Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on June 08, 2021, 09:04:34 AM
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/success/ford-maverick-little-pickup-truck/index.html?utm_source=optzlynewmarketribbon
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/maverick/2022/2022-ford-maverick-compact-pickup-truck-first-look-review/
This looks like it would be perfect for someone in the city or suburbs who needs to make Home Depot runs and the like but still wants to park in the office building downtown. I will also be interested to see when the Hyundai Santa Cruz hits the market.
-
Looks like a scaled-down Honda Ridgeline.
Brad
-
I read something on CNBC that one version of it, a hybrid, will get 40 mpg and start at 20k.
OK, this says that it comes standard as a hybrid... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/fords-new-maverick-hybrid-pickup-starts-at-19995-and-gets-40-mpg.html
-
This statement, however, is wrong.
"The name Maverick is not new to Ford. It produced a two-door sedan with that name from 1969 to 1979."
The Maverick came in both 2 AND 4 door versions. I had a 2 door, a friend of mine had a 4 door.
-
This statement, however, is wrong.
"The name Maverick is not new to Ford. It produced a two-door sedan with that name from 1969 to 1979."
The Maverick came in both 2 AND 4 door versions. I had a 2 door, a friend of mine had a 4 door.
My older sister had a Maverick "Grabber" in the late '70s. Mom and dad pretty much bought it for her. Wasn't a bad little car when she got it but she drove it like it was a stolen rented mule. Of course she pretty much drove anything she was in like that and just expected dad or me or our brother to fix what ever she managed to tear up.
Don't know what ever became of that little car. She managed to lose it. And, by lose it I mean she doesn't know what happened to it or where it went either. I kind of suspect her doper husband sold it or traded it for drugs but one never knows.
-
The hybrid version will be FWD only. Not good, IMO.
On the other hand, there will be a non-hybrid turbo version with 250 hp, 277 lb-ft of torque, and AWD. Now we're talkin'.
-
Reminds me more of the old Chevy S-10 but with a short bed. Looks okay even if the styling is more plain. The turbo version sounds interesting.
-
Looks like a Ridgeline or an Avalanche. Not really pickups in my view as the beds are too small to haul anything practical.
Maybe one could classify this style as an "urban truck" or something.
-
Looks like a Ridgeline or an Avalanche. Not really pickups in my view as the beds are too small to haul anything practical.
Maybe one could classify this style as an "urban truck" or something.
Still looks better than the Tesla truck. Unless I'm missing something, that one id going to be an urban/sport truck. Maybe throw camping gear or something in it, but you're not doing much lumber hauling. Actually not in the Maverick either, unless it comes in an extended or regular cab as well. That quad cab takes up all the bed space. Though maybe the reserved the Ranger as the small "workin' man's truck".
-
The body appears to be all one unit like the Ridgeline or the Subaru Baja. Purists will expect a "true" pickup to have a separate cargo box.
Speaking of which, Subaru will be replacing the Baja with a new design:
https://newbesttrucks.com/2021-subaru-pickup-truck/
-
From the articles I have read, the Maverick is not aimed toward the work/serious hauling/serious towing truck owner. This is for someone getting plants at Home Depot, towing the jetskis to the lake, or putting the dirt bike/mountain bike in the bed and driving to the trailhead. I bet they will sell a lot.
-
I bet they will sell a lot.
If they make good on the promised starting price of $20K, they probably will.
-
Doug Demuro reviews it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-arOcpTLySU
-
If they make good on the promised starting price of $20K, they probably will.
That price could be a big selling point. I'm not really up on it all, but it seems the "stripped" (not including stuff like AC, which seems standard nowadays) vehicles just don't really exist anymore. I don't know if that's through automaker research or just plain lack of buyer interest.
My very first new vehicle was a 1986 Jeep Comanche. Four banger, 4 speed manual, PS, PB, and that was it. I'm pretty sure I still remember the price - $7666. I drove it for 15 years. Certainly as I got older and was making more money, I wanted something nicer and got it, but still kept the Jeep as my beater truck.
It would be nice for a lot of people who often get themselves into too much car to have options for inexpensive, dependable, and utilitarian vehicles. Though I'm guessing the culture has shifted to where everyone wants the fancy car right off the bat. For me, I thought that the Comanche was a great way to have a new, warrantied vehicle where I was the guy maintaining it from day one vs getting a fancier used vehicle.
-
^^^My first new vehicle was a 1986 Mazda B-2000 two door pickup truck. I was able to do much of the maintenance myself. I would very possibly still have it but for the neighborhood youth who was racing on a residential street, lost control, and smashed into my truck, totalling it.
-
I thought the base model vehicles have been affected by increases crash and emissions standards.
