[JASmith]

Shown to scale. Source: How compact is the new Ford Maverick?

I superimposed them close as I could below:

Front view not yet available, but SC is 2.4" wider than the Maverick and 2" lower than the Maverick, even though their ground clearance are both an identical 8.6" (in turbo AWD form at least).

 

[_metafizik]

Shown to scale. Source: How compact is the new Ford Maverick?

Front view not yet available, but SC is 2.4" wider than the Maverick and 2" lower than the Maverick, even though their ground clearance are both an identical 8.6" (in turbo AWD form at least).

For me personally the SC is a no-brainer. While it would be nice if the SC had a hybrid option, the few extra inches in the bed length is insignificant imo and I couldn't care less about the back seat leg room as it's entirely possible no one will ever sit in my back seat. If anyone does I'm pretty sure they won't be candidates for the NBA. The SC wins on styling, performance, Hyundai reliability & warranty. It's all about the utility, the cool factor, technology and peace of mind for me. I've owned 2 Hyundai's for each for 15+ years and never had a single drive train problem with either. That said, I'm knocking the h3ll out of some wood here. Hoping for those Santa Cruz's to roll into Raleigh NC soon.

 

[Sparkland]

There is no comparison between the SC and the Maverick on the interior. The Maverick is very plain.

 

[JASmith]

There is no comparison between the SC and the Maverick on the interior. The Maverick is very plain.

I wish the Maverick was plain. Its actually super loud color wise at least and has quite a lot going on. I'm leaning towards the XL if I do go Maverick just so the colors are a little more chill.

 

[Sparkland]

I wish the Maverick was plain. Its actually super loud color wise at least and has quite a lot going on. I'm leaning towards the XL if I do go Maverick just so the colors are a little more chill.

I'll put in another way, the interior of the Maverick looks to be made of inferior quality, regardless of the color scheme.

 

[JASmith]

I'll put in another way, the interior of the Maverick looks to be made of inferior quality, regardless of the color scheme.

For sure, the closeup pics appear to show that everything is basic hard plastic.

 

[JMII]

You can really see the squareness of the Mav in these side-by-sides. The hood and tailgate are at the same height. The SC hood line starts lower then sweeps upward thru the entire body making the tailgate look higher but in the end its the same as the Mav. The C pillar while adding to the blind spot does integrate better and gives the SC the floating roof look that is so popular these days. The SC looks fresh, modern and sleek. The Mav is just another generic truck shape, as if draw by a kid.

To me the SC is more honestly looking - its a CUV with a bed. The Mav is trying to look like a truck but its not, its the another CUV with a bed. This the polarizing aspect of both vehicles. You either love the style of the SC or you don't. For me and my wife this is a no brainier... the Mav is so boring looking inside and out neither of us would spend on money on it. On the flip side if you like the Mav's straight line, truck-like look then you likely hate the SC sweeps, angles and triangle cut lines. The SC will stand out even years from now while as the Mav will just blend in looking like Ranger Jr.

 

[Walking Black Bear]

Agreed. I'm not going to say I haven't considered the Maverick for a variety of reasons. I still have two builds bookmarked. But I spend a lot of time in my vehicle. I want that time to be spent in a place that feels a lot more than "utilitarian." May not be an issue for a lot of folks. Short trips, city jaunts, etc. But when you commute over 120 miles per day, it's a much larger factor. There's a lot of space between "I can live with it." and "I love to get behind the wheel every day." I want the latter.

 

[soldthetaco]

look at the gap between the tires and the wheel well in SC, the rear has more gap than the front
this rake gives SC more sporty aggressive stance

Maverick seems to be leveled, some people like that, and even go further to make their trucks "squat"

 

[JMII]

look at the gap between the tires and the wheel well in SC, the rear has more gap than the front
this rake gives SC more sporty aggressive stance

I assume this is to account for some load in the bed even with the "self leveling" shocks. Almost all trucks have this rake, in fact its popular in the aftermarket to lift the front... not as much as silly donk mobile in the picture but more like this: 3" leveling kit Ford Ranger

 

[Mephistopheles]

There is no comparison between the SC and the Maverick on the interior. The Maverick is very plain.

