slemke Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 2 hours ago, bzcat said: Really? Come on... The 10th gen F-150 crew cab with the short 5'5 bed was 222" long. Maverick will be nearly 2 ft shorter. Don't be silly. 1st gen Sporttrac was 206" long and 2nd gen was 210"... that's the same size as Ranger and much longer than Maverick will be I think. LWB Transit Connect is 190" and Fusion is 192" long. Ranger crew cab is 211" long. Remember Maverick is supposed to replace Focus and Fusion sedan... so I think Ford will keep it around 195~200". Another data point: Fiat Toro is 194"... nice truck. Can’t say the same for the parking. That generation looked substantially smaller than it actually was. The Maverick will look big, but will likely maintain the footprint of a transit connect. The old 80’s and early 90’s compact trucks were quite appealing for their small size, low load height and could still carry a reasonable load. Combined with a low price and they were great 1st time buyer vehicles. We’ll know shortly how the Maverick does in the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 36 minutes ago, slemke said: nice truck. Can’t say the same for the parking. That generation looked substantially smaller than it actually was. The Maverick will look big, but will likely maintain the footprint of a transit connect. The old 80’s and early 90’s compact trucks were quite appealing for their small size, low load height and could still carry a reasonable load. Combined with a low price and they were great 1st time buyer vehicles. We’ll know shortly how the Maverick does in the market. The last OG Ranger supercab and the South America only crew cab were both right around 200" long which I suspect is about as long as Ford will go on Maverick. Since it is using C2 chassis, the hood section is going to be considerably shorter than OG Ranger. And instead of 6 ft bed on the Supercab Ranger, Maverick will probably see Sporttrac size 4 ft bed. That means the middle section for the cabin should be quite spacious... like mid/full size sedan spacious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slemke Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 200” would still be 10” longer than a lwb transit connect. Somewhere between 190” and 200” is likely where it will end up. We’ll find out soon. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 16 minutes ago, bzcat said: I remember seeing these at the Edison plant where my dad used to work...was strange seeing them there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 4 hours ago, bzcat said: 1st gen Sporttrac was 206" long and 2nd gen was 210"... that's the same size as Ranger and much longer than Maverick will be I think. LWB Transit Connect is 190" and Fusion is 192" long. Ranger crew cab is 211" long. Remember Maverick is supposed to replace Focus and Fusion sedan... so I think Ford will keep it around 195~200". Another data point: Fiat Toro is 194"... I was solely talking about the rendering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jniffen Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 22 hours ago, bzcat said: Rendering https://www.motor1.com/news/490981/2022-ford-maverick-exclusive-renderings/ Also speculation on price: https://fordauthority.com/2021/02/2022-ford-maverick-to-start-at-under-20k-exclusive/ Article mentions Ford may use a non-EcoBoost base engine to keep prices low... I guess either 2.0 or 2.5 could work. These timed drip of information from Ford PR tells us the official release of the truck must be getting close. If they're not going to have a EB 2.0 then I'm not interested, can't seeing the standard 2.0 or 2.5 with enough power in today's market. Love to see them put the Focus RS 2.3 E/B, AWD, paddle shifters, with the old 71 Maverick grabber striping and blackened hood, could be a fun little number. The GMC Syclone comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slemke Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 1 hour ago, jniffen said: If they're not going to have a EB 2.0 then I'm not interested, can't seeing the standard 2.0 or 2.5 with enough power in today's market. Love to see them put the Focus RS 2.3 E/B, AWD, paddle shifters, with the old 71 Maverick grabber striping and blackened hood, could be a fun little number. The GMC Syclone comes to mind. Not for the low priced entry model. I would expect to see the 2.0 eco same as in the Escape and Bronco sport. 2.5L would be the replacement for the 1.5L eco. Whether it gets a 2.3L eco, would depend on how much power the chassis can handle. Keeping the power low would keep chassis cost down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 If Ford can't be bothered to make an Escape ST with 2.3 EB, I don't see them doing that in a Maverick. Although a Maverick Lighting could be kind of cool if done right. I think 2.0 EB with AWD is a forgone conclusion on the Maverick. The question is what kind of engine the FWD one will come with. If you believe the article from Ford Authority, they think Ford will try to push the starting price below $20k and may go with a non-EB engine. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 Also keep in mind we will see some sort of hybrid in the Maverick, but I'm thinking it will be a mild one that isn't a power adder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 Ford doesn’t have a mild hybrid system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, sullynd said: Ford doesn’t have a mild hybrid system. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/products/suv/puma/puma.html Powerful, responsive performance and optimised fuel efficiency is delivered for Puma customers using Ford’s EcoBoost Hybrid 48-volt technology. The mild-hybrid powertrain seamlessly integrates electric torque assistance with a low-friction, three-cylinder 1.0‑litre EcoBoost petrol engine to deliver up to 155 PS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, silvrsvt said: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/products/suv/puma/puma.html Powerful, responsive performance and optimised fuel efficiency is delivered for Puma customers using Ford’s EcoBoost Hybrid 48-volt technology. The mild-hybrid powertrain seamlessly integrates electric torque assistance with a low-friction, three-cylinder 1.0‑litre EcoBoost petrol engine to deliver up to 155 PS. Interesting. Don’t follow EU. Should have said Ford NA I’d be leery of using such a system here. Mild hybrids have all flopped, ask GM. Edited March 3, 2021 by sullynd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted March 3, 2021 Share Posted March 3, 2021 (edited) One more post on the size and hopefully we can put this topic to bed. I bring back this photo from the other thread of Maverick body in white (BTW, this is why I don't like starting new thread on the same topic instead of continuing old threads... you lose all the previous info). We have a pretty good idea on the size of this truck based on this body in white photo. And it's even more obvious when you look at it side by side with Transit Connect. Maverick looks like it has about the same wheelbase as Transit Connect but has a couple more inches of rear overhang. Edited March 3, 2021 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) On 3/3/2021 at 7:54 AM, bzcat said: Astute judgement on the placing of Maverick, it's just so interesting to see Ford playing to its strength (pickups) and not afraid to try something different against a sea of utilities, the Maverick should stand out. Edited March 4, 2021 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2021/03/04/new-ford-pickup-quietly-begins-rolling-off-mexico-assembly-lines/4580705001/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 ^^^Wow, full production in July? That is great news, I suppose we should be seeing some type of reveal soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Announce the damn thing already! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Anthony said: Announce the damn thing already! This is what we have been asking for for years, reveal closer to start of production. This is why Ford is getting pissed at suppliers for leaks 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 13 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said: This is what we have been asking for for years, reveal closer to start of production. This is why Ford is getting pissed at suppliers for leaks I'd have to think the debut will be soon if production is starting in July. I like that it's not a year in advance, but will be surprised if it it isn't shown perhaps this month. ---- Also just realized when I reconfigured my sales chart stuff for 2021 and new models, that I didn't account for Maverick's arrival.......ugh.....gotta partially redo them again lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice-capades Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 10 hours ago, rmc523 said: I'd have to think the debut will be soon if production is starting in July. I like that it's not a year in advance, but will be surprised if it it isn't shown perhaps this month. ---- Also just realized when I reconfigured my sales chart stuff for 2021 and new models, that I didn't account for Maverick's arrival.......ugh.....gotta partially redo them again lol. Considering the USOB (Unscheduled Order Bank) usually opens 2.5-3 months prior to a Job #1 Date, Ford hasn't announced and revealed the vehicle yet, and there's no production timetable... a July start seems very, very optimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) 38 minutes ago, ice-capades said: Considering the USOB (Unscheduled Order Bank) usually opens 2.5-3 months prior to a Job #1 Date, Ford hasn't announced and revealed the vehicle yet, and there's no production timetable... a July start seems very, very optimistic. I get the feeling that job one will be much later in the year, even if only to give Bronco Sport production a chance to settle. Bronco comes on line mid year so seems to point to maybe end of 2021 for Maverick? Edited March 5, 2021 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, ice-capades said: Considering the USOB (Unscheduled Order Bank) usually opens 2.5-3 months prior to a Job #1 Date, Ford hasn't announced and revealed the vehicle yet, and there's no production timetable... a July start seems very, very optimistic. I wouldn't be too sure of that. Remember, Hackett had an edict to shorten development and launch times and this would be one of the first new vehicles that would have started development since that edict came down, not to mention that plant was just retooled for Bronco Sport so there shouldn't have been a ton of work to do in that department. July seems realistic and it would put the order bank opening in the mid-April to May range. Edited March 5, 2021 by fuzzymoomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 On 3/2/2021 at 9:44 PM, jniffen said: If they're not going to have a EB 2.0 then I'm not interested, can't seeing the standard 2.0 or 2.5 with enough power in today's market. For the fleet crowd, 2.5L naturally aspirated I-4 will be plenty of pep and is durable. I had a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5L / 6 speed automatic and she did well. Plenty of pep for my commute and reliable as all get out with zero issues. Wasn't going to win any drag races, but then again, I got 30-32 MPG on the highway while doing 70-75 MPH. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice-capades Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said: I wouldn't be too sure of that. Remember, Hackett had an edict to shorten development and launch times and this would be one of the first new vehicles that would have started development since that edict came down, not to mention that plant was just retooled for Bronco Sport so there shouldn't have been a ton of work to do in that department. July seems realistic and it would put the order bank opening in the mid-April to May range. Understood but if the July production start is accurate they'll have to reveal the vehicle and a scheduling and production timetable very soon. Time will tell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slemke Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 13 hours ago, ice-capades said: Understood but if the July production start is accurate they'll have to reveal the vehicle and a scheduling and production timetable very soon. Time will tell! Or it will just quietly show up on dealer lots....what’s this? We didn’t order any of those. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.