My truck is a short bed Tacoma. It is likely about the same size. I don't haul lumber or other big stuff, but if I have to pick up a dishwater or other bulky stuff I can do that without worrying about delivery. My bed has a cover also so I can throw all my range gear and guns back there and not worry about it. And yes, it is much more maneuverable than my old F-150.
-
Reminds me more of the old Chevy S-10 but with a short bed. Looks okay even if the styling is more plain. The turbo version sounds interesting.
\
Looks more like an Explorer SporTrac
-
Sooner or later someone is going to make a "minimalist" pickup truck. Bedliner on the floor, bench seat, a hole if you want to install a radio.
And that sucker will SELL.
-
The hybrid version will be FWD only. Not good, IMO.
On the other hand, there will be a non-hybrid turbo version with 250 hp, 277 lb-ft of torque, and AWD. Now we're talkin'.
Most people that buy a pickup never fully use them or even get the tires muddy. Well unless they drop a tire off the pavement.
-
A new "Model-T" will sell. Consider that most of the folks who are making decisions around introducing new vehicles, etc., are likely making close to six figures, they are not considering that there are a LOT of people who make a lot less. When lower income folks can buy a new vehicle for less than what the decision makers would even consider for a used car, then there will be a sea change.
Volkswagen today thinks that it is a sportier Mercedes... Fill the hole left by the original Bug.
-
And yet, the Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, Chevy Spark, Kia Rio, and the like don't sell all that well.
A Model T was $850 in 1908. The inflation calculator tells me that is about $24,800 in 2021. There's plenty of sub $25k new cars, and while they trickle off lots, they aren't the sellers you would think.
I suspect your hypothesis is flawed.
-
Cheap, basic cars don't sell well in the US. Everyone wants all the trimmings all the time.
-
Our delivery fleet has Nissan Versas for some of the newer vehicles. I _hate_ Ford Rangers - they were designed with someone 5'5" in mind.
Look at the Kia Soul - that has sold pretty darn well.
-
And yet, the Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, Chevy Spark, Kia Rio, and the like don't sell all that well.
A Model T was $850 in 1908. The inflation calculator tells me that is about $24,800 in 2021. There's plenty of sub $25k new cars, and while they trickle off lots, they aren't the sellers you would think.
I suspect your hypothesis is flawed.
IMO, that is for tiny little cars. Pickups are a bit different. I am not saying they will sell huge, but I think they will sell better than the little cars.
-
IMO, that is for tiny little cars. Pickups are a bit different. I am not saying they will sell huge, but I think they will sell better than the little cars.
I guess it would depend on demographics. As I said, I have no idea of the wants of the current demographics for whom a simple, inexpensive, car or truck would be a practical investment.
In my case back in the stone age, the small (called mid-sized at the time) Comanche was a good choice for a young buck working in the oil fields. I used it as both a work truck and camping vehicle. I also recall the small trucks were really popular in that time. Tastes and expectations change, and it seems in the present, no one will touch a new vehicle without an infotainment system, among other "luxuries".
Most local dealers have base trucks like F150s available for commercial / fleet use. I've not looked to see what "base" includes in those trucks these days.
-
IMO, that is for tiny little cars. Pickups are a bit different. I am not saying they will sell huge, but I think they will sell better than the little cars.
I agree that the Maverick looks pretty compelling and should sell well. The comment of mine you quoted was aimed specifically at Bogie's assertion that a "new" Model T or Bug would sell well. We have those cars on the market right now, and they sell....OK, at best.
Most local dealers have base trucks like F150s available for commercial / fleet use. I've not looked to see what "base" includes in those trucks these days.
It obviously varies by region but in Tampa you can't touch a new F-150 for less than $35k. The dealers will keep a couple XL's for fleet sales, and usually some STX's for folks looking for the cheapest truck they can find but still new.
This one below is pretty representative of a "fleet" F-150 around here.
https://www.veteransfordtampa.com/inventory/new-2021-ford-f-150-xl-rwd-extended-cab-pickup-1ftex1cb7mfb52123/
-
This one below is pretty representative of a "fleet" F-150 around here.
https://www.veteransfordtampa.com/inventory/new-2021-ford-f-150-xl-rwd-extended-cab-pickup-1ftex1cb7mfb52123/
Geez, the 101A equipment group makes that one nearly as equipped as my XLT. A local dealer here will still order standard cab fleet trucks, but they seem to be disappearing. Even extended cabs are decreasing. Everybody wants the quad cabs.
-
??
All 101A High gets you is power windows and door locks, cruise control, and back up sensors.
The only other options that thing has is Chrome Apperance package [bleh] and the base tow package. It's about as stripped as you can get.
Usually an xlt comes with quite a bit more creature options.
-
??
All 101A High gets you is power windows and door locks, cruise control, and back up sensors.
The only other options that thing has is Chrome Apperance package [bleh] and the base tow package. It's about as stripped as you can get.
Usually an xlt comes with quite a bit more creature options.
