After coming across and posting the first 2022 Hyundai Santa Cruz I found last month, I’ve been stealthily creeping around trying to flush a new Ford Maverick out of the shadows. Finally this afternoon I struck paydirt. While we certainly aren’t the first to feature this vehicle, it’s clearly been one of the most anticipated new releases of the year with many attendant ups and maybe a down or two to go with it.
Like the Hyundai, this one has already been titled and belongs to someone so my time skulking around it wasn’t extensive, but I can present a decent overview of my impressions of it.
First of all, it’s quite attractive. And totally different than the Hyundai which it gets compared to mainly due to both being FWD Crossover based (with optional AWD) trucklets that are derived from CUV roots and released at around the same time to much fanfare. The Hyundai is more modern-aggressively-styled while the Maverick is more conservative but attractive if in no way “edgy”. I don’t think the Hyundai is way out there either though so I can certainly see people cross-shopping them (I would).
In the case of the Maverick, it’s on the same platform (and assembly line in Mexico) as the Bronco Sport (I’ll emphasize the Sport part here, not the bigger Bronco) and the Escape. The biggest splash was made when Ford announced that the Maverick would start at a fiver under $20,000 (plus mandatory and comparatively huge $1,495 destination charge, natch) and equipped with a Hybrid engine that has just been rated at 42mpg City by the EPA.
The downsides there are two-fold – if one wants the 2.5liter inline four Hybrid, FWD is required, no AWD option (yet) for that engine. If AWD (and they are careful to call and label it AWD as opposed to 4WD), then the 2.0 liter turbo four is required. The turbo four though can also be supplied as FWD but it’s hard to see the point of that given the fuel economy rating hit. Power ratings for the 2.0T are 250hp (@5,500rpm) and 277lb-ft of torque (@3,000rpm) while the Hybrid apparently gets by with 191 ponies (@5,600rpm) and 155 torques (@4,000rpm).
With AWD the mileage figures are 22City, 29Hwy and 25Avg, i.e. a fair deal worse than the 42City, 32Hwy and 37Avg of the Hybrid. The FWD 2.0 turbo improves on the AWD figures by 1mpg across the board. That engine includes an 8-speed automatic transmission, a manual is not available. The Hybrid on the other hand utilizes an eCVT which is not like a normal CVT at all, just unfortunately named similarly. It’s worth mentioning that although there is an Escape Hybrid, both the motor and the eCVT in the Maverick are all-new designs and not carryover equipment from the Escape. Perhaps that’s a reason why AWD is not (yet) available in conjunction with the Hybrid here but it may be available in the future (which is just speculation on my part).
There are three trim levels, XL, XLT, and Lariat, in both engine formats. This one is an XLT AWD (so with the 2.0T) in a color called “Area 51”, sort of a blue-gray hue that is quite attractive. My belief is that this will likely absolutely represent the bulk of the volume, never mind that it’s more expensive than the base one that got all the hype. The second downside (and this is hopefully temporary) is that Ford says on their website configurator that the Hybrid is “limited availability” and news reports indicate that it is already almost entirely sold out for the entire 2022 model year with order books for it closing in a week or so and no unsold orders permitted (so not for dealer stock).
I don’t believe that means that there were necessarily an absolutely overwhelming number of orders for it, but rather that there was definite interest but the volume is constrained by Ford for whatever reasons, be they production cost or simple capacity. That production line appears to have a lot of capacity and while there are a number of Bronco Sports on the roads the Escape seems less popular so there should theoretically be room to produce them. Frankly, at the base price the Hybrid trucklet seems too cheap to be profitable, it really can’t cost that much less to build than a Bronco Sport or an Escape and both of those cost more. But it (the price) certainly got the hype machine going and no doubt it will absolutely fit the bill for many people.
As this one seems to be equipped, an XLT (all versions are the same body, so a four door crew cab with a 4.5-foot bed) starts at $23,365. Destination is the same $1,495 as described above, then the AWD option forces the 2.0T and that combination adds another $3,305. As far as I can tell that’s all this truck has. The wheels are the standard XLT ones (XL has steelies), the very street oriented Continental ProContact are included as opposed to a more All-Terrain version that comes with an FX4 package and while there is a comprehensive Luxury Package for $2,345 this one doesn’t have that as the bed isn’t covered in spray-on black material which is the obvious exterior “tell” for that package.
