Ford worked hard to eradicate small trucks from the US Can market. They and Chevy/Dodge built them in the 70s because Toyota, Datsun were taking their market. By the 80s they were tired of competing so they lobbied for high tariff on small imports. Through the 90s the Japanese trucks got bigger and got built in the US to evade the fines. But 2010 small trucks were about gone...in favor of $40k megatrucks.
@@STho205 With the 70s energy crisis, automakers had to go to economy vehicles, but were caught unprepared. The tariff was retaliation on imports due to other nations placing a tariff on US chicken. During the 70s/early 80s, The big 3 small trucks were re-badged imports, imported as incomplete vehicles to circumnavigate the tariff, then were final assembled in North America. The Ford Courier was a Mazda, The Chey Luv was an Isuzu, and the Dodge D50 was a Mitsubishi. Eventually they designed and built their own domestic small trucks during the 80s.
@@abpsd73 whatever... By 90 they knew what they were doing and energy crisis had ended a decade before. Gasoline was again 99c a gallon after 84...they just didn't want to compete with the new Toyota/Datsun micro trucks that were popular with fleets (meter readers, delivery trucks, etc..). F150s and Chevy GMC standard trucks that were durable goods is the real business. Cars is just a fun sideline of disposable junk for frat boys and secretaries to decorate dealerships. When gasoline again went up in 2000 because the government forced it up due to ethanol requirements (trucking e10 gas instead of only using pipelines for real gasoline above the frost line)...people still bought 8mpg mega macho trucks and by 2010 the Japanese were mostly importing their own gas hog trucks, or building them in Cali. Nobody was buying a Titan for gas mileage. A $10,000 truck is what the big 3 didn't want anymore. They were fine to compete on their terms....as long as it meant big sized trucks at 25k+, then 40k+, then 70k+ Ford just realized the rubber band stretched too far and snapped it back to 22k...with a cheap flimsy truck made with a cSUV they are ready to retire,, and new body panels. They for once caught Toyota and Nissan off guard. Nothing wrong with that...
I remember when my father bought his 05 Ranger. At the time, he complained that he wanted a crew cab but Ford didn't offer it in a Ranger, and he wasn't willing to pay another 15G to step up to an F150. I think this Maverick is the perfect size for what most people are looking for in a truck. However, I do think Ford should've named the Maverick a Ranger instead and the new Ranger should've been a F100. Based on size and capability, I think those model names would've been more appropriate.
Yeah. Guess they just wanted to recycle the Maverick name. And they already were committed to the mid size Ranger rebuild. Makes me wonder if the Mav was kind of an afterthought that Ford didn't expect to be so popular
That, the S10 and Tacomas around the same time are perfect vehicles for people that ocassuonal need a bed or hauling large things, but aren't trying to move half a mountain of rocks lol
@@AnhH88 I’ve heard nothing but good things about the new Rangers. Everyone who’s bought one likes it. It’s probably because it was already used globally and the engine was already in existence in the Mustang and other models. I don’t think anything was technically “all new”.
I just bought a 08 4x4 extended cab with 62k miles a few months ago. I gave $15k for it. I thought it was priced too high. I constantly get asked if I want to sell it and get offered more money than I paid for it.
I think I would've liked the Maverick better if they had a "supercab" option. There wouldn't even be back seats, but just a small space behind front seats for a little bit of protected/interior storage. And then that allows the bed to be another 1.5 feet longer. But hey, I'm sure I'm in the minority on that.
I agree with you on that. The first thing I was looking for on the Maverick was the choice of a super cab. No luck there. I think the bed is a bit short at 4 1/2 feet. But if you're hauling lumber, just pick up one of those extend a bars that fit in the trailer hitch and you can haul just about anything. I've had an extend a bar for 15 years and used it regularly for lumber, and a row boat. I used it on my 2000 Ranger (Super Cab by the way) and my 16 Silverado. Glad you and I are in the 'minority'.
I 100% agree. The 4.5 foot bed means it is too short to sleep in. A major deal breaker for me. Sadly the back of my Prius with seats folded down is longer (6 feet) and more useful than the Maverick bed.
I'm still driving my 96 Ranger as my backup vehicle, and while I probably only put 3000 miles a year on it, it's still trouble free as long as I leave it on a battery tender. The only things I've had to replace were rust related because of the salt on the roads here, except for normal wear items and the alternator at 175k miles.
The Old Ranger already lasted 20 years and it will last another 20 years. That garbage Maverick will last just after the warranty expires. Ecoboost garbage!
@@Thankyou_3 I don't know if I blame it on the engine. I have a 1.6 L EcoBoost in my Fiesta ST and there are several people on my groups that have put big turbos on, and they're running near twice the stock horsepower for over 200k before engine failure. The Vulcan in my ranger is die hard for sure, but its gutless, and I've seen people put superchargers on them back in the day, and they don't hold up. I think it says a lot about an engine if you can double its horsepower and still get 200,000 miles out of it. That being said it's nice to not have to worry about boost leaks and all that comes with the EcoBoost complexity.
We own a Maverick XLT Hybrid and we love it. We have hauled an 8 foot long box using the provided tie downs and the tailgate in the middle of 3 positions going towards the ocean. We drove 400 miles round trip and averaged 38 MPG. We also took a trip to the in-laws which is also 400 miles round trip going towards the mountains and again averaged 38 MPG. We have driven it around town and averaged between 40 and 50 MPG depending on traffic, weather, etc. We have had 4 full size adults in the truck and everyone had plenty of room. Our truck has plenty of power and can pass a vehicle on the highway with no problem at all. As a matter of fact, I am grateful for the cruise control because you can hit 80 MPH before you even realize you are going that fast. There is not a whole lot more to say except this truck is awesome and we have no regrets whatsoever for buying it.
Ford hit a home run, this coming from a ZR2 owner. After owning multiple large trucks, I finally downsized to a ZR2. I hope that others who just drive and haul nothing but air will figure out that bigger isn’t always better… Ford really nailed the market with this truck..Where else in todays world can you really get such a value for your money. If more people would just buy what they need and not always what they want, you wouldn’t see so many large trucks doing nothing but haul air on the roads. I’m not against owning a large truck by no means.. but honestly if ya don’t need it why own it… just a thought. Hopefully others will follow suit and produce some good smaller trucks. GM better step it up and not produce some piece of crap…
I get what you’re saying but to each their own. I just got a 2016 f150 XLT and I love it. I love the size of it and everything about it. I thought about getting the maverick but I’m just concerned with the tow capacity and the load I can carry in the bed.. I tow a descent size boat and do few side jobs using the bed of my truck and Idk if the maverick could handle it
I downsized from an F-150 to a Maverick, and so far it's perfect. Just enough truck for what I need for hunting and fishing, and a lot better as a daily driver.
