Yeah, I don't think anyone is going to argue the Maverick looks anywhere close to as stylish as the SC, but I think what's going to convince people on the low end spectrum to consider it is the 40mpg and low MSRP in basic configurations. Handling and performance wise, the best Maverick is also going to be pretty lackluster compared to the SC 2.5 Turbo. Its almost like comparing a Ford Escape vs a Mercedes GLA, one is great for the frugal, the other that want a more premium vehicle.
You're correct,
@JASmith, somehow I heard him say "600" instead of "1500" (wishful thinking, perhaps?)
No worries, the other question will be tiedown strength. Watched another video that says the tiedowns are rated to 1100lbs on the Ford, which is the same strength as their big ol superduty. Since the bed is composite on the SC, I'm not sure if it will be able to anchor as much weight as going directly into the steel unibody like on the Maverick. May not matter to most, but is good if you're strapping down something heavy and solid that you don't want to go flying in a crash, like we transported an small airplane engine minus prop a couple years back in the Ram's bed.
Other news I learned is that the Maverick gets a 15 gallon fuel tank, which in theory should get you 500 miles or so before the fuel light turns on. That'd be the same range I get with the 32 gallon fuel tank in my Ram, due to the so much worse fuel economy of the Hemi, lol! Curious to see what they reveal is the capacity on the SC.
Also see Ford has shared weight, and the hybrid is a bit of a porker at 3700lbs, a bit over 100lbs heavier than the turbo 250hp engine. Makes me curious how big that hybrid battery is. Hmmm....