When a car manufacturer wants journalists to test its latest product, it usually hands over the keys to the most expensive, most gadget-laden trim. This normally makes sense, as that version comes with all the toys, and everyone loves those, but there are two problems with this. Firstly, most actual people don’t buy the most expensive version of their new car available. Secondly, there are cars that have historically traded on price more than gizmos — vehicles like the Ford Maverick. As such, it was refreshing to see Ford offer up the latest base model Maverick, especially since it’s a bit of a risky move.
See, the cheapest Ford Maverick is now $8,350 more expensive than it was when it launched, an increase of nearly 39 percent in just four years (with inflation factored in, it’s more like $4500 more expensive — or just under 20% more). That’s an astronomical jump at this end of the market, so I grabbed the keys to the new base model Maverick to find out if it’s still worth it.
[Full disclosure: Ford Canada let me borrow this Maverick XL Hybrid for a week so long as I kept the shiny side up, returned it with a full tank of fuel, and reviewed it.]
The Basics
Engine: 2.5-liter naturally aspirated twin-cam Atkinson cycle inline-four.
Battery: 1.1 kWh liquid-cooled lithium-ion pack.
Transmission: Power-split eCVT with two integral electric motors and planetary gearset.
Drive: Front-wheel-drive, open differential.
Output: 191 combined horsepower.
Fuel Economy: 42 MPG city, 35 MPG highway, 38 MPG combined (5.6 L/100km city, 6.7 L/100km highway, 6.2 L/100km combined).
Body style: Compact unibody crew cab pickup truck.
Base price: $29,840 including freight ($36,995 in Canada).
Price as-tested: $31,060 including freight ($38,845 in Canada).
Why Does It Exist?
When Ford unveiled the Maverick pickup truck in 2021, it broke the system. Here was a $21,490 including freight hybrid pickup truck with the fuel economy of a small car, five seats, and a proper place for messy items. The backlog was tremendous, the hype was spectacular, and guess what? It lived up to those immediate expectation. However, it’s been four years since that moment, and not only has pricing risen dramatically, Ford has given its least expensive pickup truck a round of light updates to keep things fresh for 2025.
How Does It Look?
Mid-cycle updates are often referred to as facelifts and, well, the Maverick’s received just that. I’m still not entirely sure how to feel about the new caret-shaped headlights, but I actually reckon Ford’s new flat design emblem is one of the few in this style that actually works. Here’s the front of the old Maverick, for reference:
The black backing feels like a nod to the Model T, while the satin wordmark feels old-school rather than reductionist. Otherwise, this is basically the same Maverick we’ve loved for the past four years. Same rear bumper, same profile, same taillights, the works. Ford didn’t have to mess with much, and that’s easy to appreciate. Not only does it keep costs low, it should make finding, say, a replacement rear bumper easy in 15 years’ time.
Also, I know the bed of the Maverick has been talked about ad nauseam at this point, but I do want to give a shoutout to how it’s well-packaged. From the two-position tailgate that lets you load sheets of building material flat across the top of the wheel wells with support at the end to carve-outs for homemade dividers and tie-downs made from scrap lumber, this thing’s a DIY-er’s dream.
What About The Interior?
As many industry veterans will tell you, making a good inexpensive car is often excruciatingly hard. Margins are razor-thin, everything is cost-managed, and adding niceness without ballooning the price tag usually involves clever thinking. Sit yourself down in the cheapest Ford Maverick you can buy, and it doesn’t take long to see where Ford has used its imagination to lift the mood. Seemingly every surface is clad in the sort of durable, hardwearing plastics you’d expect in an entry level truck, but not only has Ford’s CMF team grained them tightly, the majority of interior plastics are an interesting navy blue that looks rich rather than dour. The door cards have space carved out for oversized Nalgene bottles, the storage tray in the console lifts out for easy cleaning, it all adds up to a cabin that feels cheap and cheerful, not cheap and penalizing.
Indeed, it seems like a bulk of the cabin money has been spent on the seats of the Maverick because they are genuinely big car comfortable, a cut above what you typically get in the cheapest hybrids on the market. Soft yet supportive, with just the right amount of squish, most people could easily spend all day in these thrones. The rear seat cushions are similarly comfortable, and rear seat space is similar to what you get in many two-row crossovers. Plus, the rear seat squab lifts up to reveal hidden storage underneath. Nice.
How Does It Drive?
Twisting the key of the 2025 Maverick XL Hybrid (yes, there’s an old-fashioned key) and rotating the gear selector into drive, it doesn’t take long to notice a pleasing mixture of car-like agility and truck-like solidity. Quick, accurate steering with some actual feedback over camber changes in the road pairs with a ride that, while slightly firm around town, smooths out nicely on the freeway or with some load in the back. There really is a sense of nimbleness to the Maverick, which means it’s not a huge adjustment compared to driving a mainstream sedan. Sure, the Atkinson-cycle engine can sound like it’s on its third pack of Benson’s in 24 hours at times, but this small truck never really feels slow, and you do actually have to manage torque off the line.
Ah yes, the compromise of two driven wheels. In addition to occasionally serving up hilarious ’70s TV cop chase noises, it does limit the Maverick to just 2,000 pounds of towing capacity, even though it gets the same stouter HF55 transaxle as the all-wheel-drive hybrid model. However, on the plus side, it’s $2,800 less expensive than the all-wheel-drive hybrid setup, and it does serve up outstanding real-world fuel economy. Over a week of real-world driving, I averaged 44 MPG, blowing the EPA combined figure out of the water. I expect all-wheel-drive hybrid fuel economy to be similar, but for most drivers, front-wheel-drive will do the trick just fine.
Does It Have The Electronic Crap I Want?
Twenty years ago, in this sort of segment, the base-model Maverick would’ve been essentially loaded. We’re talking power windows, power locks, automatic climate control, a digital trip computer, high-performance lighting, the works. With the facelifted model, you even get some features you wouldn’t have found in a base 2022 Maverick like cruise control. The big story here is the new 13.2-inch touchscreen infotainment system running fresh software, serving up slicker operation and greater stability than the old Sync3 infotainment system, along with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.
As Ford has given, Ford has also taken away, and I’m not just talking about the storage cubby next to the screen on pre-facelift models. Aside from a quick key for windscreen defogging, physical climate controls are gone, moved almost entirely into the touchscreen. This makes quick adjustment on-the-go fiddlier than it needs to be, in the event set-and-forget automatic mode doesn’t prove up to the task. On the plus side, the four-speaker stereo is perfectly listenable, with decent power and reasonable reproduction for this sort of money. The bar is low for cheap car stereos, and the base Maverick handily exceeds it.
Three Things To Know About The 2025 Ford Maverick XL Hybrid:
- It’s now more expensive than a base Prius.
- The transmission’s been beefed up for 2025.
