Just as odd as seeing them on a Santa Cruz 🤣

 

Looks like they're moving backwards.

 

wonder how much the price goes up?? I waited over 19 months for our order ordered sept 2022, got the santa cruz jan 2023 ,3 weeks later, maverick, it shows up !! back in 2022 in the beginning they were great priced, now up about $5000. our LARGE Mullinax ford fl dealers (it show inventory for all stores They have) shows 151 new mavericks on thier lots now for sale
too late for me!! happy with santa cruz hve the SE AWD , month 14 and no issues

 

Interesting, baby raptor would be nice.

 

Ford maverick bitty..

 

Better tire on the mav than the FX4 f150. Lol. They get the Awful G/Y Territory AT.

Id like to see a focus RS variant of the maverick. Lol. With the twinster AWD and the 350 HP 2.3.

I wouldn't have one out of warranty.....too German but the RS was a fun beast to drive.

 

Id like to see a focus RS variant of the maverick.

Oh yeah! With these smaller trucks, which can't off road much anyway, they should bring back the sport truck sub-market. My first pickup was a Ranger Splash which was lowered compared to the regular Ranger for better handling. This is pretty much what people are asking for with Santa Cruz N model. The off roader market is flooded so go the opposite direction I say.

 

Oh yeah! With these smaller trucks, which can't off road much anyway, they should bring back the sport truck sub-market. My first pickup was a Ranger Splash which was lowered compared to the regular Ranger for better handling. This is pretty much what people are asking for with Santa Cruz N model. The off roader market is flooded so go the opposite direction I say.

Problem now is everyone wants seating for 4 or 5 and a lush ride but with Rubicon/G-wagon capability. And Mustang GT/Supra performance. F450 tow rating, and GT-R handling. For a Carolla price. Lol.

I saw the whole mini trucking scene firsthand. Built a few for buddies (turbo swapped mighty max and small blocks in Ranger and S10. Etc). I don't care much for the segment. Then I had buddies who I lifted and ruined some nice powerstroke/dmax/Cummins for. I don't like that market either. Lol.

Yeah a RS or ST version of the Maverick would make more sense than an off-road one. Especially with their ecoboost four cylinder.

The turbo mav is already faster than the turbo Cruz with the little 2.0. Don't want to pile it on with a 2.3. Lol. Its also faster than the old fox body 5.0....sadly.

I say go all out and make a new Maverick Grabber. Hood scoops and the old 302 badging. Have to turn the new coyote sideways ala LS-4 though. But the new 5.0 is a pretty compact engine. Big heads but otherwise compact. A 480 HP is HP (or just 400 if they took the cam and heads from F150) would be fine.

I'm still pissed they killed the 5.0 bronco 2 Dr before it was made. I wouldn't buy a 700 HP GT powered maverick (call it a Dark Pinto instead of a Dark Horse. Lol) But I did want a 5.0 bronco with lockers and a 6 or 7 speed. Replace my Rubicon.

 

Bring back the Pinto and put it on Firestones, it's what the people want!

 

Exactly.

Put a Hyundai USB in it and we won't even need proximity keys.

Between Hyundai and Tesla and GM and Ford and Toyota and Honda.....Nader gave up on saving the world from burning vehicles years ago. If he thought a pinto was bad he should watch an EV burn and try to put it out.

 

Exactly.

Put a Hyundai USB in it and we won't even need proximity keys.

Between Hyundai and Tesla and GM and Ford and Toyota and Honda.....Nader gave up on saving the world from burning vehicles years ago. If he thought a pinto was bad he should watch an EV burn and try to put it out.

Back in the 70s my mom's drunk teenaged boyfriend rolled her and his Pinto off a twisty mountain road and a hundred feet down to the bottom. Helivac'd out, boyfriend didn't make it, she broke a couple dozen bones, including face&skull, I shouldn't be here to type this, only the Lord knows why that car didn't catch fire.
Knowing my momma, they were probably out of gas 😂

 

That would be great posted to a Maverick Forum!😂🤣

 

In the sub forum SANTA CRUZ VS THE COMPETITION.....

Its a field of 2 vehicles (3 max, if you count the Ridgeline). This is the other one.

 

Probably an option for the budget priced $80k trim level. That $19k entry level pick up truck idea certainly fell by the wayside quickly, didn't it?

 

Still order one for 25k and it's faster than a turbo Cruz. But I agree Add awd for a pretty high 2200 dollars and your almost to 30k for a base awd mav. A base xl F150 starts at 38 and is at least twice the truck the Maverick is. Lol

For the original 20k for a 42 mpg hybrid with a bed, the Maverick was a stand alone vehicle in its own segment. But Now I don't know why anyone is buying now. Almost like Ford has decided to kill the Ranger again and replace it with the mav.

 

The Maverick sold because it was a 20k dollar cheap tiny truck. Literally half the price of a base F150. Great concept. Now the base awd mav is 28 while the base F150 hasnt changed. The old hilux, s10, Ranger sold 200-300k units each as tiny cheap puny spartan trucks. So let's tap into that by making a truck 99/100th scale of an F150 with less HP, worse MPG, and less capability and charge the same as the half ton for it....makes sense.

Every year they want to be best in class at everything. They see the Ridgeline that's all the truck most people need but people don't buy it because it's not a real truck and they figure if they make a Ridgeline that's a real truck people will be lining up for it. A base 4x4 Crew Cab F150 is $50k. Base 4x4 Ranger is $37k.