But there are a variety of standalone options and accessories (as well as forced combinations, some via trim level), so if interested play around with the configurator, this one could have a number of those but I couldn’t tell. In any case, as this one seems to be equipped and per the pricing above that I found on the configurator the total would be $27,080 before taxes and all that jazz. And perhaps dealer markups these days too… The sweet spot on the sticker price might be a little closer to $30k once popular features are added via the Luxury Package. But this (and in this color to boot) is what I am imagining we will all be seeing all over the place fairly soon. Note though that at that price (just under $30k) its features and price overlap quite closely with the particular Hyundai Santa Cruz featured here last month. Perhaps there is a reason Hyundai doesn’t have a value leader like the XL Hybrid FWD.
I wasn’t able to look inside due to the window tint and didn’t want to appear TOO interested based on where I was, but from what I have seen there seems to be an alright if not huge amount of legroom in the back – but note that the Hybrid version loses some of that (I believe it’s an inch) due to the battery location, so if choosing a Hybrid and needing rear seat room don’t assume that every Maverick is the same, they are not.
The word I am hearing is that it will be very difficult to see or try out a Hybrid in a Ford showroom, at least for the foreseeable future. Hopefully I am wrong but my Ford dealer currently has maybe half a dozen new trucks, one new big Bronco demo car and zero Mavericks. And I definitely live in Truck Country, it’s always Truck Month around here… This interior picture is lifted from Ford’s site and is of an XLT model. The base XL is similar and still has a center screen. The Lariat is fancier.
Not having actually been inside one I can’t comment on the materials quality and feel but it’s probably similar to other Fords on the lower end of the price spectrum. Without direct evidence I feel fairly comfortable projecting that the Hyundai’s interior materials may be of slightly higher quality but the Ford may have a few more usable and interesting or whimsical features/touches.
Overall the Maverick, while described in many places as “small”, is not small. It’s actually rather larger than anticipated and bigger than the old Ranger. It is smaller (shorter in length) than the current Ranger by about ten inches but again, not exactly small. It is in fact four inches longer than the Santa Cruz I linked to above. However with four doors and a bed actually being small was never realistic. Let’s just say it’s “handy” but if your idea of small or your parking limitations are more in line with a Buick Encore, then this will seem large.
The rear bumper is all plastic but with a large step to clamber into the bed with which seems useful, the license plate is offset to the side in order to facilitate the (optional) hitch. I haven’t seen a side-mounted rear plate since the boattail Riviera decades ago, but it makes sense here, if anything it’s interesting it’s on the curb side, not the street side.
The bed is about 4.5 feet long and notable for several nice things. There are a number of tiedown points, something that seems shockingly inexpensive to provide but yet there almost never seem to be enough as standard equipment. There are a couple of what look like very little stowage bins (one on either side). And the indentations on the wheel well are there for the owner to put a cut 2×4 across and then set the tailgate in an angled position by looping the straps over an attachment point on either side.
This then allows about 500 pounds of plywood or whatever your favorite flat 4×8 material is to ride flat while hanging out past the tailgate but being supported by its edge (the material still needs to be tied down to guard against it all just sliding out.) Just setting it into the bed and angling it over the closed tailgate seems like it would potentially damage the front edge or corners of the material. Bags of mulch though, well, bring those on!
Maximum payload is around 1,500 pounds; that includes passengers, luggage or whatever inside and whatever fits in the bed combined. It can also handle all of that in the bed according to Ford, so a 100lb Soccer Mom could load 1,400 pounds of Girl Scout Cookies into the bed, no worries. That’s for any configuration, apparently. The standard tow rating is 2,000 pounds and there is a 4K towing package available for the 2.0turbo engine that ups the tow rating to, yep, 4,000 pounds.
Width is less than that of a full-size truck of course but the bed is surprisingly deep. Or the truck is surprisingly tall. Or both. In any case when I stood next to it flatfooted (and we all know I am 6’1″ with this time an irrelevant 32″ inseam, I was able to touch the inside of the bed but not anywhere near the center and not with my flat hand. Wrangling a bucket or can of paint out of it seems easy if it’s near a side, but if a smaller item ends up in the center of the bed, no way is it reachable from outside of the truck for most people.
If you are under six feet tall it’s unlikely that you’d touch the bed either from the side. It is nothing like the VW Rabbit pickup or the Dodge Rampage for example, both notable for being FWD unibody pickup designs. The above picture was taken facing the rear of the truck from the driver’s side and I am touching the bed just behind the wheel well with the side rail firmly in my arm pit.
Overall volume of the bed is 33.3 cubic feet and it is made of steel. For comparison, the Santa Cruz’s bed holds 27 cubic feet, is made from a sheet molded compound (which has been proven durable in other applications) but also features an in-bed lower trunk (sort of like the Honda Ridgeline’s). An F-150 meanwhile can hold 52.8 cubic feet of stuff in its most commonly seen suburb-Dad format (standard length with Crew Cab) 5.5 foot bed. A cubic yard (27 cubic feet) of decorative gravel is a lot of shoveling, even for the smallest of these, although it generally weighs more than any of their payload ratings, even the F-150’s. Stick to (dry) mulch.