- The new infotainment system features Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.
Does It Fulfil Its Purpose?
When the Maverick launched at less than $22,000 including freight, it was an outstanding deal. However, at basically $30,000, there’s some real competition if you’re looking for an inexpensive hybrid. The obvious bogey is the 204-horsepower Honda Civic Sport Hybrid Hatchback. Sure, at $31,300, it’s a little bit more than a base Maverick, but you get loads more kit like a moonroof and heated seats, the refinement is through the roof, and cargo volume is serious. Add in an EPA rating of 50 MPG city, 45 MPG highway, and it’s easy to see why Honda holds the new benchmark in the circa-$30,000 hybrid segment.
Then again, if $30,000 is a hard stop for you, a Toyota Prius is certainly worth a look. It isn’t as practical as the Maverick or even the Civic Hatchback thanks to its plunging roofline, but it looks fabulous, is rated for even better fuel economy at 57 MPG city and 56 MPG highway, and starts at $29,545 including freight. Therein lies the rub—if you don’t have your heart set on a small pickup, the Maverick XL Hybrid is no longer the no-brainer it used to be.
But let’s be honest: Many people considering a Ford Maverick aren’t shopping for small cars; they want a cool crossover or truck that gets decent fuel economy and that lets you throw an engine or a bag of mulch or an entire pig in the back. And on that front, there still is nothing else quite like it. On form factor, the closest alternative is the $30,245 Hyundai Santa Cruz SE, and not only does that trucklet have a less usable bed, it also isn’t a hybrid.
What’s The Punctum Of The 2025 Ford Maverick XL Hybrid?
Still a decent deal, but not the screaming bargain it once was.
Top graphic credit: Thomas Hundal
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
Reporting as a happy ’24 XLT owner. At 12,000mi there have been no issues, no recalls and after break in miles the fuel economy is very happy making. The vehicle was ordered in July of ’23 and delivered early May ’24. The check for my XLT with a hitch and bed liner was $30,100 including delivery, tax, tag and reg.
I like the Maverick. I wouldn’t buy one, because I’d rather have a Minivan with a giant interior to haul stuff. But as someone who’s a proponent for smaller vehicles, the Maverick is the right direction to drive the masses towards, instead of the giant F-150 class of trucks.
It doesn’t seem like it would take much to make a 7-seater SUV version of the Mav. I feel like it would sell like hotcakes.
Doing some checking around, looks like you can get into a base Frontier, Tacoma or even a Ford Ranger for $32k. Those are actually “trucks”, no pretend faux trucks like the Maverick, assuming you need and want something close to an actual truck. Nice to have a vehicle with a 3500lb towing capacity, lets you pull 16 foot boat or a typical UHaul trailer. It won’t have a gas mileage of the Maverick of course. Depends what you want and need. A base Tacoma extended cab with a 6’ bed and 2WD for about 32k would be useful for me and would retain excellent resale and likely be reliable. As soon as the price of some rises it expands your options. I think the right price for the base Maverick with FWD and a hybrid drivetrain is about $25k, but not more.
No sale Ford.
It’s not fake. It’s real. It does things all trucks can do, which is haul things in a separate, open top area of the vehicle, tow some things, and transport people. It may do them on a smaller scale, but that does not mean it’s not a truck.
It’s not a truck. It’s a unibody CUV with a roofless cargo area.
Trucks are defined by their body style, capabilities and functionality, not the intricacies of their construction. The Maverick is a vehicle with an open bed designed for carrying large items. It’s a pickup truck. A small one to be sure, but a pickup non the less. It’s been this way since covered wagons.
Here in Ontario they are classified as ‘light duty pickup trucks’ and wear the same black-lettered licence plates as every other pickup truck. Also, the Maverick can tow 4000lbs.
Classifying vehicles by their frame is kinda useless, which is why it really doesn’t come up in any legal or regulatory definition. Is a body-on-frame Ford Crown Victoria a truck? Is a unibody GMC motorhome a car? Yeah.
Counterpoint: The cost, complexity and mediocre efficiency of mid-size pickup trucks make them the true poor value. Why spend $50k on a Tacoma when an aluminum F150 with the 2.7L weighs the same, out tows and hauls, has more interior space and gets the same (or better…) fuel economy? (Speaking as someone who test drove a Tacoma and then bought an F150.)
The Maverick (and maybe the Santa Cruz) is the only pickup in the North American market that offers actual thrift vs a full-size truck, which is why people continue to be excited about it, and it has become the new compact fleet vehicle.
YAAAWWWNNNNN
( faux truck argument: eyeroll )
Main difference between the Maverick and the other 2wd options you mention is the Ford is front wheel drive; much superior for getting around in the snow, especially in hilly country. But if you need to tow or haul heavy things *frequently*, then get a truck equipped for that; most folk who by a pickup rarely do.
fwiw, my pops has a maverick hybrid and the mileage is legit. over 26k miles he’s averaging about 44.5k mpg according to his fill-up/mileage notebook.
Ford sucks. They promised a low price introduction base model and as soon as they can they start ducking customers over. Okay nothing wrong adding a few basic options to the base model. However a sunroof isn’t a base option. In fact many people hate a sunroof because of rust and leaking and electric gremlins. They are adding known problems to make the truck worse and making buying more expensive. From a hose out rubber quiet floor to an expensive carpet interior for $1,000 more say the truth you are not getting what you want and your paying an extra $8,500. Okay as a test monkey you can’t poop on the creator of Jurassic Park but as the kibble being used to attract the velosorapter I protest and say Ford always planned to use the F150 to screw over buyers.
I invite any Autopian writer who knows about trucks to do a history of how Ford screwed over millions with the F150 scam.
I hate sunroofs because of the loss of head room AND the inevitable problems.
I gotta know about this F150 scam. Say more!
The scam is that the aluminum F150 with the 2.7 is awesome, making every midsize vehicle that fails to return sub-10L/100km economy obsolete, tricking you into loving it in the process.
Source: Got scammed
me too. One of the best powertrains I’ve ever owned
I had a Jetta with a glass moonroof for 16 years. It never leaked. It never malfunctioned. All it did was let in fresh air and light and allow trapped hot air to vent out quickly.
Every car I’ve had since a ’71 Peugeot 504 has had a sunroof or moonroof. I’ve never experienced any leaks or malfunctions.
People who complain about sunroofs “leaking “ don’t understand how they work. They aren’t supposed to to be watertight, they have drainage, sort of like French gutters on a house roof. If the drains get plugged, then you have problems. Trying to “seal” the sunroof is an exercise in futility.
The headroom and weight aspect is why people delete sunroofs or pay a premium for non sunroof 911s. Not because they leak. Repairing rust from plugged drains is a headache, but that’s a different issue.
I get the weight and CG implications of a moonroof, especially on something like a Porsche.