It's a different market now. They would rather sell half as many trucks for twice the profit margin. Can't really blame them.

 

Every year they want to be best in class at everything. They see the Ridgeline that's all the truck most people need but people don't buy it because it's not a real truck and they figure if they make a Ridgeline that's a real truck people will be lining up for it. A base 4x4 Crew Cab F150 is $50k. Base 4x4 Ranger is $37k.

It's a different market now. They would rather sell half as many trucks for twice the profit margin. Can't really blame them.

But they clearly aren't lining up for it. Mach e and corvette outsold a truck that sold 200-300k units a year for 20 years.....


I've bought several in the past 3 years for work and 2 (one a GM) for the farm. Ive not paid over 56 for one and it was an xlt with a 5.0 (2k dollar) fx4 (1k) dollars and a joke....) with pro trailer handsfree trailer backing (1k) and the smaller pro power 2k inverter (1k) and a 400 dollar ugly paint.

Again the Ranger sold 50k and 30k the past two years. It sold 200-300k per year for the first 20 years. 120k was the best year (18) after they made it too big and too expensive. Its going to be hard to convince me that people are buying them instead of the F series.

Ridgeline is not significant to Ford either. 30-40k units max. Even the failing ranger sold that much. To me its too big too. Ridgeline/cruz/mav and the entire run of baja, combined sell less than Just the Ranger alone 20 years ago. And s10 was selling 200k each that whole time too. Plus dakota. Plus taco. S10 and Ranger alone sold 500k all through the 90s. And the half tons were still selling 700k.

The small trucks sold the big trucks sell. The goldilocks trucks dont

I service company trucks for several businesses. All had the old ranger and s10s in the past. Still have 2 s10 and 15-ish older Ranger among them. .. not one single new Ranger or Colorado. They all just buy half tons now. Better resale. Better room. Same mileage and more truck for near the same price.

I know they don't care what I think. But the data is there to back me up. The mav sold 90k and they cut it off. The Ranger sold 50k and 30k and sat on lots....the f series sold 700k. I think people overlook the middle size. I know I did. My company did. And every company I do work for did.

 

Ranger sales tanked as soon as the Mav showed up. In '22 the Ranger sold 56k and the Mav sold 74k and gap has only bigger since then. I guess everyone figure out what I did: the current Ranger is too big, its bed height is the same as an F150. Screen grab from a YT video...

The Ranger's HP and TQ are the same as SC turbo and only slightly more then a Mav, so its not like your getting a powerhouse either. Before people who wanted a smaller truck took the Ranger before, but now that Mav is around they are getting what they really wanted: a true SMALL truck. I did the same thing going from a mid-size Dakota down to the SC. Real truck buyers, who want BOF or lifted 4x4s will just get an F150. The in-between mid-size market is a dead zone now.

 

I didn’t buy the others so I don’t care or do I consider it competition, I bought the right vehicle fo me.

Still pretty silly to come to the sub forum "Santa cruz vs the competition" and chastise someone for mentioning something other than a cruz, in forum specifically for mentioning something other than a cruz.

Ranger sales tanked as soon as the Mav showed up

The Ranger hasn't broke 6 digits since about 05. It tanked well before maverick.

It sold 200-300k a year before 05.

But I fully agree about the "mid" size being dead. The public spoke. A few of us wish it were a different market. Small and mid trucks just don't sell well. 40k units is not going to motivate much development. Especially when 2 million f- series/ Ram/ Silverado sell every year.

You can't make a cheap ranger/ s10 today. The safety that vehicles have to meet, plus the stupid power levels people demand assures it. A mid 90s ranger was 100 hp and 10-14k dollars. An f150 at that time was 250 hp and 20k. So a ranger was 50% or more cheaper. (And half the truck)

A base weak Ranger today has more HP than either brand big 3 half ton had. Completly forgetting the v6 engines, a 5.4 (biggest engine) f150 20 years ago had 240 ish hp and 330 ft lb tq. The best gm was the 5.3 with 285 hp and around 330 ft lb. And the ram was the 360 LA with 240 and 330.... compared to a 4 cylinder 1/4 ton ranger today with 270 hp and 300 ft lb. The 2.7 is 320 and 400 ft lb.

As far as that goes....a base 1/4 ton ranger in 24 has more as much hp as a 454 Chevy or v10 ford ton truck had in 2000. Lol. The optional (and pretty common) 2.7 in a 24 ranger has more HP AND TQ than the v10 or 7400 vortec ton trucks, much less any half ton.

And the 3.0 liter Ranger of today has more hp and tq than a Viper or corvette from before 2000.

The old 5 speed, 2.2 s10 or 2.3 Ranger with 90 hp and 4 bad speakers, bench seat, no sound proofing, no airbags, plain heater, one end abs etc etc etc wouldn't sell... and couldn't legally anyway. But it sold near 300k units every year back then.

The Ranger's HP and TQ are the same as SC turbo

The Ranger and turbo Cruz specs are almost identical.....In the Rangers weakest available engine. The optional 2.7 or 3.0 are quite a bit more powerful. The 2.7 is 40 more horses and 100lb ft of tq. And the 3.0 is 120 more horses and 120 lb ft.

I have no interest in one. But the Ranger as a whole is pretty easily more powerful.