By on June 11, 2021

The word of the week has been Maverick.

The 2022 Ford Maverick has gotten plenty of coverage on this site and elsewhere, plenty of buzz on Twitter, and every auto journalist I know, self included, has strained to find the best joke referencing either Top Gun or a ’90s Western comedy starring Mel Gibson and James Garner (both flicks are excellent, by the way).

I want to be excited by this truck. I should be excited by this truck. And yet, my prevailing feeling about it could be summed up by a gif of a shrug.

Don’t get me wrong — I don’t think the truck, based on its specs, will be bad. Far from it. I’m impressed by the specs and the pricing and I like the looks and I suspect the truck will drive just fine. Ford appears to have done a wonderful job. And I have little doubt the Maverick will be a hot seller.

Nor am I against compact trucks in general. I think there was a gap in the market, and Ford and Hyundai are getting there first — Hyundai with the upcoming Santa Cruz. I’m excited to see other makes follow.

I suspect my indifference may be related to my own biases and interests — I am just more of a sports-car (sedan, coupe, hatch, whatever body style) guy than a pickup man. And I live in a part of Chicago that is not truck friendly, to boot — if I were still a suburbanite, I might be more into trucks. I do start playing with trucks on consumer configurators after visiting family that lives on a farm.

There’s always danger in turning personal preference into an opinion post, and I am flirting with it, I know. But I also suspect that I am in a weird minority here. Most folks seem to love the Maverick. A few hate it. Others point out that today’s “compact” truck is bigger than the trucks of yore as a way of also noting size bloat throughout the industry.

The more I think on it, the more I realize why I am indifferent, and it goes beyond personal taste. Personal preference is best expressed in a tweet, not a post. My real issue isn’t that the Maverick doesn’t excite me because sports cars are more likely to rev my engine, so to speak, but because it seems that only trucks are really exciting these days. And maybe some EVs, like the Mach-E.

Think about it. Over the past two to three years, what have been the most exciting unveilings? Ford’s F-150, Bronco, Bronco Sport, Mach-E, and now Maverick. Hyundai’s Santa Cruz. Corvette. Maybe Civic and Land Rover Defender? Possibly the upcoming Nissan Z, just announced for August.

Some of that is related to COVID. A lot of it is related to the market shift towards boring-but-useful crossovers, and the fact that market realities and regulations make it harder for automakers to justify business cases for “fun” cars and trucks.

Maybe the Maverick is a big deal all on its own, independent of the market, and I am just off-base here. But I can’t help but shake the feeling that at least part of the excitement surrounding the Maverick isn’t because it marks the return of the small truck or because it’s impressive on paper. Those things are both true, of course, but I also wonder if part of the excitement is because there just aren’t as many “fun” things to get fired up about. So instead we focus on a well-done vehicle that exists for utilitarian purposes.

I do understand why certain consumers — those who actually need/use these trucks — get excited. An affordable truck that can make your job easier, or make it easier to indulge your hobbies, is nothing to sneeze at.

It’s not that I think you shouldn’t be excited about Maverick. Rather, I think it’s a bit sad that there aren’t more, other types of vehicles to get excited about right now.

Hey, at least I can geek out over another Ford soon enough. I just need to find some fresh-squeezed O.J. references.

Still, the relative lack of heart-pounding concepts and hotly anticipated enthusiast vehicles might explain my indifference even more than my hit-or-miss relationship with trucks.

Either that, or I am just … a maverick.

[Images: Ford]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

136 Comments on “Opinion: The Ford Maverick Makes Me Shrug...”


  • avatar
    jack4x

    “But I also suspect that I am in a weird minority here.”

    I’m in that minority too, but it seems like for much different reasons.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Yeah, I’m another one who is in the sport coupe/sport sedan fan club. But I’m enough of realist to know they aren’t making the vehicles I want anymore – certainly not in price ranges that I can afford.

      But I CAN afford the Maverick – and might be willing to pay for an XL or XLT model without too many options. And that’s the thing – more and more people can no longer afford vehicles north of $30K. It’s a zero-sum game and more costs are being offloaded onto the consumer, gobbling up more discretionary income.

      The Maverick will sell not only because it is interesting and fills a market niche but because most people can afford it.

      But I understand Tim’s problem: Cars have generally become boring. There’s no getting around it. He correctly observes that trucks are the most interesting thing these days. That’s because trucks are where automakers are focusing their talent and energy. And everything else has become kind of joyless – at least for mere mortals and particularly for those of us who are lifelong auto and driving enthusiasts.

      I don’t know how one reconciles this. I’ll get around to driving a Maverick. Maybe I’ll hate it. But if I like it well enough and it continues to interest me, maybe it’ll keep me from blowing my brains out (metaphorically speaking).

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    They’re going to sell 100,000s of thousands of them. I can’t predict if this or the Bronco Sport will sell better.

    I’m excited about the Maverick and Santa Cruz partially because once you slap a tonneau on them you have a 3-box sedan. How many of those are left at ANY PRICE? Let alone one priced where almost any new car buyer could afford it?

    I can get a three box sedan with a removable lid to the trunk, one I can hose out. Tow 4,000 to 5,000 lb or haul over 1000 lbs of stuff. All while getting pretty darn good mileage on my commute.

    To the guy with a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 2 car garage house – sounds like a winner.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “To the guy with a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 2 car garage house – sounds like a winner”

      The newer homes have smaller garages which are really 1.5 car size, a giant “compact” truck isn’t helping.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Guess how many of my neighbors use their garages to park cars?

        Maybe 10% – so many used for storage and at least one being used as a man cave. Couches, big screen TV, Arizona Cardinals every week of the NFL season.

        I’ve got 2 cars in mine.

        • 0 avatar
          jack4x

          @Dan,

          This is exactly why I don’t understand this truck. So few park in their garage anyways, why sacrifice capability for a shorter length?

          • 0 avatar
            Matt Posky

            I don’t understand the garage issue. Ford’s marketing is clearly trying to target younger urbanites who might want it for some light work and regular commuting.