Many people wouldn’t need much more bed space than what is here and the bed itself makes the truck more “tough” than a “Cute-Ute” like an Escape or CR-V or whatever. Ford has shown a conceptual topper that looks quite good too if having that rear enclosed is a desire. Of course the aftermarket will surely have all manner of shells and tonneau covers available quite soon too.
Overall this seems like a very good value if one can contain themselves with the option list. Yes, the bare bones Hybrid XL FWD is the cheapie and if you can get one, is likely a fantastic value, but that doesn’t look too easy. However opting for a few more creature comforts and capability isn’t a terribly huge amount of money more either, at least not judging by what people are paying for larger trucks (and cars). It looks like Ford has a winner here, as likely does Hyundai, but both had better start producing some serious volume as I predict this space to get more crowded within the next 24 months or so.
Thanks for sniffing one out! Once Ford works out their typical first year jitters, the hybrid Lariat is on my short list for 2023 if inventory and pricing settle down to more normal times I.e. large inventories available, nothing above msrp…). Hopefully the hybrid system is as robust as the one used in the 2008-2013 Escapes.
One of my good friends has been driving an ’03 4X4 , four door Dakota for many years. It is a great truck and comfortable to drive. However in the last year the tin worms have decided it is time they worked on it in earnest. He had been looking at used trucks but found most had high mileage as well as prices. So, he ordered a new Maverick from our local dealer. He opted for the hybrid. The dealer has told him that it will be after the first of the year before it is delivered. We will see how he likes it.
Thanks for the non-review!
This is a truck that would probably work for me if it wasn’t for the short bed. I guess once they hit the lots I should take a peek since I’ll most likely be in the market for a truck in a year or so when the market starts getting back to normal.
The price of the base model puts it in line with what my budget would allow. I think a used extended cab Ranger would be a better fit for me, or better yet, a extended cab F-150, but price creep has put a under 10 year old, 4×4, low mileage example just out of reach for me in my local market. Something about the new Ranger just doesn’t appeal to me, though, and I’m not sure what it is.
I’ve mentioned the Maverick to a number of people and none of them had heard about it whereas most of them knew about the bronco lineup.
We’ll see how quickly Ford can bring these out. Each one will be sold as soon as it arrives at a dealership – if not before. This will justify replacing the Ranger with a newer vehicle. Ford’s stock is rising along with the SUV/Truck market share.
Let’s see if Lincoln can turn this into something for them to bring in more profits.
Yes, Lincoln has had such great success with pickup trucks in the past [sarcasm]. The Blackwood was a cool looking vehicle and the LT was as functional as an F-150 Lariat but both were answers to an unasked question.
I wrote, “turn this into something”, not rebadge it.
LOL! Point taken. But what? Maybe I’m too old to think of Lincoln as anything but a purveyor of luxury sedans.
Could the new Maverick be the basis for Lincoln of something sporty, perhaps with a removable roof and cover for the cargo area. Is it too soon to name it “Capri?”
Lincoln did have a Capri sedan in the early 1950s (not only the German import from the 1970s, that was Mercury). I would like to see Lincoln become something more than rebadged Ford SUVs.
Interesting, I’ve not seen one of these yet. 4.5 foot bed really makes me appreciate my Grand Caravan, although we did learn to use a plastic tarp when haulling wet or messy things to keep the folded down seats clean.
Just looking online Mavericks at Ford dealers seem to be running $35k-$45k Canadian. Not cheap but about half the current pricing of a Bronco!
I’m not a Ford fan, but the new Maverick seems like a winner, especially the XL hybrid. I can see a lot of potential sales to first-time buyers looking for a practical, small pickup that gets exceptional fuel mileage. Besides, AWD is vastly overrated and unnecessary on most FWD vehicles, anyway.
Unfortunately, the stated limited availability of that version seems like one of those low volume ‘loss-leader’ marketing schemes designed to get buyers into showrooms where they can be upselled into more expensive (and higher profit) models.
Not a Ford guy but I really like these. I would want an XL or XLT with the 4K package and AWD, nothing else I really need. It’s the most compelling new vehicle under 30k to me at least. While I want to get a bigger trailer some day this would handle my current utility trailer and small boats with ease, while getting better MPG then my current sedan.