Ford has changed the game and the sales figures show that. As long as it keeps up in terms of durability, I see this as even being popular second hand. Can't wait to see what the Rattler model is all about too. Would love to see Toyota come out with a Baby Tacoma to compete !
@@beebob1279 It looks like it's going to be a Raptor-lite off road model. They're probably not calling it a Raptor so they can keep peoples expectations in check. There's a few camouflaged spy pics floating around.
@cablecow15 Yeah, just look at the maverick compared to the F-150 or super duty, it looks photoshopped. As long as the maverick is reliable, we're buying it, and most data points to it being reliable.
This "Maverick" fills many voids in the market. Perfect for 1. Younger folks camping or pulling a seadoo, dirt bikes etc. 2. The retired tinkering on home projects. 3. Fleet vehicles 4. Secondary vehicles 5. Town home owners with smaller drive ways wanting pick ups. Great job Ford.
Pretty much all use cases where a Maverick is used would be better with a minivan or SUV. The use cases for Mavericks seem to be one-a-year situations, which tells me this is more about lifestyle and image than utility. I'd love to be wrong, but when is a tiny bed better than an enclosed rear hatch?
@@RecklessFables a bed might be a bit better for tall things, or lumber that extends past the tailgate. It's also better for dirty things since it's completely separated from the cabin.
But I do not want to jigzag some lumber in my sedan while i can just throw them in the bed. I do not want a ground compactor on my leather seat, although it fits just fine. I do not want a large barrow scratching up my paint. Can I fit all those in my sedan? yeah. But why should I, when an easier solution is right there?
@BL Dontmatter ...hmmm...not entirely. Like i said landscape essentials. Mulch, soil, trees, wet garbage. Plus with the tailgate down you can put kids bikes, even dirt bikes. Larger furniture strapped down. Hey... there's a fit for everyone. I can certainly live, sleep, shit, shower and cook in a RV but i dont choose too... food for thought.
I think the big takeaway is that the maverick does a really great job fitting the same role the old ranger did, but with less compromises as an every day vehicle.
@@beebob1279 actually you have way less towing capacity then the old ranger. the 4.0L V6 was rated at 6500lbs with the frame being able to handle up to 10,000lbs without reinforcement. Ford didn't say this because it would have required more equipment (for safety) on the old rangers, which would have put it out of the price range that ford wanted to hit. P.S. ford at one point even made a prototype of the ranger with a 5.8L 351 windsor in it.
I think the most appealing thing about the Maverick is the price and how much you get for it. I own a 2010 Ranger sport 4x4 and I got it for basically 3 reasons. Cheap, reliable, and I could still get one in manual. It was a bit rough finding one that was manual and 4x4 but I got one and it's been great. The only major issue I've had was rust. whoever had it before me had to have been putting bags of salt for weight in the back or something because it's had severe rusting in the front corners of the bed, as in free floating and almost unusable. Took the bed off and cut off the rusted steal and welded on new steel and painted jt and it was good to go, doesn't look as nice but the beds got a plastic cover so no one would even know anyway.
Yep, the wells on mine were going. I spray lined the bed and it held up pretty well. But rust after 15 years of beating on the truck was expected. Remember that the ranger was like a tank. It just couldn't get beaten up. Mine was hit four times. All of them were stopped or parked. The other cars were torn apart as a result.
Finding one with a manual transmission is difficult. I did find a 2008 FX4 4.0 5speed after some searching. Bought it before the used vehicle market went insane.
I love my little 1999 Ranger. Bought it new and put 300,000 miles on it. Used it as a daily driver for 18 years and drove it to 45 states. Hope to restore my baby back to new sometime. A cap on the 6 foot bed is the perfect little camper. And the little jump seats in the back are more usable than most think. And with the jump seats folded up there is plenty of room to securely carry stuff inside the cab. Ford should offer a Maverick with a 6 foot bed and little jump seats like the old Ranger.
I agree. If they changed the Maverick to offer a 6 foot bed, It would be quite acceptable to me, my 87 Ranger has a 7 foot bed, my 93 Ranger had the 6 foot bed and it was fine for pretty much everything I needed it for, the bad part with that truck was the pile of trash automatic transmissions they had in them, other than that and dismal fuel economy I loved that truck. My 87 Ranger is nice for a simple work truck/utility vehicle on my property, and it'll make the runs to the home store for project materials, but I know at some point its going to have to be replaced :(.
@@wildbill23c The Maverick has a weak ass 4 foot bed because Ford "Ranchero'd" one of their SUV's. It wasn't meant as an actual truck, which is why it has such a short bed.
@@TheReapersSon ...and yet that's why you'll see far more Maverick's, S10s, Rangers, and Dakotas out doing more work than people driving around their 3/4 and 1 ton dually diesel trucks LOL. The people that should be buying the Maverick are out there driving trucks around they have no business driving....and whining about the fuel economy that their boat doesn't get but hey its their money and the dealerships love those people..especially when they fillup that new truck with gas instead of diesel.
@@wildbill23c maybe in your area, but not where I live. Yeah there are many big bro-dozers that exist purely for show, just like all the modded Jeeps that will never see dirt yet are decked out for the apocalypse. But there are a lot of full-size trucks around here that haul trailers, equipment, etc. They just don't always drive around with it attached to their truck so you'd never know. Note how I never said these small trucks aren't useful or popular. Small trucks have always served an important purpose. I'll take a Tacoma or Colorado over a full-size pickup most of the time, but having a longer bed is important to me for practicality reasons.
I was thinking the same thing. Over five years ago I bought a Honda Ridgeline but was thinking a used Sport Trac or a used earlier generation Tundra quad cab would work as well. Now, the choices are much better.
Oddly enough I've seen more Sport Tracs in the last 3 months than I've seen in 13 years and get fooled into thinking it's a Maverick from far away. And a lot of them are in good shape. I agree, it seems like the more direct comparison to the Maverick vs Ranger.