            I assumed that most of the people buying the Maverick would be parking it in a narrow driveway, on the street, or beneath a carport. The only garages I see it going into will charge by the hour.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Don’t know about the Ford team but the Hyundai team was headed by an American who has worked for them for quite a while. While his wife was taking advantage of his discount and driving Santa Fes he had American pickups for camping, mountain biking etc. He was irritated that the American trucks were too large to be practical to park in downtown environments and parking garages.

            It will be interesting once the chip shortage madness dies down to see where the real world transaction prices are between say a Maverick, Ranger, F150 with similar equipment. To me even a $50 difference in monthly payment is meaningful. I’ve got better things to spend money on.

            For me there would be no pleasure in daily driving a crew cab full size truck. When would I use its full capacity? Likely never. Even a 2.7V6 twin turbo F150 would have greater fuel cost than a Maverick or Santa Cruz. I’ve towed a few times but never more than what the baby trucks are offering.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            “It will be interesting once the chip shortage madness dies down to see where the real world transaction prices are between say a Maverick, Ranger, F150 with similar equipment.”

            Yep, I wonder this too.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          I have this guy here, keeps his SS Camaro and Harley in the garage, P/U Truck on the driveway; divorced his wive; life is good.

          General picture here, people keep some classic cars in the garage and the new one – outside. People have old mustangs, minis, ford trucks, VWs; a lot of this is going on here.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          When I was in AZ it was explained a common practice was to convert the garage into a enclosed patio or sunroom. I found the practice odd when I saw it.

          @Matt

          I fail to see what young urbanites in townhomes and apartments need a truck for… also from someone who parked on the street forever the last thing I want is a long vehicle which is easier for me to tap someone when I parallel park. I do hope Ford wasn’t targeting these demos, the better demo is suburban wannabe weekend warriors and we have garages in most cases.

          Oh and “regular commuting” means “traffic” in urban areas. That’s why so many of them become militant bikesters.

          @Dan

          The fact the Santa Fe pickup project was headed by a guy fed up with trucks being gigantic gives me hope. I hope his solution isn’t “well make it 90% of the full size” which seems to have been the procedure with Ranger/Colorado and it seems Maverick.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @28 given the similar size of the vehicles they are based on I wouldn’t bet on the Hyundai being much shorter. If you keep the crew cab configuration where do you shrink it down? Taking any length from the bed would severely impact usefulness as a truck as well as giving it some silly proportions. Shrinking the back seat would make it unusable for most.

            They could ditch the whole crew cab but there is not indication either are looking at that right now.

            Crew cab pickups are long, be they 3/4 ton, half tons, midsizers, or compact.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Comparison…

      Length
      Maverick = 197.7″
      SC = 195.7″

      Width
      Maverick = 72.6″
      SC = 75.0″

      Height
      Maverick = 68.7″
      SC = 66.7″

      So the Santa Cruz is 2″ shorter in length and height, but 2.4″ wider. That could make a difference in some garages.

      My minivan (202 L x 78 W x 69 H) barely fits in my 1967 garage, but either of these trucks would fit more easily.

      I learned to keep cars in my garage when a friend pointed out that I had a valuable asset sitting outside in the rain and snow, while worthless junk was safe and dry in my garage.

      • 0 avatar
        dukeisduke

        That’s the way my mother-in-law puts it – “$300 worth of junk inside, and a $30,000 car outside.” Me? Guilty.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        Width is really the limiting dimension here. At 215″ my Dakota is the absolute limit that fits in my normal 2 car garage (house built in 1993). From mirror tip to mirror tip the Dak is 80″. When they list width its often without the mirrors which makes no sense. On my Dakota the mirrors do NOT fold in which could be a major problem for some.

        The next problem and the one that keeps me from keeping my Corvette in the garage is how wide do the door require to open? Once again even my 4 door Dakota is at the limit here – you have to squeeze in. I assume the SC or Mav would be about the same in this regard as the interior room seems very similar.

        • 0 avatar
          nrd515

          My 2000 Sierra Extended Cab 4×4 just barely fit into my garage (Built in 1970) I had to park absolutely straight, or the garage door would come down on the rear bumper. I had about an inch and a half clearance. Of course, if I was in a hurry, I would be on a slight angle, and have to back out and go in again. I was kind of shocked when I was looking to replace the Sierra in 2003 after a wreck left it having endless electrical problems, and a friend’s Ram 1500 Quad Cab not only fit, I could walk behind the truck (If I was even close to being straight)with the door down! One point for the Ram! It ended up winning over another GMC or a Chevy for other reasons, but the room behind it was nice with the dogs, etc. I really miss that Ram every winter.

      • 0 avatar
        MRF 95 T-Bird

        “My minivan (202 L x 78 W x 69 H) barely fits in my 1967 garage, but either of these trucks would fit more easily.”
        It amuses me how vehicles are able to fit in the post war 1950’s-60’s homes garages. Designed for the tail finned mastodon or family wagon, but barely.
        My folks 1954 split level ranch garage fit our 58 Plymouth and 62 Impala with a bit of room. No biggie doing valve jobs on them. The Darts and Valiants had room to spare.
        My dad’s Honda Pilot fits well.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          My cheap-a$s house built in 1953 has a garage that was definitely designed with tall compact pre-war cars, not the big land yachts, in mind. The longest car it can fit is right around 202″ and, with the shelves the previous owner installed present, a passenger has to get out before the driver pulls into the garage. (Remove all storage from the garage and people could navigate around a parked car, but… no storage in a garage?)

          At the moment the garage is given over to bicycles and a disassembled bed. One car is in the driveway and the other is on the curb.

    • 0 avatar

      “To the guy with a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 2 car garage house – sounds like a winner.”

      Unfortunately it is not me – my house has 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. 2 car garage yes, but it is difficult to fit the second car because I have to keep other stuff in garage too.

      Regarding sedan analogy I do not see how it is good. It is still tall vehicle. And BTW I prefer hatchback, but hatchbacks are sold only in Europe, like Mondeo e.g.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    My beef with this truck is this

    1. Made in Mexico – make it in America
    2. Turbo engine – put in a small v6 or 5 cyl
    3. No manual transmission
    4. Potentially, if the second row is not usable due to seatback positioning etc., I have issue with cars like this

    • 0 avatar
      redapple

      Slav:

      I usually agree with you. But. UAW built vehicles is not desirable. USA labor yes. UAW? > F no.