I bet these are selling well with the retired gardener set. The tiny beds that have become
the norm just don’t compute for me, but I guess if all you will ever carry is a couple of
bags of mulch and a rose bush or two, it makes sense on something like this. I think the
hot ticket would be if they did a single cab truck on the full size Bronco platform with at
least a 6′ bed. Wake me when that happens.
If you really think this is going to be a vehicle for retirees, you’ve been sleeping too damn long already.
I agree. I’m far from retired, and if I were looking for a sedan replacement this would immediately be on the test drive list. Never would have said that about any other truck.
“I think the hot ticket would be if they did a single cab truck on the full size Bronco platform with at least a 6′ bed”
That would appeal to a thin market segment that Ford likely has no interest slicing even thinner. Even Jeep, with all it’s popular Wranger configurations, only put out a 4-door Gladiator.
Incidentally, what’s wrong with the short cab F150 w/ either 6.5ft or 8ft beds currently on offer?
I guess the humor in my comments didn’t quite make it through. I know that
there is no way that Ford would make a single cab Bronco truck, but it would
be nice looking, and have a manual trans available. An F150 is fine, but really
my cup of tea, I prefer a bit more basic in my rigs.
My daily driver is a ’92 Nissan single cab 4×4 truck with a
manual, so you know where my interests lie. Regarding the demographics of
the Maverick, I do think they are going to skew to the higher end of the
spectrum.
“I guess the humor in my comments didn’t quite make it through.”
I gotcha, been there before. A Bronco pickup would certainly look the business.
There is one old school style half cab Bronco heading to SEMA. Of course Ford will never build one, but it would look cool. https://www.thedrive.com/news/42836/theres-a-ford-bronco-pickup-headed-to-sema
That Bronco is pretty sweet, just needs a longer bed, ala a Traveler.
I find the hybrid Maverick a rather compelling package, as in a possible replacement for my xB, should the need ever arise. It’s got a lot of the things I put a priority on.
I’m curious, why would you get the Maverick over the Santa Cruz. I’m not crazy about the Hyundai’s exterior styling, but if you get the Hyundai you get the better warranty and an honest to goodness 8 speed auto. IMO, the Hyundai on paper beats the Ford, by a lot…
I’d say why would you want a 8sp over a eCVT that gives you instant response instead of waiting for the transmission to shift down 2 or 3 gears to get the vehicle moving. I’d say on paper the Maverick beats the Hyundai by a mile. 42 mpg vs 21 mpg and about $4k less too.
Once you price the Ford and Hyundai in the real world after the initial hype has died off and supply isn’t constrained because of COVID, that $4,000 price difference almost vanishes completely. You may be able to special order a bare bones Maverick, but don’t expect to find many (any) on dealer lots. $4,000 over 60 or 72 months is less than 67.00 per month. Which is how these are sold anyway. The Hyundai warranty is worth the $67.00 to me.
The Ford fuel economy is impressive. However, I don’t trust CVT’s unless they are planetary Toyota CVT’s especially in a truck, where it will be hauling, towing, off-roading, etc. causing additional strain on the driveline…
I may be wrong about the Maverick long-term. I honestly hope I am, but I have never been one to adopt new tech immeadiately and the Hyundai warranty provides some additional peace of mind to me.
The Maverick hybrid has an eCVT using the same principles as the Toyota Hybrids. In fact the current Toyota eCVTs use the architecture Ford has used since they started building hybrids.
As far as the tech being new, Ford has been building Hybrids for 15 years and they have a good reliability and durability history. The basic eCVT used in the Maverick has been in use since 2013, though there have been a few tweaks along the way, including the traction motor used specifically in the Maverick. So overall well proven tech that yes does have a few specific new parts.
The other important thing to note is that the eCVT is considered an emission control component and it along with all the electronics and battery are covered by at least a 8 yr 100k warranty, though in CA and some states that have adopted their regulations it is even longer.
https://help.ford.com/warranty/hybrid-electric-vehicle-unique-component-coverage/
Yes Hyundai will cover the engine longer.
If you really want the engine and other components on the Ford covered longer it should cost you less than $4k for an extended warranty and you’ll still be saving money with the lower operating cost of a hybrid.
It is true that if you want a Hybrid Maverick for 2022 you have to order it NOW as they expect to sell out by mid Nov and they aren’t letting dealers order unsold units, IE none for dealer stock.
Count me in as one who really likes this truck. It is the first pickup I could see using as a daily driver. Not saying it would replace the F-250 as it certainly isn’t as capable but the reality is much of what I haul with it could be done in the Maverick using 1/4 the fuel.