But I willingly trade them off for the light and environmental interaction a moonroof provides me. I am not a ten-tenths driver and will never notice the difference. But I would massively miss not having it. I have never owned a car that I have driven in a way that I would notice the weight up there. And though I am 6’2″, the cars I’ve bought had sufficient headroom, even with moonroofs. That is something I check before making the purchase.
My Jetta spent most of its life parked outside in the PNW where trees were constantly dropping stuff on it, but the drains never got plugged. And from what I’ve read in forums, they are not difficult to unplug.
My Accord now spends most of its idle time in a garage where its only challenge is a goofy cat leaving footprints on the glass surfaces.
The exterior facelift was
unnecessary, and (imho) worse than the original.
There is no direct competitor to the Maverick right now. Despite the markups, it is still one the cheapest entry points to a useable light truck. I am somewhat surprised the commercial demand isn’t high enough to warrant a two door variant of it.
Also, I wonder how many people were able to purchase a Maverick at the original $20k price point? I recall dealer markups as one of the main drivers to increase MSRP. To (1) recoup those gains back to corporate, and (2) de incentivize dealers from applying it.
I agree. The original front end looked better. I would hate to be designer and read feedback like this, but don’t they do focus groups before committing to changes in metal and plastic?
I also agree, this facelift is pretty bad. That said, I understand why Ford did it.
When Ford styled the Maverick, they exaggerated the size of the lights to trick your brain into seeing the vehicle as smaller and more diminutive than it really is.
This is a common move for entry level cars, to differentiate them from the next model up. Compare the current Yaris to the Corolla, or for some extreme examples, the massive taillights on the 2013 Mini or the 2013 Benz GLA. All of these vehicles jump out as ‘small’, even out of context, based purely on their proportions.
Beyond visual separation from the Ranger, Ford probably figured that a smaller, ‘cuter’ appearance would appeal to city dwellers, women, and people making the move from compact cars. (Like the above models, the Maverick is larger than you think.)
Unfortunately, this approach probably doesn’t apply to the pickup truck market. Generally, people just want the ‘most truck’ for their dollar, and aren’t trying to hide it. The Maverick doesn’t have any competitors, and differentiates itself based on price and fuel economy just fine. Might as well ‘toughen it up’ and give the people what they want.
Yuck.
If I wanted a big flabby truck I’d buy a big flabby truck.
Maybe Toyota will start selling that truck they sell everywhere else here.
I like pickups, just not anything that’s been sold here in this century. This is why American auto companies cant compete.
It has gotten bulgy looking, and looks pissed off about loosing the chic flatness of the original.
I’d be pissed about getting bulgy too I suppose.
I get why Ford did the facelift, but it’s hard to image the old front end was actually holding back sales. The new look is rough.
I’m going to say the 4 doors suit commercial users just fine. The truck is narrow, workers need a place for their lunch boxes, paperwork and outdoor clothing. It’s a dry warm area for tools and supplies, and the rear seat can always be deleted. These trucks aren’t really doing work where the longer bed is necessary… They’re installing internet cable, cleaning pools and doing pest control.
Putting aside my still-smarting distaste for all things Ford due to the way they underestimated initial Maverick demand, thus fueling insane dealer markups (which kept me from buying one of those $21K Maverick XLs during the first two years of production) this is now a no-go. While it still doesn’t have any direct competitors in terms of smallish hybrid trucks, $30K is just too much for what you get, despite cruise control and the bigger screen, particularly when you factor in Ford’s iffy reputation over the past several years re: recalls, quality control issues, and generally uninspiring longevity of their products, thanks in part to their adoption of ‘wet belt’ ICE engine designs.
Unless I really needed the exterior bed for truly messy stuff like bags of compost or manure, I’d definitely spend my $30Kish on the Honda Civic Sport hatch instead. I drove the previous gen of this yesterday, and while their 1.5 turbo isn’t my favorite Honda motor, the overall quality and performance of the Civic is great, and the hybrid has an eCVT (like the Maverick) which mitigates most of the usual CVT unpleasantness. If I had to have a truck bed, and could wait a bit, I’d hold out for the Toyota Stout, which will probably be a hybrid, and probably undercut the Maverick on price (and certainly far exceed it in quality/longevity) *if* it actually makes it to America.
Sorry Ford… your one decent, reasonably-well-executed product in years is now considerably less appealing at $30K than it was at $21K. I’ll take my $ elsewhere.
I luckily do not need to purchase a vehicle right now, but I like to keep my eye on the market, and my conclusion is remarkably similar to yours. For even money I go for the Honda Civic Hybrid. I’ve not been inspired by Ford’s reputation as of late (plastic oil pans, really?), and their removal of physical climate controls is a big miss.
Side note, did I read correctly that early base model Mavericks didn’t have cruise control? I would have thought that was ubiquitous by 2022.
Plastic intake manifolds are pretty common now too, and annoy the F out of me. I understand that intake manifolds don’t get as hot as exhaust manifolds do of course, but it’s still attached to the engine block and goes through extreme heat cycles every time you use the car… after a decade or two, that plastic has got to be brittle as crap. On 20-year-old cars, various underhood plastic parts NOT connected directly to the engine block become so brittle that they crumble to bits at the mere suggestion of being touched, so attaching plastic bits to the engine itself (oil pans, valve covers, intake manifolds, etc…) even if ‘heat resistant’ is simply planned obsolescence in action, and (IMO) ought to be disallowed.
I’m not sure whether the Maverick’s hybrid engine is a wet belt design… let me search for a moment… AI search says no: unlike some other current Ford engines, it’s got a timing chain) but yes, the base (XL) trim didn’t originally come with cruise control. It was added to the XL three years (I think) into the production run. The XLT and higher trims had/have it as standard. You could add cruise control to the XL yourself with some factory parts and a bit of effort for about $300. I think (there was an article about it here and at the old site, plus in various Maverick forums).
Well said. I presume new profit driven management came in and said, make it’s msrp higher and cost the same. So they added more options to make the overall option set smaller leading to same margins. Capitalism is dead. No one makes a better product for the sake of the customer. They all make the most profitable product they can and hope it’s the best and use marketing to sell it instead of using quality to sell products.
I had a 23 maverick that I ordered, and just sold. The new price makes this not worth it. The maverick, while really good, is a cheap car with a build quality that I’m not convinced will hold up well in the long run. As a small truck, it’s great, as a CUV, there are better options out there.
My buddy got a 2024 eco-boost for the tow package and loves it. But he’s also said to me a few times that it doesn’t feel like it’s built to last a long time. Compared to his Civic (which was 15 years old by the time he sold it) he says it all feels cheap.
I love the work they did designing the interior to make it look less cheap, but I can’t disagree with him on the feel. And that spec of truck would be $34k if he wanted a ’25 – which isn’t back for a truck but certainly no longer a cheap commuter vehicle.