I had a 2003 Sport Trac from 2006-2013 loaded with leather, etc, everything but a moonroof. Loved that truck, did 90% of what my previous Ranger would do plus a usable back seat. Only thing I hated was having to replace the engine because of Ford cheaping out on the timing gear guides, made out of plastic 🤦♂️. Other than that, should have never traded it in. Now, the look is kind of cool IMHO.
Compact trucks have all gotten considerably bigger over the years so it's nice to see that Ford has addressed this by coming out with a new model that nails what people really needed and wanted.
Had a 1999 Ranger, it was my first brand new vehicle. That little truck is a tank, just keeps going, I no longer own it but now lives on a farm doing farm stuff 👍
Bought my 2001 from a farm auction it was a pos for a little bit but it never didn’t start. Started finding it it had owners that didn’t care. Old burnt spark plugs, 2 spark plugs cross threaded in barely in the holes, old fluids, bent bed (prolly took it off a few jumps every day on the farm), replaced a few things and it’s healthy and well. It refuses to stop lol
I was too young back in the day to actually own a Ranger Edge but man did I want one. still a really cool pickup truck. And it's really amazing to see how many of them are still on the road.
@@daghostxxx1797 I was in the market for a truck and had the Ranger as an option. The Nissan Frontier, while old at that point, was such a better value. Not to mention a proven reliable vehicle.
Hi piece garbage Ford, why don’t you check out a video that FordTechMakuloco channel just put out on the garbage Ecobooost you have been building. Go back to naturally aspirated engines Ford, turning back back now it is good idea.
When I was 10 a neighbor had a first gen Ranger. A 2 door bench seat. Many great memories riding in that truck when my dad was able to borrow it for hauling. This Maverick seems like it will be a great little truck
I had an 84 Ranger, and now an 87...both regular cabs and both bench seats. Great little work trucks. My 87 Ranger has the 7 foot bed, apparently somewhat of a rare option as I had a heck of a time finding a camper shell for it, everything I found was 6 foot bed sized. Finally found a shell this past summer for $100...so now when I want to haul stuff and keep it dry I have a shell, and its light enough I can easily remove it and reinstall it myself.
I had the 2000 Ranger with the super cab. Loved it. Everything you said about the truck is true. Especially driving in the snow. Mine was a standard with a rear wheel drive. I beat the death out of that truck. I hauled stuff and over filled it with everything I could. I sold it to a mechanic for a decent amount. I had 250,000 on it. I bought a POS Silverado and it was nothing but problems from the start. I'll never buy another GM product. I sold the Silverado a few weeks ago for almost what I paid for it. I have a Maverick on order. This review is what I've been looking for in comparisons. The one thing I would personally like would be a super cab on the Maverick. I would like a longer bed than just 4 1/2 feet. Be for warned that the Maverick is built in Mexico which I didn't know when I put the order in. I would have liked to find a U.S. produced truck. But I found a review on the Maverick and in that review the person mentioned that many Tacomas are made in Mexico too. When I saw that I breathed a little better. I'm a little nervous about the smaller engine too. But I figure this motor has been used for quite some time and the bugs have been worked out of it. I ordered the gas powered to tow 4000 lbs. I still need that. The hybrid only tows 2000 lbs. which won't cut it for what I need it for. I'll keep it a while and see if I like it. If not the used car market will be good to me as long as there's a demand for them. I did test drive both the Maverick and the new Ranger. I like the Maverick. The new Ranger seemed loud to me. It also didn't seem to have the pick and go that I wanted. It was kind of 'doggy'. When I parked the Ranger I didn't like the turning radius. It wasn't much better than the Silverado. Just too big for me. I like the smaller truck.
In 2010, I purchased my 05 Ranger Edge 3.0 with 5-speed, RWD, and 4.10 in the back. I been very happy with usual, basic vehicle services and capabilities. We always want what we don't have but this comparison really only shows one thing between two similarly sized Fords; they were both designed for different purposes. Both can be driven anywhere, in any underground carport, in any crowded city street, or camping trips. One carries more people in comfort while the other can haul two motorcycles... or from what I've seen; three tonnes of watermelons in the bed at 45 mph on the freeway. Scarily impressive. Also worth noting: RWD and manual trans is a hoot.
Last year I bought a 2001 ram 1500 reg cab short bed with the 5spd, 5.2l, 4x4 and she came from the factory with a 4.10 lsd rear, absolute blast to drive
In regards to the comment on competition from Ram or GM, I honestly don't think Stellantis (Ram) wants to compete in the economy truck segment. FCA scrapped a lot of their economy oriented stuff, across the board, in favor of only offering products with very high profit margins. They got rid everything affordable under or near the $20k USD mark, like the Jeep Patriot, Dodge Dart, Avenger, or Journey and raised the prices everywhere else. They didn't even bother to bring back the Dakota, despite even Ford finally giving in and bringing back the Ranger to compete with the Colorado, Tacoma and Frontier. Yeah, I know Jeep has the Gladiator, but that is still more of a niche/lifestyle vehicle, being basically a wrangler with a bed, as opposed to a traditional mid-size truck. It also has a much higher starting MSRP than the competition. Ram is even hesitant to build affordable fleet/work/budget full-size trucks, as you still have to get a 1500 classic if you want a less expensive, regular cab variant. Point is, they don't seem to have any interest offering people small, affordable trucks in the $20k-$30k USD range, at least in the US and Canada. GM might produce something to compete, but I have a bad feeling it would just be a trailblazer with a 2.5ft bed, as opposed to being a new, interesting vehicle.
I keep thinking with Ford discontinuing the Focus and Fusion in Canada that the Maverick is their Civic/Corolla competitor. The hybrid uses the same amount of fuel as the base engines in those cars, it has the same interior size, the only thing it's missing is a trunklid (which can be had as an accessory).
Put it this way, I drive a Corolla because it's realiable and good on gas. I had a Chevy truck before that and got rid of it because the fuel was so expensive. The Maverick basically hits all the boxes of what I want for my next vehicle.
Back in the day I owned a 1988 Ranger with the extended cab and I have to say the Maverick is almost like sitting in a full size pickup compared to the old Ranger.
Technology has advanced but Ford failed miserably building a reliable Ecoboost. What are you guys talking about. The old Ranger is amazing and more capable and more reliable. Where are the good people that built the Ranger. Give them a bonus and give minimum wages for those idiots that built the Maverick.