      Added cost. Added restrictions. Insane procedures. I used to break Jack Baruth’s balls about his Mexico built pick up. I was wrong.

      I remember the 100 s of UAW GM employees i ve supervised and dozens of plants I ve been in. They are a CANCER. They PREVENT efficient plant operation and inject byzantine methods into the production process. Look at them sideways. They want committeeman. EVERYTHING in the area stops until the committeeman shows up in 2-3 hours.

      Avoid at all costs.

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        This is true but you wont believe me.
        1998 GMAD Doraville.
        Hourly /UAW toilets Thru out the plant.
        Official sign on the main ‘in’ door.
        “No Eating food on the Toilets.”
        Violators subject to Progressive Discipline.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        I hear ya. This is catch-22. lose/lose for us. I know. It is hard to swallow for me that American company sells me their stuff made in Mexico, period. If they sold it outside US, I would be fine. I am kinda “natural” person. I want a full experience; if I buy a Japanese car – made in Japan, German – in Germany. I will never buy Mazda made in Mexico, never.
        Another issue that I see with Mexico is education of their worker. Yea, these people work hard, but they have only 60% population even get to high school. They are not trained to think. One of the problem is tooling. When they calibrate the machines, how diligent are they? I always remember that one airplane that landed in some country and was a bit low on nitrogen in the tires. The shop ran out of nitrogen at that time and what did they do? – they logged that pressure was still in the range. Next take off, flat tire robbed against paired tire, overheated it and the second tire failed, and generated big heat. Tires went into the bay and fire started inside the wing…

        In other words, I don’t believe that procedures and calibration are followed in Mexico good enough. One thing I noticed, Mazda3 made in Mexico does not have panels fit as well as it used to be in Japan. But to be complete on this, Panels don’t fit very well on JGC, American Honda, etc. Interestingly, Italian-made Renegade had excellent fit.
        And this is my beef.

      • 0 avatar
        Southerner

        I bought a car a year ago. Didn’t consider an
        American make because UAW.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Not every vehicle is right for every person. Personally I would have little use for it, but I also would have little use for any automotive starter kit, but here’s the thing, Ford is in the business to sell vehicles at a profit, their shareholders insist on it

    Ford has hit a triple with the Bronco/Bronco Sport/Maverick with more to come. I’m guessing here, but I doubt Ford much cares how people feel personally. They just want to sell you a truck

  • avatar
    Lynchenstein

    “a well-done vehicle that exists for utilitarian purposes”

    Hu-frickin-ray! Sometimes you just want something that works and gets out of your way so you can get stuff done.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Exciting is a strong word, but they bring interest to the CUV segment. Sporty and stylish can be said, vs a boring/mommy CUV, for utilitarian reasoning, great for sports activities, the great outdoors, ready for improvised and unplanned moves, yard sales, flea markets, free stuff and others.

  • avatar
    ajla

    FWIW, I expect the SC turbo will be at least somewhat fun to drive.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Same here. 280 HP / 310 TQ and a DCT? A few years ago that was Golf R specs. Granted the SC will be heavier but I bet its going to be zippy especially compared to the Mav. The base Mav is going to be a dog but with a focus on MPG this is expected.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Ding ding…

        Can’t wait to see the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times on the SC. I also want to see how the AWD system is going to be calibrated. If it feels good to spur that Hyundai up a cloverleaf I’ll be sold.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          I think giving the SC a sporty bent would be a good move. The Maverick is going cheap and cheerful, the BOF trucks have off-roading way locked down, and Subaru has all the nerds class buyers already.

          If it doesn’t impact towing capacity an N-line trim with just a little more pepper thrown at it would get me from “internet interested” to actually interested.

      • 0 avatar
        eng_alvarado90

        I’ll correct it for you: both the base Mav and SC will be dogs in acceleration. The only upside about the base Mav is you will get terrific mileage while the SC won’t.

        In regards of the optional powertrains, I’m betting the SC will get about 1 second better time to 60 than the Ecoboost Mav, the former being in the high 5s or low 6s.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          A top trim 2.5T Santa Fe AWD ran 0-60 in 6.0, and did a [email protected] quarter mile. It also had quite impressive rolling acceleration times.

          caranddriver.com/reviews/a35996928/
          2021-hyundai-santa-fe-25t-caligraphy-by-the-numbers/

          If the turbo SC can be just about .2 quicker, that would be a nice setup. The tire size on the launch truck would also fit some “sport truck” options.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        The hybrid Escape with what amounts to the same powertrain as the base Maverick ran 7.9 5-60 and [email protected] for C&D, and that was with 150 lbs of dead weight AWD along for the ride. Slow but not Subaru slow.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Not too long ago those would be pretty impressive performance numbers. There are plenty of people (likely NOT the B&B) that would find that performance just fine and would prefer the mileage over shaving 2 seconds of 0 to 60. Hence the idea of multiple power options for those who prefer mileage or power.

  • avatar
    tonycd

    Some of the others hit it: This thing wasn’t meant to be exciting, just to fill a market niche.

    But beyond that, the meaning of “excitement” in a vehicle obviously has changed. Fast cars have gotten TOO fast—in today’s congested metro roads, where would you use 3 seconds to 60? Sixties muscle cars were slower that today’s 2.0 Accord. The combination of faster cars and slower roads means speed has lost both opportunity and novelty.

    And with today’s safety and fuel economy regs, cars all have to look the same to pass, so they mostly can’t set themselves apart with styling either. Hey, it’s not that today’s stylists can’t draw a low-profile hood anymore. It’s that there’s a pedestrian safety regulation that says the grille has to act like a giant pillow when you hit somebody. So the only option the stylists have now is how to decorate the upright pillow.

    All that said, the now-doomed Mazda 6 proved that sedans can still be pretty in spite of it all. But Mazda didn’t have the coin to promote it or keep it mechanically current. The rest is taken care of by the self-fulfilling prophecy of shortsighted billionaires arm-twisting the American makers to abandon sedans, because they see bigger profits in SUVs and pickups THIS QUARTER so they can cash out their stock in some slick fraudulent transaction. No part of American life escapes our bloodsucking elites anymore.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    People like what they likely…no issues there and frankly its a little trick…even back in the day they were among the least exciting things on the road.