“As many industry veterans will tell you, making a good inexpensive car is often excruciatingly hard”
They’re lying. And the automotive press should push back on this.
Ford built its entire empire off the back of good inexpensive cars. They’ve had over a century to perfect it and they have.
They would just rather come up with a bunch of excuses and enrich themselves by selling a $15,000 truck for $30,000.
No dice!
I disagree Ford never built a quality inexpensive car, or a quality expensive car. They have a record for recalls. They just had a product people wanted and very little competition and the competition was crap too. Look at the reputation of American car brand in other countries crap but cheap.
Somehow ford does it for other markets, just not ours.
I feel like this comment needs to be hedged with a “should.” ‘They should have perfected the inexpensive car.’ While they have had over a century to perfect it, they failed. The Fiesta and Focus were plagued with major transmission and electrical issues. And the Fusion has not exactly aged gracefully.
Based on everything Detroit learned from NUMMI, Diamond Star and similar collabs, I’m going to err on the side that they knew how and actively decided not to.
The original Maverick was a pretty nice inexpensive car. About as complicated as as a hammer.
Had a 1962 Galaxy that held up.
This century? Hmm
It looks creepy, like someone put tape over its eyes.
It’s a coverup. Headlight is same as on 24 in shape, it’s just covered with plastic bumper cover.
Correction: Base price is $30,535.
You are correct. I looked it up just now because it didn’t sound like it was right. It’s never as cheap as any media claims.
I want to think it’s actually less than a few months ago? maybe that employee pricing nonsense has made it to the web site build and config tool.
Short answer is no
The long answer may have been provided to us years ago by David Tracy. He’s the only one I ever saw that talked about the cheaping out of the components under the vehicle. Is there any input about how these are holding up in salty climates?
Just look at the Bronco Sport, Escape, and Transit Connect for your answer. They all have the same underpinnings.
I would say the Bronco Sport is also too new to really know for sure, but it seems most of the others have held up okay. I’ve never seen a badly rusted Transit Connect or late gen Escape.
Regardless, these are all cars I would be undercoating regularly. The painted fender edges around the Maverick’s wheel wells are vulnerable to stone chips. It’s easy to hate on plastic cladding, but it does help cars look decent past 10 years.
Yep. Just make sure to get a good undercoater.
Undercoating is overrated, cars usually rust from the inside out. You have to coat the inside of the cavities of the body and the frame (or the frame elements if it’s a unibody). Condensed water accumulates in these spaces , and by the time you start seeing the rust, it’s rusted through.
Drill in holes, slip in tube and spray baby spray!
I just commented separately that the few TConnects I see are badly rusted, but in odd places…like perforation low on the body and especially around the side rub trim.
I understand your comment and I agree, but living in the land of fracking brine sprayed on the roads, each vehicles’ undercarriage is different and may direct that road spray to different places…so I’m just wondering if the Mav’s structure is better or worse as a whole.
Since it’s a Ford product, allow me to add: no one I know is happy with their Ford. BSport is a bit new as well (as a commenter mentioned) but the Escapes have been tragedies. I don’t see any Transit Connects near me (admittedly maybe 3?) that aren’t rusted to shit, albeit in very different places than a BSport, Escape, or Mav…hence my above point.
Fracking brine is the worst.
Pretty nasty stuff. There’s the claim that they aren’t using it…usually right after they are found to be using it, so you know it’s no good.
Just like Subaru they don’t like polls after 2 years
That has to be one of the laziest refreshes I’ve seen since the Chevrolet C-10 square body. It already looks like they glued a panel over it to cover part of the headlights, and then they bring attention to that by making the edges of the new insert beveled.
That said, this is the same issue that killed the Courier in 1982. Shifting finances that made importation costs cut into the margins, and lowering fuel costs that made the fuel efficiency a secondary concern.
The Ranger killed the Courier which was a stopgap anyway.
The Courier kept being sold in Canada up until 1985 alongside the Ranger. It wasn’t really a stopgap either, as the B-series started being sold as the Courier in 1972. Ten years isn’t a short period of time. And as Nlpnt points out below, once Mazda started shifting production around to get around the Chicken Tax in 1985 they kept sending the B-series to the U.S. up until 1994. It’s just that in 1979 Ford didn’t want to deal with all the nuances of continuing to import a Japanese truck with a drivetrain they had little influence over. Otherwise why develop an entirely new truck when someone else has already done all the work for you?
Mazda made money selling the same truck at a bargain price for years after the Courier was discontinued.
I am not really a fan of the refresh, as the old front end looked much better to me. I also don’t much care for the revised interior since it ditches all the physical controls. The only thing that excites me is finally being able to buy the hybrid in AWD, which Ford should have offered from the get-go.
I wanted one of these when they first came out, and frankly they were unrealistically cheap when the $19,999 list price was announced. At $30k for the hybrid I think it’s a reasonably good deal, but I’m not so sure with Ford’s track record with recalls. It’s a fair price, it’s not a great price and it’s not a screaming deal. With Ford’s record of reliability I’d need a better price to be a buyer. If this was a Honda I’d be a buyer at 30k. Since it’s a Ford, I’ll pass.
Past experience has soured me on Ford too. Would love to buy american but it’s Japanese for me at this point.
Better to buy a “foreign” car made in the USA than an “American” car made in Mexico.
That’s a valid point. My Accord was assembled in Ohio with an engine made in Ohio and a transmission made somewhere in the States.
I’m usually ok with recalls it’s the component or system failures that get me.
When I bought my Maverick, a friend bought an F150 about the same time. His cost $20K more than mine, but he was the one who was jealous that I had an actual key and he had the hockey puck.
Can you explain the transmission more thoroughly? I don’t understand how a CVT has a gear set. Or why.
It’s an ECVT and not a CVT. This is a very common miscommunication that I’ve seen in many reviews.
Here’s a video that explains it better than I can.
https://youtu.be/hHU5xFOBcsU?si=CCIeb8JvZ_Ikrp5t
Thanks.
You’re welcome. 🙂
They should really figure out a new term, because “CVT” has justifiably accumulated such a negative reputation
Exactly! Though three letter should make any reasonable person shudder.
On the topic, I am very disappointed Ford used such a fragile, lifeless transmission when they could have used their tried-and-true PowerShift DCT!
I generally have disliked the transmission behavior of every DCT-equipped vehicle I have driven. They’ve been ok once you get out on a street, but in a parking lot or in stop-and-go traffic, I found them so annoying.
My son has a ’15 Escape with the PowerShift and it hasn’t stranded him, but low-speed stuff is not its best presentation.
If it has a PowerShift then he’d have to be in Europe with a Kuga; the North American Escape only had a traditional auto.