@@Sorensenator86 no no no! Our shops invested half dozen Ecoboost within our crew last 3 years. Every one of that garbage Ecoboost felt apart very quickly after warranty period. These are built the same way the new Hondas are built. Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! We are getting the New Frontier soon and I think Nissan have turned the corner at least with the New Frontier.
I had the exact body style Ranger but a 2000. I loved the heck out of that truck, sometimes more than my 2014 F150! The Maverick will definitely be my next pickup once my F150 passes!
Had a Datsun, great payload but rode like a tank. Bought it from Mezzacapo Motors in Louisiana and drove it to Ohio when I was 20 years old. That was a workout ! Have a xl Hybrid Maverick on order...will do the things I do with good mpg and with a great ride...thanks Ford from an old timer!
I had a 1991 Ford Ranger XLT back in 2001. It was one of my favorite trucks. It did have a horrible transmission issue that I never ended up getting repaired. I drove that truck for many years until it was officially dead. I've always liked the smaller pickups. They're extremely useful and perfect for anyone. I'd love to get my hands on a Maverick. It seems like a fun little useful truck.
I had a 94 Splash extended cab 2wd 3.0 V6 with a 5 speed manual… it was a great truck would buy another one today if I stumbled onto a clean rust free one.
My first vehicle was an 84 Ford Ranger 4x2 base model, dual fuel tanks, C5 automatic and 2.8L V6. My grandparents towed a 15 foot travel trailer all over the country with it up until 1989 when they bought a larger trailer and an 88 F250 4x4. I currently own an 87 Ford Ranger 4x2 Base model with the 7 foot bed, 5 speed manual and fuel injected 2.9L V6. Its my utility vehicle on my property and my go to the DIY store for building materials hauler. I also own an 88 Ford Bronco 2 4x4 basically A Ford Ranger with a back seat and permanent top over what would normally be a truck bed, just much shorter LOL. I own a 2008 Ford Explorer 4x4 4.6L V8, but not nearly as fun to drive as my 87 Ranger and 88 Bronco 2, but the Ranger is the most fun to drive, I guess maybe because its just bare bones basic and with the 2.9L V6, manual transmission and 3.73 gears you can quite easily throw the back end around when you want to... My 87 Ranger gets 25mpg on the highway, my 88 Bronco 2 might get 19mpg highway if you are lucky LOL. The Explorer gets around 19 highway.
@@justdavid8357 Yes, but doesn't have the towing capacity that my Explorer gives me...probably looking into an older F150 or F250 when the prices on used vehicles come back to earth. The Maverick is only rated for 4k, my Explorer is rated for 7100, and even at that I'm pretty close to max rather too close for my comfort at 6500lbs...not very often do I have to haul my car trailer with my tractor and implements, but I don't like running that close to max tow capacity. I'd rather be closer to 15-20% away not less than 10% LOL. However, yes I honestly wouldn't mind the Maverick for most days, and someday one might find its way into my driveway but that's going to be a few years too many other debts to take care of first. I'd be looking at the Maverick in FX4 XLT trim most likely, the AWD is a nice thing to have in snow country, and the AWD gives you the 4K tow package. I think mid to high 20's for fuel economy is pretty reasonable for a pickup like that. I think some are reporting in the 30's with their AWD Mavericks so that wouldn't be bad at all..and most times the 4k towing capacity is fine, its when I need to take my tractor somewhere for a job that I'd need a larger vehicle.
My 2000 Ranger was a rear wheel too. I get throwing the back around if you want to. I beat that truck. It just kept going. It was hit four times and each time I was either stopped or it was parked. Each time the other vehicle had quarter panels and fenders ripped to shreds. Loved that truck but at 250,000 it was just literally falling apart. Should have found a used Ranger at that point since the old Ranger was out of production.
Great video! My dad had an old Nissan he drove for years, and he now drives a Chevy S-10. Has for even longer I believe. He’s had several small/midsize trucks in between. These little utilitarian pickup trucks have always just felt like home to me. And the maverick looks amazing. Hope to get one someday.
I bought my current 2011 Ford Ranger new. Before that I drove a Mazda B3000 for 10 years (so I've been driving the 'same' truck for 20 years). I am not a 'truck guy', but used my Ranger as a truck on a weekly basis. Hauling my road/mountain bikes; trips to Home Depot; trips to the dump; helping people move; buying furniture; countless other hauling... My current Ranger just broke 130,000 miles. I WAS SO EXCITED about the new Maverick. "On Paper" it seamed like the perfect replacement.... - Then I test drove one. I will say the single biggest disappointment is the tiny bed. Thinking back on the many hundreds of loads I stuffed into my 6' ranger bed, I can tell you about 80% of them wouldn't fit in a bed that's a full 18" shorter. AND the wheel wells take up more space in the Mav bed. Super disappointed. And ultimately, the deal-breaker for me. - Both my Ranger and B3000 have/had a stick. Damm. I will miss driving a manual truck... Was heartbroken when I found out the Mav is auto only. Epic fail ford, epic fail. - Also, I don't know where you guys get off on saying 'most' old trucks were rear wheel drive. If you live anywhere in the snow belt, 99% of all trucks came with 4x4 (as both mine did - at least here in the states...) - As someone who designs things for a living, I can say the interior of the Mav "looks" awesome. The use of different materials, textures, and colors is super cool. HOWEVER, once you sit in the Mav for a bit, and the 'new shiny' effect wears off, the overwhelming sense of "cheap" overtakes you. Being 100% plastic feels like 100% plastic. - Another big "compromise" is the crew cab vs. longer bed. You lose 18" of bed (terrible) AND the inside of the Mav just feels tiny. Width wise up front, you will definitely be rubbing shoulders with your front passenger. And the back seats, yeah they are larger than the jump seats in the Ranger, but for back seats - supposed to seat adults - they don't cut it. So you lose both the bed length AND you get barely functional rear seats. (FYI, I have put my 5'-6" wife in the Ranger jump seats for -very- short across town runs...). - Another fail is the back seat storage. So you could argue that some loads could be split up and put partially in the bed and partially in the back seat. Well, the back seats are 'thick' and when folded up they take up quite a bit of space. AND the on-floor plastic storage trays eat up tons of space as well. You would be hard pressed to fit a full size mountain bike in the back. - Not wanting to hate on the Mav, just wanting to let people know it's not much of a "truck". Haul your kids to the mall? Yes. Pick up a bag of potting soil from the store? Yes. Make a real dump run? No. Haul your bikes? No. - I will say the one place Ford nailed it is with the price. It's a dam inexpensive vehicle. If you need a cheap run-about, this will be a good choice. I need a real truck... - I pick up my Honda Ridgeline in March (fingers crossed it's March...)