I am disappointed that they aren’t offering AWD with the Hybrid. From what I understand the eCVT is basically the same as used in the Escape, except that the traction motor/generator has a little more torque and power. So it seems that they could offer mechanical AWD if they want to. The platform mate Corsair adds a 3rd motor to power the rear wheels so they actually have a couple of different ways to add driven rear wheels to the Hybrid without a lot of new components.
One thing I find funny is their promotion of the FITS system. The 2008-12 Escape had that feature with a small tray that either fits in the top of the console bin or clips into the passenger side or rear of the console. On the one we had we called it the fry tray. Unfortunately they didn’t offer any other accessories nor did they give you the specs for easy 3d printing of your own attachments. I do like that they have brought it back and hope they expand the use to other vehicles in the future.
I also hope some of the in bed features are expanded across the truck line up, I’m a little surprised that some of them, like the power tap didn’t show up in the F-150 first.
I believe you are correct in the eCVT being very similar but it does apparently carry a different part number from the Escape. This article below delves into the AWD issue a little more. Sure, it should be able to be added eventually, but I wonder if the hybrid is already so inexpensive that it may specifically not have AWD for that reason, i.e. it would seem that charging an extra $2k for AWD may still not end up as a solid business case whereas swapping out the entire Hybrid system for a 2.0T, charging $1000 extra for that and then the $2k for AWD makes more sense from a beancounting perspective. What I’m driving at is that I think the XL Hybrid is very much a loss leader to generate interest in the whole lineup.
Perhaps that’s a cynical perspective but who knows, I could very well be wrong which would be a good thing here. You yourself could of course get one with a 2.0T and still save 1/2- 2/3rds of the fuel vs the F250, right, but that’s less attractive as it costs more.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022-ford-maverick-hybrid-motor-technology/
I agree with you that I think the Hybrid is part loss leader, certainly in XL trim but also part CAFE compliance. They really want to sell retail buyers $25K+ trucks and leave the XLs to the fleets.
It would be interesting to know what the actual cost difference is between the Hybrid power train and the 2.0T or the 1.5T used as the base engine in the Escape. A low stressed NA 4 should be cheaper to build than a Turbo 4 and maybe cheaper than a Turbo 3. No need for a starter or alternator either.
The eCVT has so few parts compared to a conventional AT making it cheaper to assemble, the lower parts count, including the lack of a complex electro-hydraulic control system and far fewer gears should lower parts cost to offset the cost of the motors.
Of course the Hybrid still needs an inverter and a battery pack to make it all work and the electric AC compressor is definitely more expensive than a belt drive. With the MKZ there were a number of years where the 2.0H was the same price as the 2.0T but of course there was more profit baked into it from the start.
Thanks for the link, that gives some details about the new traction motor that I hadn’t seen yet. It does support the theory that they could add mechanical AWD pretty easily, IF they want to. It is also nice to know that they it appears to be set up to use the same or very similar PHEV pack as the Escape.
Going to the 2.0T would defeat the purpose for me. I’d want it as a daily driver, the Hybrid version should give me very close to the same mpg I get with my current Hybrid DD. That car gets driven 12-15K per year vs the F-250 that racks up 3-5k per year. The Maverick replacing a little less of the F-250 use due to a lack of AWD would definitely be my choice.
Plus there is the fact that I’m just a fan of the Ford eCVT Hybrids and PHEVs, and prefer them for daily drivers.
Thanks for the interesting read. I had just been wondering if the lack of new tests was related to the chip shortage (no sense promoting what you don’t have and can’t sell) or something else. But a nice non-test like this is the next best thing.
Ford seems to have been hit harder by the chip shortage than Hyundai/Kia (at least from my little unscientific daily drive-by of their local dealers). Another effect of the shortage is that there may be a tendency to load up early cars with options which will get snapped up and not sit on lots if more folks would prefer the less costly versions. Interesting times.
No, they are dangling tons of vehicles in front of me, i.e. every week if I want including plenty of vehicles that are in VERY short supply in the real world, I’ve just decided that to do it right takes a LOT of my time that should be better spent elsewhere. Not that I don’t enjoy doing the reviews, but I’m not willing to halfass it and just provide a dozen parking lot pix and barely drive something around the block like some other reviewers due to time constraints just to get a free car. The reality is that do a review correct, i.e. the way I want to do them takes me about 9-12 hours, sometimes more, of my time, not including time I’d spend in a car either way i.e. half my mileage I would normally do anyway, the rest was/is figuring out the car on different roads, etc, then finding places and time for usually around 100-125 pix, then sorting them, choosing the best ones, and then start writing about the thing…And of course this is all unpaid (not that I’m angling for a paid gig, I don’t really want another “job” with real responsibilites…) Maybe if my other loads lighten up next year I’ll do some again. The other thing is that I got t drive a lot of what really interested me over the last couple of years and there is nothing worse than having to devote time to something that isn’t somehow of personal interest. That’s why I’d rather write about a Lancia Montecarlo than a Chevy Monte Carlo if you catch my drift.
