interior that make some things easier.

We have been seeing this kind of clever thinking from Ford on many of their new products. Different rulers and such on the rear tailgate of the F150, bottle openers on the Broncos, the Mach E frunk functioning as a cooler, etc.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,294 Posts
It is an interesting concept. They targeted the Honda Civic for fuel economy and are predicting 40mpg city with the base hybrid FWD setup. With a base unit under 20K sure can't beat the price. I think the 2.0 AWD will give it plenty of pep after all not everything can be a race car... LOL
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top