I had a Mazda B4000 extended cab with 4 wheel drive back in 98. It was a re-badged Ranger with some different bits and bobs. The 4 wheel drive system was actually really competent in snow and light off roading. I loved that truck and wish I still owned it. It was a better truck than the Maverick, although there is no doubt that the Maverick is a better car, if you take my meaning.
I had a 1996 Ranger 4x4 with a factory off road package, but I can’t remember the trim name. It had the 4.0 v6 and a 5 speed manual trans. It was a great truck for me and after I converted the front hubs from auto to manual it was always reliable. You are correct in your assessment about the priority to hauling capabilities over comfort.
Same for the F-150...drove RWD F-150s in snow country for years and years with a barrel of sand in the back centered over the axle and never got stuck.
The Old Ranger already lasted 20 years and it will last another 20 years. That garbage Maverick will last just after the warranty expires. Ecoboost garbage!
Technology has advanced but Ford failed miserably building a reliable Ecoboost. What are you guys talking about. The old Ranger is amazing and more capable and more reliable. Where are the good people that built the Ranger. Give them a bonus and give minimum wages for those idiots that built the Maverick.
@@Thankyou_3 Rangers were known for their reliability yes. Not for fuel economy though, half ton fuel basically on the 4 liter. More power and less displacement usually does come at the expense of longevity. Depends on how long you plan to keep your vehicle I guess. When my Ram hits the 200k I hope to be done with it anyways. The only decade ownership vehicles left seem to be the 3/4 tons. If you wrack the mileage to them I mean
I am 6'2" and I have rode in the back of a Ford Ranger just like that with another guy who is similar height. We fit just fine in the jump seats. Not for a long trip of coarse, but the face to face seating position works.
My 2004 is great truck with a crappy ride and runs like a clock. Love the maverick concept but will hold out for a crew cab 6 foot bed ranger based on my mission profile
I have a 2009 fx. Got it to do construction jobs. My main criteria was needing a 6 foot bed, 4 wheel drive, and a v6 engine. It rides rough but it is the perfect work vehicle.
I had a 93, 96, 99 and 02 Ranger. I liked them because they were reasonably sized, priced, could do some work and had some off road capabilities. The Maverick is the first new vehicle in awhile that I am genuinely interested in for all the same reasons. I'm sure in another 5 years there will be entries from all the other manufacturers but Ford really did a excellent job with the Maverick.
Currently driving a 2002 Ragner XLT with 208,000 miles on it. Original owner. It's been a good truck. Never has left me stranded. I live in Michigan and did not get it undercoated. I wish I would have. My truck is rusted out very badly. I did need to get the transmission rebuilt. I ordered a Maverick hybrid in November. Hoping to get it sometime in July/August, fingers crossed. Nice video comparing the two.
love my 05 ranger. its taken me all over the southeast, I sleep in the camper top when I do my rev war reenactments, it tows my Carolina Skiff, goes off road with 4x4, its been a huge blessing. the maverick seems like a great replacement
That “old school” ride quality is one of the things I like the most about my ‘09 Ranger - it actually feels like you’re driving a truck! I purchased mine new and it only has 38,000 miles on it and is in absolutely pristine condition - as the service guy at my local Ford dealer says, “That’s the cleanest fu*king Ranger I’ve ever seen!”……..😂 I was going to sell it a few years back and put the money towards a Thunderbird, but by that time the Rangers had gone out of production and were already becoming scarce, so I decided to hang onto it as a collector. I have several nice Mustangs and other such vehicles in my collection, but the vehicle that invariably gets the most attention when I take it out for a Saturday afternoon drive is my humble little Ranger - who’d a thunk it……??!!!
I had a 1987 Ford Ranger 4x4 extended cab with the 2.9L V6 and a 5 speed manual, I loved that little truck, got me anywhere I wanted to go and got descent fuel mileage, around 20mpg. Sold it when I had my first kid just because you couldn't get anyone in the little jump seats in the rear with a car seat in front. Fast forward to 2022 and I have a 2022 Hybrid Maverick and I love it, fits both of my kids, now out of car seats, and still have plenty of room both front and rear seats, the storage inside is better than the Ranger, overall I really like the Maverick, fits what I need in the phase of life my family is in and gets great fuel mileage, has plenty of smooth power and is a great daily driver for me and my family.
Had a lot of experience with a 95 Ranger, and came away thinking it was an ideal 'runabout' class truck. A hybrid Maverick would do pretty much everything I could do with that awesome Ranger AND get good enough fuel economy to replace my daily driver sedan. If Ford added AWD to the hybrid version it would be even better for my needs! Hopefully production will ramp up soon and they become more readily available. I've only ever seen one or two 'in the wild'
Great video! I own a 2011 Ranger, extended cab with the 2.3 and 5spd manual. I love this little truck, it has 90,000 miles, oil sprayed every year and no rust. I average 28mpg during summer months and around 23mpg in winter. And honestly, it isnt bad in the snow because the 2010 & 2011 models included Stabilitrak. I run 235/75/15 hankook snow tires in the winter and have no problems most of the time. If its real bad out, i dont go out or I will take our 2015 Outback...problem solved! If I could post a pic here or send you guys one, I would. Let me know. Take care~ Shaun from Ohio
@@daghostxxx1797 It gets really bad gas mileage if you live on hilly terrain or drive in the mountains. You can hear the turbo kicking in continuously with light acceleration. I can't even imagine how bad the 1.0 liter and A 1.5 3 cylinder turbo engines are ?
I sold my 92 Ranger to a friend. Then after finding the 2010-11 Rangers were selling in the low 20s in 2015 I bought a Silverado and it gets better mileage than my Ranger did. I suspect the Ranger load capacity was slightly more but with a full load of wood on I-85 I had no issues going 65. The Ranger didn't handle that nearly as well so I didn't do that after trying once or twice. I do wish somebody had made a truck that would fit in my garage. Maverick will, the others won't.
I've had my Maverick for about two weeks now and love it. Have not been driving it a lot, because it's winter and I'm not working. I got the Lariat lux edition Hybrid, and must say the best part of the lux package is the heated steering wheel. Great video, thanks.