    I will say, with respect to truck vs sports car in Chicago my truck would be a pain to manuver, but those roads would eat my Corvette alive. I’d rather daily the truck but yes something lile a hot hatch does seem workable but I’d skip a real sports car in the city too.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    The Maverick makes me shrug, too. I’m sure it’s a competent vehicle, and will sell well. The styling puts me to sleep (it’s like a Nissan Cube with a truck bed), and when I look at the front – what the hell were they thinking?

    • 0 avatar
      NexWest

      I’m a current owner of a Honda Element. I get about 18 mpg around the city [Chicago]. The more I look at this it seems that the Maverick would be a sensible replacement to get that 40 mpg they claim. I carry things around in the Element but an open bed is just fine, and if it rains and I can’t wait, I’ll just throw a tarp on the cargo.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    My wife was, for a while, a field ecologist, who needed to get to field sites spread over 500 miles of coast line with scuba gear and piles of muddy, wet crap. That’s a pretty specialized use case, but I literally can’t think of a vehicle that would have better suited her than this one. I’m just bummed that it comes a few years too late; our CX-5 did an okay job, but man, did it ever get beat up doing it.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Subaru Baja sounds like it would have worked well.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        Actually that would have been a great idea – though any Baja would have been seven years old by the time she began her PhD. But now that you mention it, I kinda wish I’d thought of it at the time, as I know some Subieheads likely keep them in showroom condition.

  • avatar
    KOKing

    To me it’s far more interesting than the ‘return’ of the Ranger. It just didn’t seem appreciably smaller or cheaper than a F150 to matter that much. OK, compared to a Ranger this isn’t that much smaller or cheaper either, and it’s a lot bigger than the South America/Africa unibody pickups. But slotting just under that psychological $20k mark also brings back the mini truck’s place in the 80s as the econobox alternative (anyone else remember the ‘Sakes Alive; Mazda’s got a brand new truck for $5795’ commercials?).

  • avatar
    JMII

    If you were excited about the 40 MPG from the Maverick you might have missed the disclaimer at the bottom of Ford’s press release: premium fuel. It has a 13:1 compression ratio. That might let the wind out of some people’s sails.

    I’m excited because I’ve waited 20 years for a suitable replacement for my Dakota Quad Cab. In 2019 Ford brought back the Ranger (joy!) so I started looking into getting one. However I just wasn’t feeling it since its a touch too big (really too high of the ground). I really wanted something smaller and sportier as I am a sport car guy at heart (owned a Prelude, Eclipse, 350Z and now C7). Then the SC finally showed up and I did the happy dance – it checks all the boxes: turbo power, DCT tranny, sleek styling, small bed = perfect. Then the Mav showed up and proved that Hyundai isn’t the only company trying to grab this market. I believe the mid-size, now apparently “compact” market never went away, however CAFE and the full-size / CUV crazy muddied the waters.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I could be looking wrong but the “premium fuel” tick-mark in the press release looks like it was related to the output on 2.0T engine, not the hybrid.

      However even if they did get the 40MPG figure for the hybrid with 91 I’d be very surprised if they released a sub-$30K utility vehicle with a premium fuel *requirement*. Most people would just give it 87 and live with 35MPG.

      • 0 avatar
        eng_alvarado90

        I don’t get the fine print about Premium fuel either.
        I may be wrong but the base powertrain looks strikingly familiar to the one used on the current Escape Hybrid as well as the long gone C-Max and Fusion Hybrid.
        Those ran good on Regular, and better yet: are super reliable

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      The compression ratio on an Atkinson cycle type of engine is not not the same as on a traditional Otto cycle. The intake valve is left open for some times very long after BDC. So the real world cylinder pressure is similar to a good old 8:1 or 9:1 Otto cycle in actual operation. So no the Hyrbrid wont need premium.

  • avatar
    haze3

    The Maverick should not be exciting but it is, mainly b/c it is bringing back something (a small truck) that a lot of people have wanted for 15-20yrs. When you bring something like that back (see NA Miata), people cheer.

    That it’s a truck from an actual truck-centric company, you get even more love. Ford knows trucks, as do Chevy, Ram and Toyota. That gives one faith that the little fellow will actually have parts/service available for decades to come. In other words, it’s not a mirage. It’s a real thing.

    Lastly, extra points for what appears to be a pretty shocking expansion of the VIN diagram overlap for trucks and the general and fleet buying public. Small size where there wasn’t any and ~40mpg in the base? What? Really? I mean, personally, I’d buy the ecoboost for the AWD and to get a little more tow capability but, goodness, that hybrid is a highlight for an entirely new set of use cases. Well done, sirs.

    SC also deserves mention here BUT they haven’t lit it up b/c they haven’t put up their $ figures. At $30K, SC is a non-starter now. Maybe non-starter at $25K b/c they are not a truck company. The look is funky, the nameplate is a surprise and the after market will be nothing like Ford’s. Likewise, if the SC doesn’t set the world on fire, it stands a good chance of becoming a unicorn. Hyundai does not live on truck rep, they can let it go without harming their steadily increasing momentum in the industry. So, let’s see what they do with the SC but I’m not surprised that it didn’t get the Maverick hype.

    Anyhow, I get the excitement.

    Maybe we could argue for sports car excitement but, frankly, the in-crowd never got on board with the 86 twins or the Fiata. Affordable awesome is Miata or pony car, which is all fine but in no way new (except maybe the Stinger). The rest of the cool kids in that pool charge >$60K.

  • avatar
    dwford

    I was thinking about the Maverick, and who will actually buy it. The marketing shots online show active millennials doing active millennial things, but let’s face it, the Maverick has zero sex appeal. It’s kinda nerdy even. I don’t see many younger buyers, who are more likely to make emotional purchases, getting all hot for the Maverick.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I don’t know exactly what this looks like, but I expect it will be a mix of the Ranger and Bronco Sport demographic.