You’re likely right. It may have been a rental Focus that had it. I don’t find any evidence that US market Escapes had that transmission.
Ford PowerShift transmission – Wikipedia
I agree! There’s marketing when you need them?
Same as a Toyota Prius, it’s a planetary gearbox with two input shafts and one output and no gear changes and no belts or expanding pulleys. Very good design, reliable and long lasting.
Yes, calling this kind of transmission that’s present in the Maverick (and small-vehicle Toyota hybrids) a CVT was just a convenience to relate the driving experience to consumers. But the actual mechanical operation is a lot different, using a planetary gearset connected both to the combustion engine and electric motor/generator.
The result is a remarkably simple hardware design that’s proven extremely reliable, but with a complicated software algorithm for determining what gears on the planetary gearset should be spinning at any given speed (and thus what speed the combustion engine and/or the electric motor should be running, if at all, at that same moment).
There’s no ‘convenience’ in the naming. Engineers called it a CVT because that accurately describes what it functions as; a constantly variable transmission. It just (electro-)mechanically achieves it in different fashion.
A planetary gearset in a traditional automatic has to hold one of the three components (sun, planet, and carrier gear) to effectively transmit power and provide gear reduction/multiplication. But if instead you can control the rotation rate of one of those components, you now have a differential that can dynamically change the functional ratio between the other two based on its speed and direction.
It’s nice to see an actual practical vehicle I could load with bikepacking gear with less guilt. I weigh new vehicles against our 2011 VW Golf Sportwagen. Between 5 and 5.5 l/100km, massive capacity, comfortable and running great at 220k km. It does mean I am pretty slick with a grinder and bondo to stay ahead of the rust. We also killed the suspension hauling 2 bikes, camping gear and samples from many, many micro breweries and distilleries across Canada and up logging roads to abandoned parks.
honest and legit no snark question:
are there upgrades available that could prolong its life and/or allow it to haul better?
1: Switch to the smallest OEM wheel + largest tire combo
2: Use spacers in the strut to preload the springs, and get the car sitting 12mm, 24mm higher in its travel. Sounds hack but it’s really not, and could make a significant difference avoiding hard bottom outs on 3-4″ rocks or holes in the road bed. Rising the ride-height slightly won’t hurt the roll centre, and probably just matches how VW sells the car in developing markets. https://www.spaccer.com/en_US/makes-and-models/vw/golf-sportsvan-5588
3: Install Bilstien HD shocks.
I added Bilsteins on my GX (HDs, too) when the OME’s decided to no longer participate. They’re great. Thanks for the reply.
I have some on my Volvo 240. Even with lowering springs, It rides great on gravel roads.
I did the same small ‘mods’ to a 2012 plug-in prius when the shocks/struts needed replacing at 200k miles
1. Replace shocks/struts with upgraded touring ones and new springs all around
2. Installed 1.5 in” ‘lift kit’, basically a metal platform that sits between the strut towers.amd through top of the mcpherson spring/strut combo in the front and at the bottom of the spring bucket in back
3. The stock tires already had decent sidewall amount (65 ratio) so I stayed with the stock tire size.
Result? Minor changes that firmed up the ride and no more scraping anywhere, which definitely was something I needed to be careful of before, which I expect was bc the old springs/struts/shocks were all in need of replacement.
We’re basically talking the difference between how manufacturers set up sedans and CUVs on the same platform from the factory. That bit of extra height and tire doesn’t make the CUV a true off-roader, but it sure helps when the road is beat to hell.
It also shows what a sedan or wagon is capable of with a bit of ingenuity!
100%!
since donating our old Sienna, the older plug-in prius also (relevant to this post) acta as our light duty little truck too, which the rear hatch makes easier.
This of course is something anyone can do pretty easily with any 5 door… I just don’t think many non-car enthusiasts think of this…
A few weeks ago we folded down the back seat, laid out a blanket amd brought home 20 bags of soil and another 12 bags of mulch from a big box store
If that car goes away to college with one of the kids in a few years I might have to finally get a small utility trailer for bulky big box store runs… or occasionally borrow (i.e. hourly rent) one of the big box store trucks
That new front fascia is hideous, big strips that redact light.
A Civic seems a very random comparison. I have an uncomfortable 2021 Accord LX, and if I were to trade it, more cargo room would be a top feature I’d want (with similar or better fuel economy.) How does it compare to a RAV 4 hybrid and such?
I keep reading about recalls with the Maverick? What’s the real world experience?
POSSIBLY RANDOM ASIDE: The Accord has been super reliable until yesterday when the center screen just started randomly cycling and beeping between functions. It should be covered by Honda Care which it appears I overpaid for, and the dealer lied about my needing to buy right then and there at signing. I was told I had 60 days for a full refund but had no idea that the dealer sets the warranty price, and that I could then buy it at another dealer for a maybe a lower price.
I have a ’23 Maverick, and I’ve taken it in for about four recalls. Each time it was a computer update. The guy at the dealership said all they do is hook up the shop’s computer, monitor the update, and make sure everything is working okay after it is done. I take it in before 8AM and they are usually done after lunch.
Everyone rags on Ford for recalls, but I think the majority of them are just updates like this.
No, that doesn’t sound too bad. How many miles have you driven, and how has it held up otherwise?
I’ve only put 8K miles on it, so it’s pretty much brand new. (The actually dealership offered to buy it back once because someone wanted my configuration and they don’t offer it anymore.) Besides trips to Home Depot and the dump, the hardest things I’ve done were a few 1000+ mile road trips, and it ran well and was really comfortable even in the back seat (according to my wife).
Sounds appealing. Also good to hear it’s comfortable on longer trips. My Honda Accord seat is an extreme disappointment.
There’s really no reason why Ford couldn’t have done a computer update “over the air” (if they had taken the time to make the vehicle capable of this) for any of your four or so recalls. Taking the car in four times in two years and either waiting around or having them drop you off and pick you up sounds like a waste of your time (and is mainly done so you hang around and perhaps look at the new Fords on the lot). This is exactly the type of “recall” that everyone rags on Tesla for EXCEPT they don’t mention that theirs are usually the exact same type of thing but they are done over the air, meaning the owner gets a text and hits a button and the update happens when they choose, i.e. late at night while they are asleep or when the car is just sitting in their work parking lot etc. The updates usually take between 5minutes and half an hour. None of this before 8am to a bit after lunch stuff.
I’m guessing you didn’t see the video where Andre had his Colorado brick because he tried to start it during an over the air update.
I did see that and two things stood out – 1. why the update just keep cycling rather than finishing in a normal amount of time, a Tesla update will tell you how long it is scheduled to take so you know if something is abnormal and 2. why he decided to just start it when he realized something was already going wrong.
Mostly over the air updates work just like when your cell phone has an update. Generally those work fine, I’d be annoyed if I had to go to the cell phone store and they kept it for half a day every time to do an update.