Thanks for the video! I have a 2003 Sport Trac and 2022 Maverick. The Sport Track's odometer busted at 181K about 3 or 4 years ago. It probably has between 210 & 220K now, and yes, still running! It has cut outs on the wheel wells, several tie downs, and like many trucks the gate latches can be adjusted. It also has a power source where the Maverick has its also. That would be a good comparison. I miss my 60/40 back seat on the Sport Trac. I'll be disappointed if they change it to 60/40 on the 23s or future models of the Maverick.
When they came out with the Maverick I thought hmm, they're bringing back the Explorer Sport Trac LOL. A few of them left on the road, don't see very many of them anymore :(. Someone in town has a Sport Trac Adrenaline...nothing special just has the 4.6L V8 in it I guess is what gave them the Adrenaline badging...I have the 4.6L V8 in my Explorer, not all that impressed, the dang thing is pretty heavy, and with the 3.55 gears its not all that great for speed nor fuel economy, they really should have had 3.73's in it LOL. Does OK, but you can tell its just a heavy vehicle to try and get moving.
@The Real VR Oh, you mean like the damn thing should have been built from the factory LOL. 6 speeds, a V8 and they try and make it into a car LOL. Not sure how they figure with the factory optioned 3.55 gearing that it would tow 7300lbs. That thing would be hunting for the right gear all day long.
I'll take the Ranger with the Vulcan V6 which was built in St Paul, Minnesota. Please note 9:37 the Ranger has been taken to Krown Rustproofing every year and remains rust free. 😃
Great review. I know your search is for the King of Trucks each year but... I'd say your the King of Trucks. Keep up the fantastic content. Very cool comparison.! Love the energy.
I had a 2003 Ford Ranger Edge with a 4.0 V6 and a 5 speed manual trans. It was sideways around corners most of the time! Think it was 210 hp. Still miss that truck.
My dad has almost the same Ranger, an '02. Horrid thing. 4-cyl power with 8-cyl fuel economy. Full size truck turning circle and toy truck cargo capacity. Love the video, this is the true comparison to the Maverick...shows how far they've come.
I honestly wouldn't bother with a fire extinguisher...if you have a vehicle fire bad enough to need one, you should let it burn to the ground and the insurance total it out...you really don't want to deal with a 1/2 burned up vehicle that your insurance wouldn't total out...its a wiring and mechanical nightmare afterwards. Just let it burn.
@@michaelmelling9333 You ain't going to have time to play fire fighter, you'll have to get people out, most times if you run up on an accident like that, you got seconds to get people out, not minutes to play with a fire extinguisher. Been there done that, it don't happen like the movies show. Cars now have far more combustible materials built into them so even less time to get out sadly. I'm surprised cars don't have automatic fire suppression systems in them by now honestly.
Just sold my 2010 Ranger and getting the Hyundai Santa Cruz. Looked first seriously at the Ford Maverick , but upon driving both , chose the Santa Cruz. Just better refined all around in my opinion. Sad to see my old Ranger go though.
A buddy of mine had a old Ranger 2.3 5 speed regular cab, now this happened before he found the Lord, but Billy liked to drink, 1 mornings we got a big snow, well Billy had taken a few nips that morning and flipped the lil Ranger over on the drivers side, got it flipped back on its wheels went on to work in the mines and then back home flipped in the same curve on the passenger side. That week end we used jacks pry bars and wood blocks and got the top straightened out, replaced the windshield and went to Church with me got saved and drove that lil Ranger at least 7 or 8 more years. That was one tough lil truck for sure.
I have a 2010 ranger 5 speed standard trans and I absolutely love it. 4 wheel drive when needed in Ohio and fun to drive. Also got those goofy small seats in the back had my buddy who’s 16 sit behind me and I’m 6 foot so it wasn’t that great trying to drive scooted up so far. Definitely just a 2 seater truck lol
Because the Maverick is a unibody construct Ford would have to redesign and retool a completely different platform. Other trucks are on a frame, so beds and passenger areas can be easily swapped during production.
Regular cab unibody trucks can't pass side impact and roof crush strength tests. They NEED the extra pillar of a crew cab or extensive and expensive engineering otherwise that just isn't justifiable given how low the demand would be. The people who complain about wanting regular cab trucks are too cheap or poor to buy new cars so why cater to people who wouldn't buy it if they made it?
@@Noah_E I'm neither too cheap nor too poor to buy a new car or truck. They are catering to women and building it for them and most men are just neutered and buy it for their wife because they don't have any balls left to buy an actual truck.
@@CraigSmith568 It comes down to economics and demand. A regular cab unibody would require a lot of engineering and a stronger, more expensive structure to pass safety tests so the cost of production would be higher, but the resulting models would have lower MSRPs. They would never get a positive return on the investment. Every truck I've had since 1999 was either an extended or crew cab other than a pair of Studebaker trucks (1953 and 1955) because I NEED the weather tight storage and ability to transport people and a 100 lbs bluetick. And every one I've bought had a smaller bed than the one before it, from an 8' down to a 6.5' on my F350. I own a tree farm and co-own a saw mill. If a 6.5' bed works for me I imagine a 4.5' bed being adequate for most city dwellers, which is the target market for a unibody truck. Anyone needing more truck than that, but not wanting to go full sized would opt for a Colorado or Ranger.
I've a 2000 Ford RangerXLT - 4cyl 5sp manual - and have ordered a Maverick EB FX4 Lariat - waiting for build date. I love the small pickup size, and giving up some bed space isn't ideal, yet having a very efficient vehicle that can carry the family is a huge bonus. This review helps confirm what I expect in this fine upgrade.
I'd like to see a modern 2dr utility trk. Until then I'll keep the old skool Ranger running and it'll probably still be running when the new turbo and ecvt trans in the Maverick blow up and are prohibitively expensive to repair. The wifes suv is the family hauler and grocery getter. We don't need a dual purpose truck.
I have a 2003 Ranger Edge, I brought in 2008, I love my Ranger, it has over 234000 miles and still runs great. It has never disappointed me. Only parts I have to replace was the water pump, I tried to replace it myself but had to take it to a mechanic, it was factory sealed. I have come home a couple of times and found notes, asking if I wanted to sale it. I am going to keep it. It's red like the one in the video, 2 door.