The Maverick on the other hand (and the Hyundai) were five minutes of snapping a dozen or so pix in one spot and then an hour of writing about it, more like finding an old Corolla or whatever random CC. Not the same relative to a real review, but better than nothing for you, the reader 🙂 I just get the thrill of seeing my happy audience respond…
Regardless of the reasons Jim, you always do a tremendous job on your reviews. As a ‘commoner’, I greatly enjoy reading reviews geared towards everyday use. Your reviews are always spot-on.
Thank you for all the reviews you have done, your thoroughness is appreciated, but certainly understand that there are more important things to spend time on. Though I was hoping that we would see a review of this very vehicle from you.
Thanks to both of you, that’s kind and I appreciate the feedback. I did enjoy doing them and learned a lot myself as well. Thoughtful responses and other useful insights were always appreciated as well. Never say never, I may start them up again one day down the road…
I really miss my Monday morning JK review. 🙁
It’s unfortunate that smaller sites like CC can’t afford to pay what these reviews take to create. Jim’s were always exceptional; he never compromised. I wish the economics were different.
The sad reality is that there’s a glut of reviews out there, but rarely are they of Jim’s caliber. It boils down to this: at a site our size, new posts typically generate pathetically little revenue initially. The ones that keep getting Googled year-in and year-out are what generates enough to make it worthwhile to keep going. But new car reviews typically don’t have long tails like that.
This is precisely why I stuck with CC’s format to start with. Back at ttac.com, I could see that my CC’s were generating a steady stream of views, on-going, unlike most of the rest of the content. Old cars and history have long tails; new car reviews don’t, unfortunately.
Thank you Jim for all the terrific reviews. I know it was a lot of time and effort.
Thank you, and thank you for the platform to share them on. As you know the initial struggle was to convince the manufacturers and media companies that a site named CurbsideClassic would have interest in and the ability to write about new cars, didn’t we just deal with old stuff? I ended up displaying a lot of our new car COALs, Auto Show coverage, Rental Car Reviews over the years etc to show otherwise… FCA was the first to “get it” and agree with their media company to take a chance on me. Nissan as well liked that we could be objective about a car and not just use their stuff as a whipping boy like most outlets were routinely doing at the time. And both have some of the best manufacturer reps in the business from what I saw, without any kind of attitude or air. Yes, when reviewing call a spade a spade, but putting a car in the context of its market is important, many writers don’t get that. Never once did I slag a vehicle undeservedly and I also never found a vehicle lacking without expressing what was objectively objectionable about it. Just explaining the vehicle is a better approach, let the reader check it out for themselves if interested, every person is different. I’m a little snarkier sometimes with the junkyard stuff, I’ll admit, but that’s mostly in good fun…
Of course any of the gearheads in our audience are both knowledgeable about many cars as well as a source for information and advice from their friends and families when they are shopping, and many also purchase new cars at times so in the end that worked out well and the manufacturers understood that once it was explained.
I don’t think any site really pays well and it was never about any potential money. My favorite part of every manufacturer or media get together of the ones I went to was conversing with other writers/personalities, and almost without fail after about ten minutes the question both ways would be “So what’s your real job…?” There are a ton of part time bloggers and vloggers out there, and a few good actual journalists, very few of the bunch make a really good living at it (especially those working for others), but there are some that do exceptionally well and also provide interesting product (reviews etc). It’s obvious which ones really like what they do and work hard at it. There are also some excellent perks of course, i.e. the cars themselves if that’s your think. And it had better be, otherwise…
Lastly, I always found it humorous that I most enjoy(ed) covering both the vehicles at the beginning of their lives but also vehicles at the end of their line, i.e. the junkyard stuff.
“Of course any of the gearheads in our audience are both knowledgeable about many cars as well as a source for information and advice from their friends and families when they are shopping, and many also purchase new cars at times so in the end that worked out well and the manufacturers understood that once it was explained. ”
Basically you are influencing the influencers, just influencers with small spheres.I bet at least half of the people who read this are the people their friends and family consult about cars.
Thanks for mentioning the towing capacity. The truck hits all the spots for me, as the most I’d put in the bed would be a lawn mower or gardening stuff and I’m wanting to buy a smallish RV trailer (1,800 pounds) for camping. It gets the same mileage as my current vehicle.
I’d wait three years to buy one. Let Ford use the buyers ahead of me as unwilling beta testers.