    • 0 avatar
      Drew8MR

      Well, for my business fleet (commercial property maintenance), right now my two trucks are an ancient Toyota stakeside and a Mitsu cabover. The rest are vans. This might be a nice in-between for appliances etc., if it can carry a washer/dryer at the same time with the extension. Might be worth it even if not, I replace a lot of fridges. A Transit Connect is $30K now,I’d be happy to be spending 20 instead, believe me.

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        I agree that the Maverick will be a home run for small businesses, and for older adults needing a smaller form factor. I don’t think it will as big a hit with younger buyers like Ford hopes.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Disagree, It looks like a proper pickup truck but fits in a city parking space. That is going to be enough for an awful lot of people.

      I think Ford will do better with the conservative/plain pickup truck approach than anyone will do with oddly styled products like the Santa Cruz. People just want a small truck, that’s all.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      Dwford… I think the Maverick’s nerdiness is part of its basic appeal. Personally, even though it’s an entirely different kind of vehicle, the Maverick’s appeal is akin to an original VW Beetle. I also don’t think Millennials and Gen Zers look at cars the way Boomers and the like do. I said a long time ago that Millennials – as a group – are the first generation that is less cool than the one before it. I think the Maverick’s un-coolness may work in its favor with them.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    The fact is, the Escape pickup has far too many compromises to be something that is useful. The compromises Ford had to make result in a truck that is not good at truck things. And to meet their headline grabbing price point, they had to really lower quality more than their usual vehicle interiors, etc. They cut so much that it doesn’t have full LED lighting. Sync 3 is an almost $4k option. Heated steering wheel? Look elsewhere just like the Ranger.

    This will sell to those that are clueless when it comes to buying vehicles and cannot see past the exterior. That’s the only reason the boxy version of the Escape is selling. It’s not very good either.

    • 0 avatar
      Drew8MR

      Fleet sales on this are going to be ridiculous. This could easily be Ford’s #1 fleet seller the first year if they can produce the units. $10K under a Connect, 40 MPG? For guys like me who only need 1 heavy and 1 medium in their fleet it’s a no brainer. If they made a commercial version with the rear seat area converted to secure stowage it would be perfect.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Yup Ford will sell as many as they are willing/able to produce, to fleets. A back seat delete option is a good idea especially if they also offer some shelving and or bin options for upfitting. There are so many applications where this is just big enough and the TCO will be way below the more expensive and thirsty larger trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “Fleet sales on this are going to be ridiculous. This could easily be Ford’s #1 fleet seller the first year if they can produce the units. $10K under a Connect, 40 MPG?”

        Depends on what the fleet price is. State bid price for a Ranger in my state is $33k. Slightly HIGHER than an Egobust F-150. That’s also $8k higher than it’s retail starting price. So who knows, the Escape pickup may have a fleet price of $28k. Or spend $5k more and get a truck with actual capability. This non-truck is a joke.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Well that is too bad that your state is getting ripped off by the dealers making the bids. The bid for the 2021 Ranger was $23,582 for 2wd and $25,046 for 4wd. Meanwhile the F150 was $22,073 and $25,522. So yeah your state is getting ripped off or they are ripping you off by ordering something much fancier than an XL. Or you are just making up crap again.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Or you are just making up crap again.”

            Based on what I know, you are the one making those prices up. Not surprised though.

    • 0 avatar
      Rocket

      Man, it is a really bad time to be a Ford hater, eh?

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        No hate just a realist. The last time Ford was even remotely close to making a good business decision was when Mulally (who was a cancer at Ford) wanted to shut down Lincoln for good.

        But Farley is the new Nassar. Full of bad ideas.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Full of bad ideas.”

          Bronco and Bronco sport

          Mustang Mach E

          F150 Lightning

          Maverick

          I suspect that the public and the B&B disagree.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Thank you for listing all of Ford’s recent awful vehicles and proving my point.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @EBFlex – If anything, you are predictable.

            List the Stelantis stuff that we should be raving about?

            The Durango is such an amazing product….

            ROTFLMFAO

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “The Durango is such an amazing product….”

            I’m sorry is this an article about a mediocre truck from Ford or the Durango?

            But I’ll play your game. Here’s some facts to make you go cry in the corner:

            The 2020 Ford Explorer has had 11 recalls (and I’m sure that number will increase).

            In the past 5 model years COMBINED, the Durango has not had that many recalls.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “The Durango is such an amazing product….

            ROTFLMFAO”

            What? There is nothing wrong with the Durango. The thing has been out for a long time and it can still finish in the top half of comparison tests and has generally had average statistical quality.

            One of EBFlex’s (and Norm’s) greatest powers is to get other commenters to play in the mud with them.

          • 0 avatar
            remusrm

            as always there one of you that are so out of touch with reality but ford worship is strong. I have yet to see a bronco or sport in socal, and I live in SFV. Saw a Mach E rental and I think the Maverick will be a flop since no millenial/gen z even wants to own or drive a car! Few loyalists will buy it but most will be off put by it reliability!

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “What? There is nothing wrong with the Durango. The thing has been out for a long time and it can still finish in the top half of comparison tests and has generally had average statistical quality.”

            Lou MR has an issue with facts. Facts to it/they are like light to vampires.

            But your’re right. The Durango is a surprisingly competent entry. In fact, the ancient Durango came amazingly close to beating out the brand new, completely redesigned Expedition when it was released. Say’s a lot about Ford’s “engineers” that they can barely design a product that wins a comparison against ancient SUVs:

            “Our second-place finisher punches way above its weight. Despite being the smallest vehicle here, the Dodge Durango still does everything nearly as well as our first-place finisher at a bargain price. The Durango feels both sporty and upscale, it’s efficient, and it’s safe, but its slightly smaller cabin and higher running costs means it just misses out on first place.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @EBFlex –

            Shrug

  • avatar
    V16

    Ford should have named it ‘RANCHERO.’
    It has more impact as a moniker in the Ford family.

  • avatar
    JaySeis

    “Get your Maverick off my lawn!!” Say the geezers who’d blow their SS/pensions on $50K BOFs to haul their tired asses to the dollar store to buy dried beans. .