All my XLT has is power windows/doors, power driver's seat, minimal infotainment, and that trailer assist camera thing. Cloth seats. I have the 2.7 ecoboost instead of the 3.3 that the linked one comes with. No backup sensors, but mine is a 2016, and they may not have been "standard" then. I paid just about the same price back then for mine that the linked one is going for now.
-
FWIW this just drives home why I won't buy another brand new car. I recently decided my new (to me) truck is nice enough that it will become my daily driver so we can sell one of our cars.
My 2014 FX4 has a TON of options and is great to drive. (Cooled seats in FL for the win) and when I bought it in Jan of this year it was about 55% the price of a new, stripped, XL work truck.
Car depreciation is worse than WWII firearm inflation rates.
-
Cheap, basic cars don't sell well in the US. Everyone wants all the trimmings all the time.
Mostly because of cheap credit. If most people had to pay cash for a car rather than making payments for 60+ months this would change a lot. Or even if the interest rates were more in line with historical norms rather than the sub 3% rates that are commonplace now. When a decked out car only adds $150/mo to your payment it’s a lot easier to talk yourself into it vs coughing up $10k on the spot, or having your payment go up by $250+/mo.
-
Mostly because of cheap credit. If most people had to pay cash for a car rather than making payments for 60+ months this would change a lot. Or even if the interest rates were more in line with historical norms rather than the sub 3% rates that are commonplace now. When a decked out car only adds $150/mo to your payment it’s a lot easier to talk yourself into it vs coughing up $10k on the spot, or having your payment go up by $250+/mo.
Yeah, that makes sense. Even more so now that some banks offer 72 month loans. That is nuts.
-
I have the 2.7 ecoboost instead of the 3.3 that the linked one comes with.
Topic drift: how is the 2.7 EcoBoost working out for you? Are the hp and torque adequate? How's the reliability?
-
Topic drift: how is the 2.7 EcoBoost working out for you? Are the hp and torque adequate? How's the reliability?
I have to say I was a little skeptical at first, but quickly became VERY impressed with this little motor. Acceleration is phenomenal. The difference between it and my 4Runner is like the difference between a Formula 1 car and a Volkswagon Beetle, and the 4Runner, while not super peppy, is not a slouch either.
I've gotten up to 26MPG average on longer road trips, and around town I'm getting 20 right now, but that's with new AT LT tires I recently installed. With the OEM tires I was getting 22.
I have had the bed with a good 3/4 ton plenty of times, and I still get good acceleration and performance. I have only trailered light loads that have done fine. If you want more, that leads me to...
Cons. The performance cons I would give this engine are 1) If you're gonna trailer really heavy loads frequently, or for long distances, go with the 3.5 Ecoboost. Also, if I were gonna do lots of long distance, high speed driving, I would go with the 3.5 Ecoboost. One thing I noticed with the 2.7 when I was still doing the retirement property road trips is that you could see the engine working on long, even flat, stretches where the speed limit was 80MPH. I wouldn't at all call it struggling, but you could see the MPG dropping slowly, and you could tell by the RPMs that the turbos were working. At under 75MPH, it seems to run much more efficiently.
If you're just doing vacation trips, I think this can be ignored. I'm talking more about people who do hundreds of miles weekly on long, high-speed trips. I might not know what I'm talking about as I'm no expert, but it's just my observation that the 2.7, while still performing well, works harder doing that.
-
Does it give good power/torque at low RPM's? My Tacoma has good acceleration, but at higher RMP's. I had a 2011 F150 with the first year 3.5 Ecoboost engine. It had great acceleration even at higher speeds. It also had a lot of torque at low speeds which was good and bad. I would generally only get about 3/4 of the rated tire life as long as I had that truck. I was looking at new spark plugs and boots every 60,000 miles as well. I traded it in around 120K, but I could tell it was getting there. I think they fixed that issue. When I browsed Ford discussion forums, all the complaints were 2012 to 2014 and none afterward. I don't plan to go back to Ford right now, but you never know. I really liked that engine.
-
My '14 3.5 makes a ton of torque down low. It pulls noticeably harder than my friend's 5.0.
-
For what it's worth, I see most of these cars in an urban area... Especially the Souls - they have a lot of room, and while the PT Cruiser and HHRs tried to get into that area, there are a lot of Souls running for businesses. We use Versas in our fleet, along with Rangers (dying off...) and I saw a Nissan Kicks...
The Sparks seem popular too. But we also see a lot of Priuses in South City, along with the little Fiats... Not so many "smart" cars.
I wonder how much one would run with a bare-bones (bedliner instead of carpet, no "infotainment," etc) interior and exterior - you can have any color you want, as long as it is beige...
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g34908888/10-cheapest-new-cars-for-2021/
-
^^^I had a 2010 Kia Soul, and it had an amazing amount of tall cargo space with the rear seats down.