Honestly, this looks like a great daily driver for me when I finally ditch the Focus; it has decent mileage, enough of a bed for carrying car parts to the machine shop, and a little towing capacity for a pop up or something. I’d have a hard time getting used to not having a manual transmission, but I think I’ll probably have to get used to that soon regardless.
All things considered, this sort of replaces the Focus in the US lineup for Ford with more utility and potentially far more economy for not a whole lot more money. And then it can be optioned in different way to be far more vehicle than any Focus every was.
This still won’t satisfy people who are hoping for another short cab 2.3L Pinto with the 7-foot bed, but this could be a smash hit for a far larger market who haven’t wanted to move into a $40K+ 18mpg pickup.
An open bed of that size would have done the trick for multiple bulky items I needed to move over the past year. 4 doors and 42mpg makes this a no-compromise daily. The towing capacity of the 2.0T is substantial, it’ll be very quick empty, and 25mpg is nothing to sneeze at either. Hybrid AWD is a big hole in the lineup, but they will sell plenty of the other variants until they fill it. Compact crossovers don’t interest me as a sedan replacement, but this does.
I intend to buy a Hybrid XL as soon as…
a] the first-year bugs are worked out
b] the aftermarket solves the “no cruise control available in XL models” problem.
The lack of a rear window defroster (in any trim level) is disappointing as well.
I believe the Lariat trim comes with a “power-sliding rear window with defroster and privacy glass”. Enough complaints and that would seem to be an easy optional extra to add to the build sheets for the XL and XLT for next year. The power sliding rear window is very useful to occasionally carry anything longer like a stick of molding or a long piece of pipe etc, especially with the short bed.
Like Aaron as a future replacement for my focus this seems remarkably tantalizing as well, I definitely want/need a truck in my life, something like this kills two birds with one stone being useful and efficient and the turbo mileage is about what I get now anyway, not interested in hybrid. And unlike the styling of the Kia Santa Cruz it doesn’t have the soft cute ute crossover styling I find so repulsive.
“It’s actually rather larger than anticipated and bigger than the old Ranger.”
That depends on which “old Ranger” you’re thinking of. If you mean the regular cab/6′ model that everyone on the Internet loves and claims they’d buy day one, yes, this Maverick is longer than that (199.7″ vs. 188.5″). But the most popular Ranger, at least at the end of its run, was the SuperCab/6′, and that model is slightly longer (203″). Ford made a concerted effort to keep the Mav under 200″.
Width is naturally greater on the Maverick, but still narrower than the mid-size Ranger. But a sub-70″ body width isn’t a realistic expectation if one also wants good side impact ratings and decent interior width. The old 69″ wide Ranger had very thin doors. Height is effectively the same; it splits the difference between 2WD and 4WD Rangers.
Really, this Maverick is the successor to the Ranger-based Explorer Sport Trac, which was longer but had an even shorter box, or the crew cab/4.5′ Ranger (same measurements as the SuperCab) that was sold in South and Central America.
I don’t know it for a FACT, but I believe Ford uses the same 2.5 Hybrid powertrain in the European market Ford Kuga/Escape.
If so, the British magazine CAR has a capsule review of the Kuga hybrid and they are not enthusiastic about the fuel mileage or the acceleration times.
As the owner of a Fusion with the 2.5 but not a hybrid assist powertrain, the car is not fast off the line. I get to the other side of intersections before other drivers only by timing my push on the gas pedal right as the lights change.
That said, I will be reading everything that I can about the Maverick and maybe in a few years it will replace my Fusion.
The Kuga is available with 2 different Hybrid power trains.
#1 Mild Hybrid, a 48v system that replaces the alternator with a starter generator. It is belt driven so it is limited in the assistance and recovery it can do and provides only a small boost in mpg and no EV only drive.
#2 PHEV, a plug in full hybrid version that uses a high voltage traction battery and a two motor eCVT.
The Escape is also available in two versions of Hybrid power.
#1 “Full” or Standard Hybrid. It uses a high voltage traction battery and a two motor eCVT that provides a large increase in city MPG as it allows engine off motion and is capable of high recovery rates and pure EV drive.
#2 PHEV substantially the same as used in the Kuga and pretty much the same system as used on the Standard Hybrid but with a much larger battery pack. .
The Maverick is a Standard Hybrid or the #1 version of the Escape though the eCVT includes a slightly more powerful traction motor giving it a slightly higher combined HP rating than the Escape version.
If they tested the Mild Hybrid version it is nothing like the Maverick Hybrid power train.
If they tested the PHEV then the basic system is very similar only the Maverick has a much smaller battery.