I guess GM hasn’t (or hadn’t) figured out over the air updates at that time. I assume GM didn’t intend for that to happen to Andre and the plan would be to minimize the disruption to owners which I would applaud. But if people are okay with taking their car in four times in two years at unscheduled times for random computer updates, well, I guess that’s their thing and their time. Maybe that’s normal at Ford, it really isn’t for most other makers.
I’d wager Chevy hadn’t at the time. They might have changed.
I turned off the auto update on my phone and only allow I when I want it done.
That’s how over the air updates work on cars. You get notified and can either okay doing it at that moment or schedule it for when you want it done.
Main reason is who pays for the constant cellular connectivity. Unless you can force a user into a subscription for the life of owning your car, a-la using a smartphone to lock and unlock the car, it costs a significant amount more over the life of the vehicle compared to what DT pointed out as the technical cost reductions over the i3’s life.
I’m not giving them a free pass however. AFAIK my mom’s low end kia has some sort of ability to connect to your home wifi and update that way.
In the end, a 1/10 chance someone agrees to replacing a filter, brake pads, etc while it’s at the service center and spending a few hundred is what they’re after. If you can force everybody to pay $10/mo for the priveledge of connecting your car to the internet, even better. Making it easy for the user to do for free is what they’re probably afraid of.
What cellular connectivity? It’s usually done via Satellite, the same way the car can feature Navigation or Sirius XM radio. Or capture your data and sell it to the highest bidder. No cellular connection required to be paid for by the user or anyone else.
Yes I understand they are hoping the owner will come in and spend more money. That’s annoying and a waste of the owner’s time. Given a choice I’ll pick the competitor’s product next time (all other things being equal).
I sincerely hope you’re trying to troll me and this isn’t what you actually believe. GPS is easy because it’s a 300b/s (not kb/s or mb/s) and designed around a relatively small antennae working. XM is a lot harder but is also designed as a high power transmitter and low tech receiving antennae. While technically it is possible for Tesla to do via Starlink given the Musk connection, as far as I know they still don’t have an upward facing phased array transmitter seamlessly integrated into their cars. If they did it would be expensive and bulky. I still don’t think they come anywhere close to breaking even on their base stations even at $500.
Cars ARE mainly tracked via a cellular connection. Even if it doesn’t have an active subscription to transmit its GPS position the repeated polling of the towers nearby and the timing of when it reaches each is enough to be able to track the car to within 1/2 to 1/10 of a mile. GM with their on-star service is / was an exception though giving them a fallback if the car is out of cellular range.
Don’t know about currently but after it had been on the market for a while Ford stated that the most common trade in for the Maverick was the Honda Civic and Sub-Compact car owners were the target market. Plus the Civic and Prius are similarly priced hybrids.
In the Honda’s in my care, a bunch of semi-unrelated alerts like the driving assists, etc. usually points to a battery that’s worn enough to make the computers complain, but not worn enough to quite warrant replacement yet. (HR-V with chronic alerts during the winter and rarely if left sitting but all gone now)
I don’t want to wet on anyone’s charcoal, but when the Slate Pickup arrives at the same price, which it will be, which one would you really buy?
It all depends on whether you need a back seat/extended cab.
A base Slate close to the MSRP of a Maverick would be rough for the Slate. Maverick will have an infotainment screen + power windows standard + audio system standard, 2x to 4x the range, double the towing capacity, coming from an established automaker with a massive maintenance and repair network.
I think the Slate is super cool, but it could be a tough choice selecting it over the Maverick at the same price. That being said, for someone who wants that very barebones experience, and the really cool customization (turn it into an SUV!), it could be the opposite.
I’ll bet the Slate will end up with all those electronic features standard quite quickly. I don’t think crank windows actually save money, and infotainment (you need to show the backup camera, so the screen is already there) + Bluetooth + aux cord is really the bare minimum you can expect in a fleet vehicle now.
I appreciate the fact that you are giving the Slate the same price as the Maverick given the unfortunate ending of the EV credit.
That said, I’d take the Maverick because of the gas engine and the fact that the bed of the Slate is not six feet long.
The Ford maverick bed length is 4.5 ft. long (tailgate up)
The Slate truck is supposed to have a 5 ft. bed length (tailgate up) assuming it comes out and remains unchanged from its recent press announcement
What frustrates me is the fact that Slate put in a silhouette of a 1985 Toyota reg cab pickup and you can see that they took a foot from the bed to give it to the cabin. You couldn’t keep the six foot bed and still have it shorter than the Maverick for marketing? YEESH!
Well there is no Slate truck right now so it’s purely hypothetical. Until they start being delivered, they are vapor.
Dang comments are feisty today, how we do without the cold start and morning dump I guess. What I find crazy is how GM and/or Ram haven’t come out with a competitor yet. Like that was literally how things have gone for…well…ever!
Chevy corvette, Ford Thunderbird
Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro
And then when we get to the pickups/utes yet get Courier/Luv, Ranchero/Camino, S10/Ranger, Colorado/New Ranger.
And then Ford’s got the Maverick, selling unchallenged for nearly 5 years now. Yes the Santa Cruz is kind of a challenger, but it’s more Baja/Vehicross than the trucklike truckiness of the Maverick.
It’s a bit unsettling, what am I supposed to put my Calvin p’ing on a Ford Maverick sticker on?(I would not actually get one of those).
I wish Toyota and Honda would enter the chat. Just chop of the rear of a CRV/Rav4 and you got yourself the next hot segment.
I’m hoping if Slate takes off, everyone joins the party, may end up killing Slate, or them getting bought out, but yeah, mini-trucks need a revival!
I think the tariffs are slowing their introductions.
I’m not sure if there is a good reason why they didn’t on this refresh, but Toyota just needs to put something actually fuel efficient in the Tacoma.
Take the Highlander hybrid motor, or the RAV4 hybrid motor, can’t remember if they are the same or not. It won’t be winning drag races, but can it get 35 mpg? The current Tacoma hybrid is just a power boost.
With that said, I’d be interested in a Ridgeline that didn’t get 20 mpg too.
I think it’s pretty clear that at the teaser price that Ford introduced the Maverick at, they weren’t making any money, one of the main reasons they had serious issues fulfilling demand for vehicles at or near that price. Other manufacturers likely looked and decided they didn’t want to lose money so didn’t bother. Now, four years later, the price is up SIGNIFICANTLY (as compared to the intro), and likely the next generation will see competition, especially once the Mexico build impacts it even more due to tariffs. Or maybe not. Or who knows with the TACO tariffs… So perhaps others won’t bother at this point since there is likely to be very little money in it.