Honestly the interior of the SC is my major sticking point. Its a little too much. Almost Gawdy for what is marketed as an outdoorsy vehicle. I want it to feel nice, but stopping for a cheeseburger or getting in with muddy shoes shouldn't make my heart race.

 

[soldthetaco]

I assume this is to account for some load in the bed even with the "self leveling" shocks. Almost all trucks have this rake, in fact its popular in the aftermarket to lift the front... not as much as silly donk mobile in the picture but more like this: 3" leveling kit Ford Ranger

interesting, so SC will still have this rake even with bed loaded, I'm going to check it out one day with the bed loaded with 300 pound weight of cargo.
I noticed that on my old simple leaf spring Tacoma, added weight in bed will make the truck leveled

 

[JMII]

interesting, so SC will still have this rake even with bed loaded, I'm going to check it out one day with the bed loaded with 300 pound weight of cargo.

I don't know this as fact but assume to handle possible trailer hitch and bed load weight there has to be some give before it levels off. We have yet to get a full explanation or a test showing how this leveling suspension works.

 

[JASmith]

Rake can also create downforce at speed, and is fairly common: 5 Ways to Improve Automotive Aerodynamics | All-Fit Automotive

Raking the car simply means lowering the front end to achieve a slight wedge shape under the car. This helps create suction under the car, which improves grip, speed, and cornering.

A low rake or level vehicle can be more aerodynamic though, if you're willing to sacrifice some high speed stability for fuel economy. Negative rake (back lower than front) is just stupid and offers worse stability and worse fuel economy, like an aircraft trying to take off.

The Maverick looks level but also has some rake, they just use a skirt instead, but if you look carefully you can see the bottom of the front skirt is much lower than the back bumper.

 

[JMII]

The Maverick looks level but also has some rake, they just use a skirt instead, but if you look carefully you can see the bottom of the front skirt is much lower than the back bumper.

Air flow is smoother over the top of the car so yes pretty much every auto maker (all chasing MPG) will put some kind of lip under the front to redirect air flow.

And if you worried about downforce on a road car your driving too fast the last time I heard of a car from the factory that actually needed help was the original Audi TT: Remember that time Audi recalled a car to fit a rear spoiler?

 

[JASmith]

Air flow is smoother over the top of the car so yes pretty much every auto maker (all chasing MPG) will put some kind of lip under the front to redirect air flow.

And if you worried about downforce on a road car your driving too fast the last time I heard of a car from the factory that actually needed help was the original Audi TT: Remember that time Audi recalled a car to fit a rear spoiler?

The tradeoff between economy and downforce is still a balancing act even for regular cars, because if you have to swerve a bit while you're going 80mph on the highway and some ladder fell off the back of a pickup or get bumped into by someone who didn't check their blindspot, it can make a difference on how much traction you have.

 

[LittleBokey]

The tradeoff between economy and downforce is still a balancing act even for regular cars, because if you have to swerve a bit while you're going 80mph on the highway and some ladder fell off the back of a pickup or get bumped into by someone who didn't check their blindspot, it can make a difference on how much traction you have.

Traction control also kicks in there to prevent loss of control. The collision avoidance / auto breaking might trigger a full stop if the object is directly in front. It will take some time to adjust to all the safety features... some may take control away from the drivers in some cases. Thank goodness they can be turned on/off for warnings or autonomous actions.

 

[JMII]

As some who instructs drivers at HPDE track days the limiting factor in grip (even at 80 MPH) is not downforce - its your tires. Most factory rubber is optimized for mileage, road noise and tire wear - not handling, especially at the limits.

 

[JASmith]

A good walk around with a lot of measurements on the Maverick. This is an XLT model, hence the cloth seats and black unpainted handles. The blue on the interior is not nearly as offensive as it was in other shots and this seems like a good camera:

BTW, I noticed the Maverick has a sunglass holder, but the SC doesn't. Argh! I hate when cars don't give me a spot for my sunglasses.