KEEP IT!!!! Don't sell it. I sold my 2000 in 2017 only because it was just beat to death. I worked that truck like a truck is supposed to be used. I now have a Maverick on order after a dismal experience with the Silverado. I already soldi that truck and putting the money towards the Maverick.
Grew up with a 97 Ford Ranger that we just “put down”. It was well loved and the perfect sized truck. The Maverick is definitely a top contender for our next truck.
In your Maverick interior segment you guys should have had your coats on. Yes, I know the Maverick bigger inside but visually you made it look much larger doing that. My first Ranger was a 88 regular cab, 6 ft bed, 2wd, 2.3L-4 cyl, 5 spd. Fun sporty truck. It did get stuck a lot in the snow and mud. The cab was so short you couldn’t drive it more than an hour, because your right foot would go numb. I also had a 90 super cab, 2wd, 4.0L-V6, auto. It got stuck all time as well. I added a limited slip to help. The rear jump seats were fine as long as you didn’t mind having your knees in your chest and you didn’t have any shoulders. I made a few trips back there. Good thing they weren’t over 15 minutes. I appreciate the side by side comparison. Nice work.
Great video!! I had a 2000 Mazda B3000 ( which is basically a Ford Ranger) 2 wheel drive also. Couldn't drive in the snow at all! The inside was incredibly cramped, especially up against the drivers door.. I just felt really crammed in there.. I will be buying the new Maverick for sure! I can't wait.. I just wish they would make a 2 door King cab with 6 foot bed.. I honestly detest the looks of these 4 door trucks, but until someone makes something similar again, this is what I'll be getting!
@@betteheadbettehead4800 Think I would have been better off replacing my '01 Edge/Ranger with a unit from down south and not a new ranger. Luved mine but it was getting a bit rusty here in Michigan. MPG would have been better and I could have worked on it......not have to take it to FORD for an oil change !!!
Great vdieo gents as always! My perspective...the maverick to me makes lots of sense mostly due to price first then size and ease if driving and fuel efficiency ar least with the hybrid! However i will not get rid of my reliable 2004 Ranger that was made in a country that pays fair wages until a new crew cab ranger with a long bed and a more fuel efficient engine under load conditions actually comes out. Just my specific buying perspective. One hit here on you...if you are gonna discuss cab space issues and do so while wearing bulky winter coats in the ranger and thin Hawaiian shirts in the maverick i am thinking you are getting kickbacks from ford lol!
I didn't notice the change in clothes. Good pick up on that. I did drive the Maverick the other week and it's actually similar to my old Ranger. Not a fan of the new Ranger and I drove that also. Seemed 'doggy' accelerating and the turning radius wasn't great.
Still use my 93 Ranger as my daily. Bought it in 2004 for a thousand bucks with 140K miles on it and now it sits at 310K and counting. It's the best vehicle I've ever owned.
Great review. I own a 1990 XLT extra cab with the 4.0 motor and auto trans with a 3.50 limited slip rear end and optional handling package. This truck even as old as it is it’s still a lot of fun to drive. The one option I kept was the 60/40 split bench and those seats are like sitting on a couch. The new Maverick would probably something I would consider if I ever let this old ranger go. Which would probably be hard to do.
I had a 2001 ranger xlt with the 3.0 and it was a slug.. i still liked my little truck. Recently got a used 2017 titan and i am actually considering trading it in for the ecoboost awd maverick. I think the mav can fulfill all my needs and be fine for a family of 3 with my 6 year old. I just love having the v8 and 4wd but i dont really need it.
I agree. The thing can't get out it's own way. I have a 2002 3 liter and when I put my foot down all it does is make noise and doesn't go very much faster. But the old truck has 208K on it, so I try not to abuse it.
I would point out the following: 1) yeah the ranger bed is 6ft long, but I haul boards over 6ft (nobody buys 4x6 plywood folks) , so tailgate down for both in real use. It's a tie. 2) the 4x4 rangers only towed up to 3500lbs, not the 4100 of your rwd only. So, since people these days "need" a 4x4 for it to be a "real truck", those that had 4x4s back then would be seriously outmatched by the maverick. 3) best I can find, max payload in an old ranger was 1200lbs, 300lbs less than the maverick. 4) old rangers did not offer lockers, a rear axle only lsd was available, but uncommon. Open diff 4x4 is not 4x4,as if even one tire slips, no power gets to any tire. Awd in a modern vehicle is superior in every way to open diff or rear only lsd 4x4s. Also, they had 9in ground clearance to the mavericks 8.6, essentially equal. My point, the maverick has better seating, better economy, better comfort, better driving dynamics, better towing, better payload, and at least equally good off road to the old ranger. This isn't even a fair fight, the old ranger sucks. Full disclosure, I worked for a utility company with a fleet of 4x4 rangers, and spent 200 to 300 miles a day in them for 4 years. I would not take one for free. When we started getting Tacomas into the fleet, people literally fought to get them.
I leave the tailgate up on my Ranger for hauling building materials, keeps them from sliding out the back. Then again I have an 87 Ranger with the 7 foot bed.
@@wildbill23c fair point, but again the same can be done with the maverick, and it has that half down position, so really still a horse apiece. The 7 foot bed was what my dad's 80s ranger had when I was like 6 or 7. Yeah the 7ft certainly outclasses the 4.5 of the maverick and 6ft of the 90s ranger, as did the manually locking 4x4 hubs compared to the rear lsd. Let's face it, the 90s to 2000s "Mazda" ranger sucked compared to its predecessor.
100% everything outside the engine bay in better in the Maverick, but the EcoBoost will be the Achilles heel of these trucks. We have a 2010 extended cab Ranger and it will be around long after Mavericks have succumb to timing chain issues and oil starvation deaths.
My father who is 81 just bought a ranger that looks just like the one you drove. I am waiting for my new Maverick all wheel drive I can't wait to compare mine to his. He's looking forward to it also. Thanks for the cool video.
I have a 1996 Ford Aerostar with the same 3.0 engine and have never felt under powered. If you take care of the engine, it goes forever. Love my van...
The Old Ranger already lasted 20 years and it will last another 20 years. That garbage Maverick will last just after the warranty expires. Ecoboost garbage!
I have had several rangers and Chevy Silverados, I have loved them! This Maverick totally intrigued me, so far love what I see, it will very likely be my next vehicle purchase! I just bought my wife a Bronco, so I have to wait a year before I buy a truck! I think this concept and its options are genius!