Ford claimed that they did make a profit on the base $20k truck when it was introduced, not much, but some and that the real money was in the nicer trims, EcoBoost and AWD. They also didn’t expect the craziness on auto pricing or such high demand for the hybrid version. That is why the Turbo became a no cost option for a time and eventually the Hybrid became the extra cost option.
Meanwhile dealers were sticking $5k ADP’s on those $20K trucks and demand still exceeded capacity. So yeah Ford decided to keep more of that profit potential in their pocket rather than let the dealers have it. Now the Tariffs have come along and another price increase to bring us to that $30k entry price point.
We’ll never know if they did or didn’t make a profit I suppose, never mind what they “claimed”. It’s a very convenient price point though. It does reflect extremely poorly on Ford management overall if they really didn’t think a $20k 4door truck WITH a hybrid and over 40mpg (i.e. pretty much their lowest priced and highest mpg product) would generate a lot of demand or be of interest to the public that has been complaining about there not being any reasonably priced small trucks for years.
Ram is coming out with the Rampage. We’ll see how big it is once they show it.
The Rampage is pretty big, at least compared to ’90s compact trucks. And it’s a bit bigger than the Maverick by a couple of inches all around.
So it’s Ranger/Tacoma sized. Good to know. Thank you.
They should just call it the Page. Ram Rampage sounds like something Barney Rubble’s son would say.
They need a Page trim for it, maybe newspaper styling on the dash and seats, then it could be the Ram Rampage Page edition!
If they did that, people would expect a Davis edition.
4e8fbc46bf1a9.image.jpg (300×461)
There’s still a small part of me that wants to track down the Plymouth version of the original Rampage. Something about a Scamp GT seems like it would just be the polar opposite of any modern truck.
How is Santa Cruz bed less usable? The Maverick’s bed is 1-7/8” longer and one inch deeper. That’s it. The Santa Cruz bed is one inch wider. So yes, you could fit an extra slimline brief case or a couple of extra buckets of dirt or gravel in the Maverick bed, but that’s about it. Both have provisions for using 2x4s and plywood for bed dividers and platforms. Both have storage cubbies and lights and power connections Both have two-position tailgates to carry full sheets of plywood (above the wheel wells). The Santa Cruz also has a small lockable and drainable storage box in the bed floor. The Santa Cruz can also carry a heavier load in the bed. The factory option tonneau cover on the Santa Cruz does rob about four inches of length in the upper portion of the bed, but you don’t have to order one and the Ford would have the same issue with a similar roll-up tonneau, though Ford does not offer one.
Not knocking the Maverick, it’s a fine vehicle, but having driven and loaded both of these vehicles in real world usage, I just don’t see the extra “usability” of the Maverick bed that’s been bandied about ad nauseam by journalists and Ford fans since the introduction of these two small trucks.
The huge rise in price, possibly soon to go higher with tariffs (though I hope not), is inexorably erasing the sizable price advantage that Maverick once enjoyed and when you factor in the Santa Cruz’s higher quality interior, superior handling, and greater tow rating, the Maverick is less of a deal than it once appeared.
Now, about that hybrid drivetrain — Hyundai has completely dropped the ball there; the Ford is still the economy champ, hands down.
We had one for two years. I put a roll up tonneau on it and really enjoyed it. It was really my wife’s car and she eventually wanted something different, but I can say I miss it. I agree with your assessment of the Santa Cruz.
I love both trucklets, but I’ve always kinda viewed the Santa Cruz as the machine for someone who wants a crossover that can do small truck stuff as needed, whereas the Maverick is more for someone who wants a small truck that can do crossover stuff as needed.
In my experience, the extra usability of the Maverick’s bed mostly comes down to a few things on the Santa Cruz that add up. Larger sail panels mean it’s harder to reach items in the front of the bed from over the bed walls, the weird shape of the bulkhead means you can’t load sheet material or big boxes that don’t fit within the wheel wells flush against it, the in-bed trunk is neat but can let water in upon opening it if the bed’s wet so it’s kinda useless as a trunk, and the Maverick’s extra vertical reliefs to use lumber as dividers or a bike rack is a huge plus.
As for towing, while the Santa Cruz can tow 1,000 pounds more than the Maverick when properly equipped, it comes with a few asterisks. The Santa Cruz’s owner’s manual has some weird limitations such as not exceeding 45 mph when pulling a trailer up a long grade, and never exceeding 60 mph with a trailer. For what it’s worth, the 2.5T model’s DCT really dragged the wet clutches when I tried pulling two dirt bikes on an open-deck trailer with one, and that doesn’t fill me with confidence.
Fair points all, especially regarding the bulkhead and sail panels.
I didn’t notice any slippage in the DCT when I towed, but I have heard others comment the same as you. The DCT does require a decent break in period and I’m not certain how many reviews have been done with a well broken in trans. For what it’s worth, I’ve easily exceeded those towing advisements listed in the manual without any (apparent) damage. I’m also not certain how much of that 60 mph warning might pertain to braking with no trailer brakes, though the 45 mph speed on long uphills pulling a load obviously is to favor the drivetrain. I’m not a huge fan of DCTs in a truck anyway and if towing was a real priority instead of an occasional usage, I’d prefer a torque converter. On the other hand, the Maverick’s eCVT did not fill me with confidence either, but, to be fair, the truck I drove was only FWD and not the AWD model now available.
So, I’m willing to concede the Ford is truckier. I find the Santa Cruz more comfortable and fun to drive and therefore, I suppose, it’s a better overall car. Both are making in-roads in their respective weak areas as they mature, with the exception of that Hyundai no hybrid deal.
One other area where Ford has it all over Hyundai is in color choices. The two new colors for the 2025 Santa Cruz are most welcome, but it’s still a small palate compared to the Maverick.
I really like them both and could be happy with either, though — full confession — I did opt for the Santa Cruz. Thanks for the feedback.
One linear foot makes a big difference.
“Ah yes, the compromise of two driven wheels”
What compromise? Less money, great mileage, and 3/4 ton payload capacity with less complexity and lower maintenance needs.
Compare stats to its elder equivalents: a base 1980 F100 2wd – or a 2000 Ford Ranger 2.3L manual supercab 2wd – the base Maverick outperforms in every metric.
Nobody needs that much mulch or pork at one go anyway.
I definitely agree with FWD vs AWD, though I would prefer AWD were I towing a boat on potentially slippery ramps, if no other times.
At about 3/4 yd for a Maverick, that isn’t much mulch at all (I’ve carried more in a Focus ST), but any pickup is a poor choice if you need a meaningful amount of mulch, soil, or gravel. Great thing is, suppliers deliver and it’s likely to still be cheaper than individual bags from HD. I won’t pass judgement on how much pork one may or may not need.
If one needs mulch there is a good change one has a yard that would hold a small cheap utility trailer or a garage that would hold a folding utility trailer.