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I’m not excited by this but that’s because it does not match my needs or desires.
    A Raptor Ranger…That excites me.
    A Sasquatch Ranger on 35’s also excites me.
    Chevy putting 35’s on the ZR2. That excites me.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    This genuinely excites me not because of what it is, itself (although the standard hybrid powertrain is neat), but because it suggests that we’ve finally reached peak truck hugeness and there will be interest in going back down the size ladder. Full-sizers have gotten so tall, with such blocky hoods, that full-size adult pedestrians in crosswalks right in front of them are often not visible to shorter drivers. We need to get heights and sightlines a bit more reasonable again and this suggests a way to do it without compromising the styling people like too much.

  • avatar
    jalop1991

    The Maverick is the 64-1/2 Mustang of modern times.

  • avatar
    Dan

    I’m personally shrugging in that my budget goes far enough to just get the F-150 at twice the price and twice the gas but the value proposition here is nothing short of amazing. Your other new car options at anything close to this cost of ownership are tiny crossovers for old women and grounded to the ground sedans that barely fit groceries.

    Something a homeowning dad would actually want this cheap is a class of one.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Maverick is definitely an “other type of vehicle. It’s sad that you are not excited by it Tim. Maverick is lowest cost Ford. Priced below even the Ecosport. Ecosport makes me sad. Maverick gives me hope.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Sort of a catchall posting here.

    |If you have a 2 car garage then you probably have a big enough lot that you require a lawnmower, weed whacker, wheelbarrow, and need to store lawn furniture. You probably also have children so have to store bikes, sports equipment, etc. If your basement is finished then you also may have to store your tools. So if you are organized and lucky, you might have room for one car.

    Sedans and coupes are out of favour because in order to be more aerodynamic they have become too ‘low’. Too hard to get into and out of. Lack of rear seat headroom. Awkward to load an infant into/out of. Limited greenhouse/visibility. And very limited road clearance. They are no longer a useful vehicle for a family. Perhaps OK for young childless or singles.

    The Maverick is ‘right sized’. When we have rented an F-150 or similar I have had to carry a step stool for my wife and mother. Getting into and out of the truck bed is a pain because it is so high. Which also makes it hard to load/unload, particularly when shoveling gravel, etc.

    Go a size down to the Ranger/Canyon and quite often they actually cost more ‘off the lot’ than a fullsized pick-up.

    And how many actually require all the capabilities of a full sized truck? The Maverick can fulfill the original requirements of a ‘ute. To update it can take you to work/church/the country club one day and then to the renovation store/garden centre/garage sales the next day.

    The Maverick just ticks so many boxes. Just hope that Ford does not screw it up with their endemic quality and design woes.

  • avatar
    Rocket

    I was expecting the Maverick (and Santa Cruz) to generate a lot of interest, but I wasn’t expecting to see so many non-truck people getting excited about using a small truck (sorry, Hyundai – “activity vehicle”) as a daily driver. Ford does need to offer AWD on the hybrid though. That was a major oversight.

    In most ways I find the Santa Cruz to be the more appealing of the two, but the silly touch-sensitive controls would be a deal-breaker for me. I will have buttons.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Depends on the cost difference too. The Maverick at its price scratches the same itches the old compact trucks did. You got up much beyond where the Maverick is though and it becomes way less appealing.

      • 0 avatar
        Rocket

        I think the upper trims will prove popular as well — not for tradesman looking for a cheap truck, but for active folks and shoppers typically drawn to crossovers. Of course, a certain amount of refinement will be expected at the higher price points, and we don’t yet know where the Maverick stands on that particular metric.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      The lower end SC model has buttons, its only the upper trims that went full screen. So volume via the steering wheel and set the A/C to auto.

      I hope the SC is popular since I plan on buying one and the idea of owning some one-off model that sells poorly then disappears is scary.

  • avatar
    Tirpitz

    This is one of the best recent comment threads around here. So much so that I registered to comment after only being a reader for years.

    My two cents as a non-truck guy. The Maverick is the second coming of the cheap pickup truck of the late 1980s/early 1990s. In Southern California where I grew up it seemed like 50% of the people I was going to college with had little white Toyota pickups. Ford can use this to attract a whole new generation of customers. As pointed out it is a far more attractive $20K option than things like the Buick Encore and the cheap Econo-boxes.

    That is exciting, at least to me.

    Again, I’m not a truck guy but Ford has put out two trucks I’d actually consider. The F150 Lightning and the Maverick. My household is going to need a two new vehicles in the next 4-5 years because my existing cars are aging. One will be something nice but I need a budget car with modern safety features for my daughter who is rapidly approaching driving age. A hybrid Maverick could be just the thing for her. I don’t want something that goes 0-60 in 5 seconds for a new driver. Slow is fine. Heck, it would make a nice around town vehicle for me and with all the crowded roads locally a sports car is wasted here. Rather have it ride well over the terrible roads than go fast.

    I am also a believer in simple is better. Too many fancy features means more stuff than is going to break. Two of my cars are 20+ year old Hondas which have that simplicity. The downside is that I really don’t want to take either of them on the freeway due to lack of modern crash features. A vehicle like a $20K Maverick with minimal features but modern crash structure is very appealing to me.

    Early on in my driving life my first two cars were Fords. Both were less than impressive in the reliability department. My third car was an Acura Integra and I haven’t bought a Ford since- nothing but Honda and BMW products. But here they have a shot at my business again if they can build something that is reliable and relatively trouble free. I have my doubts they can pull it off and I’m not signing up for a first edition Maverick.

    But just maybe I’ll have a Ford on my driveway again.

  • avatar
    JGlanton

    I really don’t know what the writer of this article is saying or what points he is making.

    I’m also meh on this Maverick, though. It’s just too close to being a car, too nice and too soft and a bit precious and not rough and tumble enough for utility. I liked the old compact pickups of Datsun and Toyota, 2-door cab with a manual, a useful bed with tie-downs on the outside that you could fill with dirt and trees or friends with beers, lawnmowers and leaf bags, rakes and shovels, dirt bikes, dogs, chairs, and you didn’t mind dents and scratches that came with that lifestyle. Some of those trucks are still around, still loaded with rakes and shovels.
    This thing looks like a commuter car, a college ride, a graduation present.