There’s apparently also a diesel hybrid available in addition to those. I think but am not certain this is the referenced write-up: https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/ford/kuga-suv/ In any case they describe all of the variants on offer.
The Kuga #1 system you (and CAR) describe sounds just like RAM’s E-Torque system on their V6 and V8 engines (as options). And of course different than what’s in the Jeep 4xE although the Jeeps I think can be had with the E-Torque as well. But yes, if that’s what it is, it’s a minor upgrade to the normal and just helps off the line a little bit, smooths shifts and auto start/stop as well as (in the US at least) adding some warranty as the starter/generator is considered emissions related and benefits from a longer warranty than the standard alternator would have.
Yup that is the beauty of a Belt style mild hybrid system, you can pretty much strap it on to any engine. GM offered a version on and off since 07.
I didn’t think about the fact that since the starter generator is used to increase mpg it does reduce emissions and thus qualifies for the emissions durability warranty while an alternator doesn’t. It makes sense though since the motors in a standard hybrid qualify, which usually means the entire transmission in the case of an eCVT style Hybrid.
I don’t know. This example looks too feminine to me. Maybe it’ll look better in person. Looks more like a family vehicle than a macho truck.
Well a lot of trucks are used as the family vehicle and this is intended to capture some of those former Focus and Fusion buyers and people that don’t need and/or want a big macho truck.
Nice overview. My ’00 Nissan Frontier had those 2″x4″ indentations on the sides of the bed liner and they worked well. Unfortunately the tailgate didn’t angle up and lock to support the rest of the 4’x8″ drywall panel and I broke one off once. I never did figure out how to support the tail end.
Make mine a FWD hybrid in this color. Four snow tires would work fine in the winter, chains in the mountains.
I’m glad see hardware rather than vaporware. It;s interesting to me as a vehicle to recommend to other people. My needs require at least a Ranger if not an F150 since I want to tow a 5000lb trailer and carry 10′ kayaks at the same time. On the other hand I’m OK with an extended cab in exchange for at least 6′ of bed.
Another great overview. A base hybrid with steelies would be something I’d shortlist if in the market…
I hope Ford can pull this product launch off without any stumbles like we’ve seen recently with the Explorer and to a certain extent the Bronco (roof)…
Your reply, being in Japan, finally made it click for me what the Maverick XL with the steelies has been reminding me of – The Toyota ProBox but with a pickup bed! Perhaps (very likely) the Maverick has a little more individuality and personality but the inherent basic purposefulness and value is there.
I never thought about it until you mentioned it, but there is a definite “square” resemblance and sense of basic purpose about both….especially in silver….:-)
Good catch!.
Thanks Jim. I saw the Maverick in July at the EAA in Oshkosh. Ford’s star of the display this year was the Mach-E but there was one Maverick on display. The hook for me was that a bicycle was mounted in the bed. It was not secured the way I would want but it was done so it would fit. That meant removing the front rim and securing the fork to a bar across the front of the bed.
Then I saw a second Maverick at the dealer in Cheyenne the day the Ford rep. drove one in to train the employees on the vehicle. This was late August. I sat in it and thought it was very Escape like in the dash/controls. This one was an XLT.
I’ve used a Transit Connect for six plus years now as my bicycle transporter and it has been great. I like that bikes are not exposed to weather/dirt. But the Maverick is very attractive and a brand new one next summer would be fun. The XL looks great with the steel wheels. I’d get that with the 2.0T (which my wife likes very much in her 2021 Escape) and FWD. I’d want a spare and would miss cruise (even my TC has that). And that “Area 51” is very attractive. I am an EAA member; the “X plan” price with Ford on a Maverick will be fine.
Interesting take on a vehicle that doesn’t really float my boat or fit my uses – I’d like a boot rather claim to be an outdoors in all weather activity guy. I like the unusual colour naming tactic though.
My guess was the chip supply issue and its consequences were the root cause of the low/slow supply volume – some of the leadtimes I’ve heard recently for routine items have been frightening.
Yes, Jim’s reviews are/were great and the effort showed. May be it’s because we’re not all professional writers or perhaps we get led down rabbit holes during our research, but a satisfying to produce CC or blog piece can take several hours to draft and polish. I can easily see Jim’s 9 hours plus for his reviews.
“Yes, Jim’s reviews are/were great and the effort showed. May be it’s because we’re not all professional writers or perhaps we get led down rabbit holes during our research, but a satisfying to produce CC or blog piece can take several hours to draft and polish. I can easily see Jim’s 9 hours plus for his reviews.”
I could not agree more!
Doesn’t any new Mavericks come with a rear window defogger? Hard to believe, many buyers will be in the Northern half of the country. Any information will be appreciated!