I have a 5×8, but that’s not a high payload or volume, either. I could fit about 3 yards with 22″ sides, but max payload would limit it to somewhere around half that with a GVWR of 1500 lbs (minus about 500 for trailer weight). Then there’s dirt. It took about 3 yards to fill a hole from a large juniper bush we removed. IIRC, the single axle dump trucks operated by the supplier we’ve used does 12 or 15 yards, which wasn’t enough to fill the shallow hole left by an 18′ above ground pool. The trailer is great for sheet goods, bringing yard waste to the municipal compost, or transporting kayaks, but not aggregate.
Mine will do a cubic yard of dirt, and it hauled all the wood for a 12×23 deck with 2×12 joists in one trip. But the thing is that is rare or I could make several trips on the every few years I need that much. There is no need to buy and daily drive a pick up truck for something that happens rarely and one is too impatient to make several trips. The scenarios you mention, if super frequent then that is a justification for a comertial truck rental or the need is not for a personal use but a landscaping business truck. A trailer is fine as an alternative to a pick up truck. No need to buy and expensive truck and daily drive it unless you are removing pools monthly.
I agree. My GR86 tows the trailer. I built it mainly because I can’t mount kayaks on the roof, but I’m glad I designed it as a combo since it’s come in really handy as a utility for bringing yard waste to the municipal compost or getting plywood sheets and such, and for the most part, it’s much better at it than a PU—more volume, more floor space, lower load height, and I don’t have to worry about damaging an expensive truck. The thing I don’t get is when people argue a PU is for aggregate when even full size PUs can’t really carry much due to volume limitations—I fit the same amount of ~1.5 yards in a Focus ST (in more expensive bags, of course, not loose, but that’s likely how a lot of people get it in their PUs, too), and if you need a significant amount, you’re better off getting delivered truck or no. If I need even just 6 yards, that’s about $100 for delivery (prices might have gone up, IDK, but it’s the same per load regardless of volume). If I did that in a PU, that’s 4 trips at 1+ hr turn around each (1/2 hour to place, of course, YMMV), which is most of an afternoon and a good chunk of that $100 in fuel for the truck (I don’t know if they charge to load your truck, but I’m assuming they don’t). Getting more aggregate favors delivery even more, though less probably favors the PU depending on how you value your time. One point I would concede in favor for the PU (or trailer) over delivery, though, is that you can likely drop the load closer to the work site as the dump trucks will only drop on pavement.
Also, if anyone reading this has a thing for suburban dads, I can send you the design for my trailer as I have not seen anything get more attention and compliments from middle-aged guys than this does. You’d maybe think it was the odd sight of the Smurf blue coupe towing it, but that just serves to draw their eyes to the trailer they then make a beeline for.
Speak for yourself. I bought 70 bags of mulch for around the house. (A standard size suburban lot.) That’s with a 2011 Ford Ranger 4.0 V-5, and the Six-foot bed. Don’t even think of bringing a washing machine and dryer at the same time with the Maverick.
The base Maverick fails against it when it comes to towing. My Ranger has the tow package that is rated at 5,800 pounds. Here’s the proof.
2011_ford_ranger_brochure.pdf
You’re also a little optimistic about that 3/4 ton payload rating. Even a 2007 Ford F-250 had a payload of 2,800 pounds and it goes up from there.
Ford_US SuperDuty_2007.pdf
Maybe you meant 1/2 ton?
I’ve wondered about the real world utility of the Maverick’s “bed” myself. I know there are extenders – even one that pops into the trailer hitch for long items. That might make it useful for grabbing some lumber that wouldn’t fit in a SUV.
But same as you, if I were to be hauling dirt/mulch for my house, I think I’d be taking several runs with the Maverick. I already do that with my Prius, so what is the point? Think I might just be better off getting a trailer hitch for my wife’s next SUV and have a trailer stashed out back for loading up for weekend house chores than buy a “sort of” pickup truck for my commuter.
To be fair, the average suburban Dad’s F-150 crew cab with a 5.5′ bed doesn’t seem all that useful for “truck stuff” either. Unfortunately those dominate the used truck listings these days. Need a unicorn Ranger to pop up that isn’t overpriced or rusted beyond repair.
You just missed it.
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/2009-ford-ranger-6/
Sold for $16,500
A trailer might be the way to go for you. I use them all the time at work but prefer the maneuverability of not having one. Before picking out a tow package, remember that a yard of sand weight roughly 2,500 pounds per yard. Add the weight of the trailer to that and make sure it’s within the tow rating.
I’m personally not a fan of the 5.5 foot bed but those suburban dads have different priorities than me. (Usually pulling a fishing boat, a trailer of ATVs, or camping.)
There are some Rangers available next week at the Mecum Auction.
1987 Ford Ranger XLT Pickup For Sale At Auction – Mecum Auctions
Here’s a rare spec one with no reserve.
2003 Ford Ranger Thunderbolt Pickup For Sale At Auction – Mecum Auctions
I have had a small cheap utility trailer tucked under my deck for 20 years and therefore never needed a pickup truck.
Needs and wants are two completely different things my friend.
Exactly then people need to just say they want a truck instead of saying they need one for constant mulch hauling.
I think because of all the negativity in the comment sections across the board, owner have become defensive and rationalize by saying they need it for mulch.
Yea I get that. It is like my friends and I who own wranglers actually go off roading weeks a year and never drive to the mall but somehow that is what people think we all do.
Wranglers are awesome! If I didn’t have a pickup, I’d have a Wrangler. YJ or TJ. I know they are vastly different. The first is for Nostalgia while the second s for capability.
Man, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of those “Thunderbolts”.
Based on this and Cloud Shouter’s link, seems like a nice Ranger goes for $16,500 these days. Might just buy a trailer.
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/2006-ford-ranger-10/
I showed Cloud Shouter’s Ranger link to my wife, and she thought that it went cheap! (Kinda scared about that.)
The payload rating for the Maverick is 1500 lbs – which is exactly 3/4 ton.
Maybe I’m old – but 3/4 ton pickup meant it could haul 3/4 tons. 1/2 ton meant 1/2 ton, etc.
Comparing a truck w/ a tow package and one without is apples vs pears.
No such thing as “standard size suburban lot” – 1/5 acre, 1/4 acre, 1/2 acre, etc? That’s a lot of mulch, tho.
I’m 56 myself so I understand. Manufacturers have upped the payload for decades now.
I’m also still bitter that the payload package on the Maverick tops out at 4,000 pounds. It should be higher.
1/5th acre. Landscaper by trade so…
Seems absurd at over 35k Canadian, until you try to price any other truck/vehicle that offers this utility.
It is one of many choices in the $30-35k hybrid space, and I think that’s great. Seems to be a consistently low days supply on these, indicating that plenty of folks want one. What are the tariffs on Mexican-built cars this week? What about next week?