  • avatar

    It just another truck with dull handling and a mediocre interior. I would rather own a vintage 1989 Bonneville SSEi than this dull looking truck. I am sure the Bonneville would run rings around this truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      My Corvette runs rings around my F150, but I cant get too many bags of mulch in the Vette and it isn’t particularly effective at moving my travel trailer.

      Besides, the knock on the Maverick seems.to be cheap interior materials but compared to GM interiors at the dawn of the 90s it probably looks like a Bentley in there.

  • avatar
    nrd515

    A couple of friends of mine’s kids are interested in a Santa Cruz or Maverick big time. They are both around 34-36 and both are married and have a baby that would fit in the back for quite a few years. Both of them prefer the looks of the SC, and both have owned previous Hundai and Kia vehicles, so I would bet on the SC, unless something about it is a major turnoff.

  • avatar
    islander800

    Maybe it’s just me and my demographic but I think the name “Maverick” evokes way too many ghosts of a P.O.S.-mobile Ford foisted on the world in 1969 by the same name. That wallow wagon had GARBAGE written all over it. Outfitted with a V8, it was a DANGEROUS P.O.S. due to its marsh mellow suspension and non-existent brakes. I remember riding in a friend’s so equipped and feeling nervous the whole time it dived and swayed down the highway – and it was almost brand new at the time.

    I guess Ford figures Boomers aren’t the target buyer group for their new “Maverick” and younger people wouldn’t have any memory of the last “Maverick” Iacocca birthed. I’m all for heritage when it makes sense: “Continental” and “Mustang”, yes. “Maverick”: are you kidding me?

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      A friend in high school often drove his mother’s Maverick. If we had 2 in the back seat and we started swaying back and forth in unison we could get the whole back end of the Maverick swaying with us.

      Totally unsafe. But we were in high school.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      That’s completely ungrateful. Yeah corners had to be cut. But who else was willing to put a (220HP/300ft/lbs) V8 for you in a RWD subcompact base priced just $100 more than the VW Bug?

      I could deal with the brakes and suspension. There’s nothing you could do to a Bug that would compare.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      I had a 73 Maverick with the big inline six (bought used). I found it to be a decent daily driver that was tough and reliable. I was racing Formula Fords at about that time, so I would recognize a truly bad-handling car. My Maverick’s handling was competent, even if not outstanding.

      We have to be careful. Our memories can play tricks with us. Even most sports cars didn’t handle all that well in the 1950s-70s. More importantly, the demographic Ford is targeting with the new Maverick won’t remember the original – nor the Mazda-based Courier pickup. Nor the F-100.

      • 0 avatar
        islander800

        I guess my impressions of the original Maverick were somewhat affected by my warm memories of my 1965 Corvair Monza Coupe with a 4-speed, four-carb 140 hp set up that I owned as my first car in 1971. THAT car was a revelation in comparison to the usual American vehicle of the time in terms of handling and performance. It was, without exaggeration, the best-handling American car of the 1960s with its fully-independent four-wheel suspension. The only problem was that it took s bit of appreciation for the “unique” characteristics of a rear-engine vehicle – sort of like learning how to drive a Porsche 911 properly – as well as knowing how to properly inflate the front and rear tires. Putting the same pressure in fronts and rears could lead to some “interesting” handling. With the correct tire inflation, perfectly controlled power slides with modulated throttle and reverse steering was the most fun you could have on four wheels. The Maverick, on the other hand….

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    40 mpg with a hybrid powertrain in a vehicle that is more affordable is something to get excited about. It is a vehicle that many can afford and for a hybrid it is a bargain. EVs still have a lot of hurdles to overcome before they become practical and affordable for the majority of buyers. This is a vehicle that I actually might buy and use. I don’t need a vehicle that is so big that it is like parking a semi.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “I don’t need a vehicle that is so big that it is like parking a semi.”

      If you think a reasonably sized truck is like “parking a semi” you shouldn’t be allowed on the road.

  • avatar
    TooManyCars

    The hybrid is only going to sell to those attracted to 2wd pickups. That market is pretty small in some areas. The younger demographic will only buy a Maverick if the rear seat is actually usable, which means an adjustable seat back. I rejected all of the current mid-sizers for lacking just this feature.

    The geezer crowd, which I will be joining shortly, will buy this to replace an SUV, if, and only if, it has a lockable hard tonneau and locking tailgate available.

    All Ford had to do was produce an updated Sport Trac. The last version of that vehicle had evolved into the perfect urban (urbane?) fou-fou pickup truck, in my opinion. I still miss my 2009, especially during yard maintenance season.

  • avatar
    geo

    I don’t think Ford intended for an entry-level, cheap trucklet to cause auto writers to perform cartwheels, not cares that one shrugged at their fine effort.

    A headline like this reeks of goalpost-moving when it comes to domestic vehicles. An overseas manufacturer would be gushed at endlessly if they released this.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    Why buy this instead of a Ridgeline?

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Because the Ridgeline is too big and too expensive.

    • 0 avatar
      spookiness

      Apples/Oranges. For the price of an optioned-out Ridgeline, you can get two decently equipped Mavericks. The cheapest Ridgeline starts at $36k. If you got the Maverick AWD with Ecoboost and checked every dealer-installed option, you might hit that. For my personal needs, a FWD Maverick XLT comes in just over $25k and commute mileage would be nearly double the MPG. I’ve always defended the Ridgeline, but now the better question might be why buy a Ridgeline?

      • 0 avatar
        JD-Shifty

        well, if you buy a ridgeline you’d be getting something that would still be worth something in 100k miles. it also less likely to break down. It also had a longer bed and holds a sheet of plywood. the 4wd system gets great reviews. I guess I’m more interested in the SC right now. I just don’t trust domestic.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          The Maverick will have incredible resale value and since it costs much less the actual $ lost to depreciation will be much lower.

          It is actually designed to be able to carry a 4×8 sheet of plywood and properly secure it.

