Maverick, Ford’s 40 MPG Pickup Truck

$ 20,000 ??? I highly doubt that price, but, I'm ready for better mileage !

 

I don't tend to watch attached videos, so I don't know what's in this one. I thought I read somewhere that the lower starting price was likely to be a fleet version. I hope this sells a lot as a work truck. I like the many clever ideas Incorporated. The higher-level trims will naturally add content and cost to the end-user.

 

The MSRP of $19995 for the XL hybrid doesn't include the roughly $1500 delivery, so it's really $21500. But it does have the 8" screen with CarPlay & Android Auto and AM/FM tuner. No cruise control or power mirrors on the XL - casualties of the low price target. But I see power locks and power windows in the photos, tilt/telescoping steering wheel, and all the required safety features like a bunch of airbags and the Computerized Random Brake Stabber.

One interesting price comparison to share... I record the old "The Price Is Right" episodes that play Saturday mornings on "Buzzr" - an ATSC sub-channel that runs old game shows from the 1950s-1980s. These are the old 1958-1961 shows with Bill Cullen, and it's worth recording them to zoom through until you get to the cars. This past weekend, one of the prizes Don Pardo announced was a "new 1960 Ford Falcon Ranchero". Just a Falcon wagon with a six foot bed behind the front seats, this Falcon "included the following optional equipment" - Automatic transmission (Ford-o-matic 2 speed), fresh air heater, and manual AM radio (no pushbuttons). Price: $2201 - which I remember specifically because one of the bids was 2200 and next higher was 2250 so it was close! Well, $2201 from January of 1960 is $20222 in May of 2021, according to the government inflation calculator. And the old Falcon's price in the game was carefully stated as "FOB delivered price in Dearborn Michigan", and that means no destination charge was included in the price.

So sixty years later: For about the same money, you get a "small pickup" with a hybrid powertrain instead of a net 55hp iron six with a manual choke, power windows/locks and air conditioning instead of a "fresh air heater", cloth seats in place of brittle vinyl, and vastly superior fuel economy and performance. The old Falcon had no power steering or brakes, and four of the tiniest iron drums you can imagine that they installed as "brakes". Today, we get discs with ABS, stability control, and more. To me, it seems that Ford looked back to the Falcon and its success, and has freshened the recipe and did it again - bring a compact car-based truck to market, with a small-car price tag and small-car fuel economy.

 

You can 'build' a Maverick over at Ford's site, and that cheap one is there.

 

Not relevant to this driver.

 

While i love the idea, FOR ME, there is one problem. The hybrid is not available with AWD. In my part of the country, that is something that is important to me. Of course, my Prius C is FWD nd with snow tires I get around pretty well. I fond this vehicle quite interesting.

 

I am hoping the AWD hybrid will arrive later, but Ford has a habit of only offering it with the engine upgrade on other models.

 

This will be a compelling vehicle for millions of people in the low end of the market, many of whom may not otherwise consider a pickup. For better or worse, nearly all pickups are now crew cab with room for 4-5 passengers, just with an open bed instead of a trunk or hatch behind the seats.

Trucks make much more compelling family vehicles than they used to, which is why you see fewer of the once ubiquitous Buick sedans scattered across farm country. So it's about time someone made one that's small and fuel efficient. This is a game changer: cheapest vehicle in Ford's lineup, cheapest hybrid on the market, and one of the ten cheapest vehicles in the market, period. They will sell millions.

 

Yeah, take the trunk lid off an old Buick and you have a car-based pickup.

 

True, but apparently not a lot of farmers and ranchers are interested in being seen in that. What they do want to be seen in, apparently, is $70,000 pickups.

 

Yeah , but do farmers really buy a vehicle to be " seen in " ?

 

Perhaps corporate ones.

 

Ah…..all the corporate “farmers”, driving $70,000 vehicles, get the auctioned, foreclosed family farms, no members of the family who can even afford the rusting Buick now.

 

The current market's fascination with pickup trucks seems to be tied to being marketed as the Swiss Army Knife transportation option. You can bring home a yard of gravel. Tow a speedboat. Drive up the pipeline over rocks and through ruts. Tackle any highway in Alaska.

And over 99.9% of these mundane truck owners do none of the above. To that vast majority, the pickup is nothing more than a three ton mall crawler.

The pricing is ridiculous but people pay the asking price, so that's the price they ask. Give the credit to leasing, which lets people rent these barges for a never-ending cycle of car payments of around 500-600 a month. You can say the same thing for any motor vehicle with a VIN beginning with "W". They're asking $60k-$70k for a maintenance-intensive gremlin-infested Euro copy of a Pontiac.

Madison Ave has convinced buyers that they absolutely need AWD. The badge on the tailgate means "Another Woman Driver" when it's spotted in suburban and city areas in temperate climates, where roads rarely have any snow accumulation for more than a couple of hours. Most people don't understand - or don't care - that more than one drive wheel just allows vehicles to go faster on slick surfaces so they can skid and crash with more devastating injuries. AWD adds weight and driveline inertia that hinders braking and cornering, and the result we see is the ubiquitous Dope In The Ditch. And then the dope gets to ride in an ambulance that gets to where it needs to go with just one drive wheel, located on the rear axle. Fire engines - rear drive. UPS/Fedex/USPS - rear drive. Semi trucks - rear drive. Police cars - exempting the Volvo Explorers - rear drive. Somehow the people who make this country run all get where they need to go without spending an extra $2k to have $100 worth of computer hardware to send power to the other axle a few times a year. There are some conditions where AWD makes a real difference, and that's in the lake-effect snow belt. In upstate NY, everyone has an old beater 4x4 that they drive when the snow gets bad, if they have to go somewhere before the plows catch up with the dump of fresh powder. But they don't drive the FSP when the snow clears.

The Maverick hybrid's only handicap is the lack of AWD. Even people on Long Island in NY - a glorified sandbar with no hills/mountains, containing billions of miles of paved roads, with millions of overlapping village/town/county/state highway departments all competing to dump salt on the roads constantly between November and March - mostly insist on having the "AWD" badge on their newly acquired lease queen. "It's really good in the snow", they say, as they all email that they will be working from home any time they wake up and see a dusting of snow outside.
What Ford should do is add a trim level to the front drive hybrid Maverick called AWD - perhaps "Another Windstar Derivative" - and glue the 14 inch tall chrome A, W, and D letters on the tailgate, festooned with red LEDs that blink rapidly when the brake pedal is applied, so other motorists can see them just before having a seizure. People would pay thousands for those three letters and never realize that the right front tire is the only one moving the car.

 

I'll take the opposite side of your argument, Maxx. When I was shopping for a hybrid Sienna it came with or without AWD. I wanted the AWD version. Even if I lived in FL or CA, I would get the AWD. In the first place, the FE penalty was negligible--only 1mpg EPA 36mpg to 35mpg and it was reasonably priced: less than $800 more (depending on trim). A buyer would recover most of the up front cost on added resale value. People and cars are very mobile. Just because one lives in the sunbelt doesn't mean they'll live there always and even if they do live there forever it doesn't mean the car will stay in the sunbelt. It doesn't mean that those living forever in the sunbelt will never travel outside of the sunbelt in winter. It doesn't mean that winter will never come to the sunbelt as what happened in Texas and OK last winter. If you were traveling between CA and FL and AWD meant getting through the region when the cold wave hit or getting stuck there for several days with no food, water, or electricity, or lodging. If AWD saves your bacon in that situation only once it's worth its weight in gold.

One doesn't need snow and ice to encounter low-traction situations. Rain and flooding can bring mud and AWD days to any region. On certain lightweight vehicles, like a Honda Civic, I wouldn't opt for AWD if it was available. For a SUV, truck, or van I would get the AWD. I felt it was a no-brainer on the Sienna.

 

One problem with AWD/4WD is the added confidence it gives people leads to a lot more crashes and deaths. When traction is low, AWD only helps you go. It doesn't help you stop, and it doesn't help you turn.

 

Apparently yes, based on the vehicles I see in farm country.

 

Great analysis Maxx

 

Wow, this is very informative. Awesome