Loved my old Ford Rangers. Im looking into buying another one. My other half wants a Maverick Hybrid and I want an AWD one. Full frame vs unit body too. Well see how Mavericks stand up to the test of time . old rangers are hard to kill.
my first truck was a 2002 Ford ranger 4.0 4wd 5 speed and that was a awesome little truck I can’t imagine this new maverick is anywhere near as capable as the old ranger
Driving a 2010 4L 2 wheel drive ranger that I bought used for about a year and a half. It's horrible on gas and terrible in the snow. I need a small work truck and I like the idea of the maverick but the bed size is a deal breaker. If they made a 2 door with a 6ft bed I'd be lining up to buy one.
My first vehicle was a 1983 long bed 2nd 2.3L OH cam Ranger 3 speed auto and the i owned a 1989 super cab 5 speed manual 2.3L EFI and after that a 1996 Super cab Splash with the 4.0l V6 5 peed manual this was a very quick and fun truck and practically un destructible Now i own a 2020 F 150 Raptor and as much as a love the small truck when i was a kid I’m waiting on my 22 37 performance pig Raptor so size and comfort and looks matters the most for me. Maverick i think is perfect for young or older people with a small or no family!
Our closest neighbors just gifted their oldest son a "Forest Green" step side Ranger, that was purchased new by his Dad, and has a verified one million miles on the original engine and drive train. Our neighbor drove that ruck every day to his job site (a three-hour round trip) in every kind of weather condition South Carolina had to offer until 12/20/2021 when his retirement kicked in. The Maverick is a nice-looking little truck that, with a cap, should pass HOA rules because it would look like an Escape for the most part.
You really should do a comparison between the 2022 Maverick and the 2001-2010 Explorer Sport Trac since the Maverick is really a Sport Trac reborn with modern technology and the name borrowed from the 70's coupe. I'm still driving a 2002 Ford Explorer Sport Trac with 231,000 miles and would consider upgrading to a new Maverick but dealers in my area are price gouging like there's no tomorrow. So I will keep my old reliable Sport Trac in my driveway for as long as possible. I do look forward to owning a "new" Maverick someday.
You're absolutely right. I think Ford made a mistake branding your truck as an Explorer variant (even though it was). People didn't know they existed, they just knew that 4 door Rangers didn't exist in North America (other markets got one), so they went elsewhere to fill their need. If it had been called the Ranger Sport Trac, I think it would've sold much better. I almost went for a second gen Sport Trac V8 (wanted the adrenalin pkg) myself, but ended up with Toyota.
Chiming in on this video. As a small truck owner I had the pleasure of owning both a chevy s10 and a ford ranger. Each one has a place in my heart. My '91 ford ranger xlt was a bare bones truck. Equipped with the venerable 3.0L/ 5 speed/ one wheel peel rear end. Sure it was tough driving on winter roads but man did it churned out excellent heat. Even though I wish It had the 4.0L, however was pretty fuel efficient and reliable. It never stranded me off the road although a couple rusted out break lines got me downshifting rather quickly. Despite the body painted faded it really never became too rusted out and the clock was registering over 225k before I sold it. Then I had a old '93 chevy s10 with the 4.3L ext cab and 4x4. That vehicle can drive through just about anything with the knobby tires I had on it. It was well built and quite reliable as well. Had pretty good power to boot. However, fuel efficiency wasnt it's forte and the body was literally falling apart that I had to replace just about every panel that eventually I end up selling it because it was starting to be a money pit on just repairing the body alone. Now I currently own a '96 s10 ext cab 2wd/ 4 speed auto/ with a limited slip 3.42 10 bolt and the z85 suspension package. In stock trim the truck is great and I believe it is the more refined version of the '93. The interior cabin is even quieter. I have to say for a 26 year old truck, everything still works from the cruise control system to the power windows and a/c system. Unfortunately the body is starting to rust out and the typical cab corners are in dire need of replacement. However, this one I plan to keep and run it into the ground. Over time I added several upgrades to help enhance the ride. Like a quick ratio gear box, axle hop shock system, bilstein shocks, trailblazer front brakes and soon to be a 8.5" rear disc rear end unit. To me the '96 is more refined then the '93. The best part is after 235k miles on the truck its still averaging around 20mpg on the 4.3L vortec engine and once I rebuild the engine and beef up the trans. This truck is going to be doing some major towing and still hang around with today's trucks.
I have a Maverick hybrid on order but I would have preferred that Super Cab and a longer bed. Definitely preferred the front wheel drive over the awd. When the going gets bad I have chains that eat snow drifts. And, for the money I save I can afford to stay home on snow days. I had a mid 90s4 cylinder Ranger with 8 spark plugs and 4 of them were a bitch to get to. Not much power but far gas mpg. I would like a bigger bed on the Maverick but I have a couple of 4 x 8' trailers for the longer stuff.
The Old Ranger already lasted 20 years and it will last another 20 years. That garbage Maverick will last just after the warranty expires. Ecoboost garbage!
@@Thankyou_3 Perhaps. I didn't want the EcoBoost myself. This truck might be my last and the hybrid powertrain has a pretty good long term track record. Not to mention the excellent gas mileage.
I owned an '09 Ranger (standard 4L 2WD). It served me very well but I've been in need of a bigger cab for 5 years now and the Maverick fits every need. Lower fuel costs, a full back seat for the kids. I picked my Maverick up in the middle of December and have been enjoying it so far. Can't wait for the warmer weather so I can crack the sunroof and rear window.
I had an 08 3.0 2wd and an 08 4.0 4x4 and they are very practical, dependable and cheap to maintain. They sure are old school and not much creature comforts but it is very practical for the money. This winter I cashed-out and got myself a 2013 4door manual tacoma as my 30's gift to myself.
I love my 03 single cab Ranger. It's an Edge package with a 3.0 and a five speed. I bought it used in 06 with 64k on the clock and she's fixing to turn 300k with just having to do general maintenance. It's the best vehicle I've ever owned and it'll take it being absolutely destroyed beyond repair for me to get rid of it. I like the Maverick's size, but honestly I don't like the style. This might come from being a bit biased, but I don't think it looks as good as the 01 to 03 Ranger body style. I'm also not sold on the front wheel drive truck idea. I guess I'm an old die hard on the rear wheel drive truck design.