  • avatar
    NexWest

    I’m a current owner of a Honda Element. I get about 18 mpg around the city [Chicago]. The more I look at this it seems that the Maverick would be a sensible replacement to get that 40 mpg they claim. I carry things around in the Element but an open bed is just fine, and if it rains and I can’t wait, I’ll just throw a tarp on the cargo.

  • avatar
    Sobhuza Trooper

    Just some random thoughts.

    Maverick would have been a fine name….for the Bronco Sport.
    Courier was a fine name for Ford’s first compact pickup truck.
    Is the extended cab radioactive? Wouldn’t a truck be more useful with the bigger (six-foot) bed? A 54-inch bed is just a trunk with a leaky roof.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      One of the great things is you can haul things or loads way beyond the bed/tailgate, easily 2X the length or more, plus lots can overhang the sides.

      2-seaters are a tough sale, except deep industrial fleet. It was a different world in the mini-truck days, and of course excess and or stinky passengers rode in the bed.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @EBFlex–Don’t like big vehicles and I have been driving for over 50 years. I have driven full size cars and trucks and the full size trucks of the past are considerably smaller than the mammouth trucks of today. I don’t need a big truck or a big gun to prove that I am a man. If one needs a big truck then that is ok but not everyone wants or needs one. From you comments you hate anything that Ford would make. Did you have a bad experience with Ford or are you working for the competition posting anti-Ford propaganda? Ford just like its competition makes good and bad vehicles and as for quality all the manufacturers have been cost cutting their products and as a result quality has suffered.

  • avatar
    JaySeis

    Despite all the various trucks we had (1/2, 3/4, 1, 1.5, 2 ton) the go to rigs for parts runs or whatever were the Mazda 1600, 2000, 2200). They went down our narrow brushy farm road just fine, could pull small trailers with ease and were just dependable. Easy on gas was a side benefit. You get stuff in and out of the beds with ease. They were truly work trucks, not a Brodozer to show off your payment plus thousands dumped on a lift/tire-wheel set. The whole tough truck imagery of some rock crawlin’, mud slinging, pre-running, water fording, desert dwelling, wannabe, sells to weak idiots who say “look at what I wish I was doing”, “I’m a coal rolling tire shredding man”. Hah hah. Invest wisely. The Mav makes dollars and cents.

  • avatar

    I don’t see most Fusion customers trading up to this vehicle. Most of them will go right to a Toyota showroom. It is only a matter of time until Toyota becomes the best selling domestic brand. In fact, Toyota has already surpassed Ford. Both GM and Ford have slipped to 5th and 6th place respectively in international sales.
    GM and Ford continue to decrease in size as they concentrate on a limited range of vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      It’s a high stakes game. Understand Ford and GM are aiming to make every sale very profitable, even if it puts them in 16th and 17th place. Or there should be a very good reason for taking a loss or thin profits (on any vehicle).

      There needs to be $X,XXX set aside (in theory) for every vehicle sold, just for warranty, rebates, lemon laws, recalls, etc, in contrast to the Pinto days, no matter the brand, no matter the car.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    I guess this is a good a thread as any to get my prediction on paper.

    When all is said and done and the numbers totaled come Jan 2023 this will be the second best selling non-full size pickup of 2022.

    As Jalop mentioned this is the Mustang of our time that will have broad appeal across all sorts of demographics.

    In total pickup sales it will come in at 6th overall.

  • avatar
    agent534

    Thinking this might replace my Jeep Patriot as the family mover. Sure I would need a hard cover for the bed or a full on bed cap for it, but after pricing one out it looks good. I think thats where many of these will go.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    Can you remove or fold up the rear seats like ridgeline and some other trucks? I have no use for those seats

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Being front wheel drive it is not as critical that it be AWD. For most people in a snowy area front wheel drive will be the same as driving any front wheel drive vehicle in the snow versus driving a rear wheel drive only vehicle. Unless you are driving off road a lot it is a waste of money for most to buy AWD. For 12 years I owned a 4 wheel drive truck that I only engaged the 4 wheel drive about 6 times. Front wheel drive works fine for me driving on snowy roads and if the weather is too bad I am not going to drive. Anyway my wife has an AWD CRV so no need to have 2 AWD especially since she is retired and stays at home.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      If there’s anyone left in this country that hasn’t bought the marketing bullchit that they need AWD to drive in the rain it’d be the skinflint truck buyer but I’m not sure even there.

      We don’t get 6″ of snow a year here but even the the stripper Frontiers and Rangers on the lots are more 4WD than not. Retail trims are 95/5.

      • 0 avatar
        JD-Shifty

        I’ve been driving my 2wd S-10 for 530k and 25 years, even with snow tires and weight in the back you can look forward to 20 or so white knuckle commutes per year, awd is nice.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I had a 99 S-10 extended cab with a 5 speed manual for over 20 years and yes it was not great in the snow but the front wheel drive Honda Accord and Ford Taurus that I had were unstoppable in the snow. The Accord drove thru the worst snow that Kentucky and Ohio had in decades during January and February 1994 with no problems even when Interstate 71 and 75 was closed for days. Front wheel drove with traction control will work just as good as an AWD or 4 wheel drive most of the time and the few times that you need it are not worth the extra cost and extra maintenance costs for the majority of people. Off road is much different and if you are driving a lot off road then AWD or 4 wheel drive is worth the extra cost. Just driving on regular paved roads to go to the store or go to work all you need is front wheel drive. For many that drive a lot the hybrid would be worth it because of the better gas mileage and the low cost for it in the Maverick especially for a pickup even with a smaller bed. The Maverick is a perfect replacement for a sedan and can do multiple tasks well hauling items that are too big and dirty to put in a crossover or sedan. The Maverick will sell well especially the hybrid which gets as good MPGs as most compact and subcompact sedans.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Scoutdude: No it isn’t warranty work, what I was referring to was the hrs paid for a specific procedure. There...
  • slavuta: BS Lou. you should go into the dark room and stay there. Sunlight is harmful. You telling me all these usual...
  • slavuta: This is what they tell you. What they don’t tell you is that how old those people are. In Italy,...
  • slavuta: Think about how Mexican Texas became Republic of Texas.
  • slavuta: Yes. We’re Darwinists. I said this before. Just don’t complain later that you have Lupus

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber