Thread 28548075

How practical are small trucks like the ford maverick for average families compared to crossovers?
The way I see it, the bed is less practical room to haul stuff, because its closed off, exposed to the elements, and possibly needs to be tied down.

>>28548075 (OP)
You know there are multiple ways to cover a truck bed, right?

>>28548075 (OP)
You could always cap it off. Or get a (similar platform) Bronco Sport which would still be a much smaller, shorter vehicle yet enclosed.

>>28548078
Yes a tonneau cover. You can also organize your truck bed by placing dividers.
Seems like a massive hassle compared to a regular hatch in a crossover?

Feel like a good old 3 row crossover with the 3rd row folded down is still more practical.

>>28548085
Get a canopy

>>28548075 (OP)
The Maverick is a crossover but without a cover over the cargo area. How practical you deem that to be is entirely up to you. You can carry taller items with less hassle.

>>28548075 (OP)
the back seat is not very large, they definitely compromised the (already small) escape rear seat room in favor of bed space. that said its not too hard to get a child seat in and out.

the answer boils down to how many kids you have and of what age. 2 infants? probably ass. 3 or more kids? probably ass. 2 kids in grade school? probably not so bad. the bed gives you more room than a escape does, but youre limited in what you can carry because the bed is so small

The optimal form factor is a minivan, due to the low floor and expandability for more kids, whether yours or your kids friends. plus then you can fold the seats down and load up the inside

>>28548585
This anon gets it. Minivans are the chads of family cars - they show off that you and your wife are breeding well beyond replacement level but don't have the street handling issues of SUVs or the height/size issues of full-size vans

>>28548075 (OP)
You can haul plenty in a maverick. And if you can't then it comes with a 4k tow package which is all 99% of "truck" owners actually need.

>>28548075 (OP)
>How practical are small trucks like the ford maverick for average families compared to crossovers?
Its a Ford Escape with a bed. Stop overthinking vehicles. If you don't like your costco trips exposed to elements, buy an escape, fag.

>>28548080
>>28548784
I like my Mav, I just wish we could remove the rear seats and access the bed

>>28548817
>I just wish we could remove the rear seats
Have you ever heard of a wrench?
>and access the bed
is reaching over the bed rail too hard for you?

>>28548821
>is reaching over the bed rail too hard for you?
It is when I have to reach over ur mom

>>28548821
He's talking about something like what the avalanche has you mong

>>28548075 (OP)
Probably better off getting a crossover. I have a toddler and a small vehicle and it's kinda annoying not having room in the vehicle. It can be done but would be easier with more space

>>28548228

why even bother then , just buy fucking SUV

>>28548075 (OP)
>pick-up trucks are shilled as "family haulers" by retarded goyim
Fuck this fucking board, fuck you people and fuck the jew marketers who birthed this ignoble world.
>>28548596
This.

>>28548075 (OP)
If you don't know why you want a truck bed you don't want a truck it has nothing to do with small or big trucks.

Honestly it’s not bad. It’s definitely better than no truck, and every man should have a truck. I’ve driven it some, and for me it felt a lot like driving a Prius, and not in a bad way. The bed is just big enough to fit a full size Harley in the back. If I didn’t need more trug in my life, I’d love one

But they’re kinda expensive :(

>>28548080
He's right because there's no midgate.
C:GG

>>28548784
>4k tow package which is all 99% of "truck" owners actually need.
Why are you so sour grapes about full size truck havers? Everyone knows you went all optioned Maverick and punched into mid tier trim F150 prices. Is this cope or what, seriously?

>>28549360
yeah, comparing a half-ton truck's gimmick that no longer exists anywhere with a maverick makes total sense.

>>28549415
>Everyone knows you went all optioned Maverick and punched into mid tier trim F150 prices
>The highest priced small truck is a low trim F150
Woah, what other kind of overlap are you seeing, copernicus?

>>28548075 (OP)
>small trucks like the ford maverick
It's not a truck, it's a uni-body which cannot be and never will be a truck

>>28549439
Its a truck, you autistic jackass.

small truck is gonna get you bullied on the highway desu

>>28549422
the folding midgate is a feature on the silverado/sierra EV and Hummer

>>28549453
Neat, when are you buying one so you can shut up about midgates?

>>28549453
Thats a fucking stupid feature. Nobody wants to open up their cabin just to carry a couple boards when a longer bed suffices. If you want to very rarely carry some larger or longer cargo then rent a trailer like a sane person.

>>28549477
NTA but not before they return the feature to regular (not gay) trucks.
>>28549489
I do. I also slept like that on numerous occasions. Shit's perfect for occasional innawoods.

>>28549445
Is this a truck?

>>28549508
Retarded bogans use the word "ute" even for normal 4WD BoF trucks nowadays. You probably replied to their American counterpart.

>>28548075 (OP)
A Maverick is a "small" truck but only when compared to a full size truck. In general they're actually very big cars. It's bigger than an Explorer.

>>28548596
Minivans are proof you’ve given up. Unless it’s an old Dodge Tradesman with a straight 6 or a 350. Literally the only way to retain manhood while driving a minivan.

>>28549508
Yeah, if you’re a suburban cowboy and wrangle your kids after soccer practice

I hope Toyota makes a Mav competitor soon.

>>28549508
Yeah, it's a truck. Most truck owners actually just want a car with a bed, so a modern version of something like an El Camino.

>>28549748
Yeah, about that.

>>28549500
>Shit's perfect for occasional innawoods.
Exactly

>>28548080
https://www.theautopian.com/patent-suggests-ford-may-finally-give-the-maverick-the-one-thing-it-truly-needs/

>>28548075 (OP)
By 2030, Ford will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of BYD.

>>28548075 (OP)
Depends on what that family likes to do on weekends. If they never use it offroad or need to haul yard waste or other shit you don't want in your interior regularly, a sedan will work fine for them. However if they do want to do those things a small body on frame truck will do them some good. These unibody jokes are not trucks. Some call then utes. The element, the maverick, and whatever toyota is calling their new small truck are all whatever these are called.

>>28549748
>a coupe is a truck

>>28549500
>NTA but not before they return the feature to regular (not gay) trucks.
Cope. You're such a filthy coper.
>i demand a midgate
>i demand a midgate on a brand new truck
>no not that truck, one that I like!
This is why nobody listens to you. Nothing would ever satisfy you and GM isn't going to recreate the avalanche.

>>28549671
>A Maverick is a "small" truck but only when compared to a full size truck. In general they're actually very big cars. It's bigger than an Explorer.
Wrong on all points. The roof is under 6'. Its shorter and narrower than a Chrysler Pacifica Minivan. Its a slightly longer Ford Escape which nobody but 90lb women would call "big".

>>28550143
Did you know you're legally allowed to research stuff before running your dumb ignorant mouth about it?

>>28549868
>anything from the autopian
You're not manually aware thats nu-jalopnik where people pay $15 a month to talk about how much they hate modern cars getting excited over vaporware and community consensus. It would be monumentally dumb to put a midgate in a Maverick. It started as a $20,000 small pickup, now its more like a $30,000 pickup for starting prices. Add in a midgate and relocate all the shit behind the bed plus adding a 5th door to seal up would add at LEAST $5000 to the sticker price. Then you'd suggest putting a bed cap on, another $3k. Then you've got a bed that can carry another ~2 feet of stuff without lowering the taiigate while letting all of your climate control air into the bed and losing 2 seats. Oh boy, can't wait to see a well optioned Maverick at $42,000 just so you can carry some gay canoe or some shit without lowering the tailgate. Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ do any of you people think beyond "I want feature that I don't ever plan on using"?

>>28549760
I miss station wagons. Even the smaller ones like the Dodge Magnum or Cadillac. They're not as useful as a truck but being able to fold the seats down and sleep in it seems like a great size. Give it a split tailgate and a big V8 now that the EPA is neutered.

>>28549375
Its disconnected from the rest of the car and has more space.

>>28549398
Thats a car

>>28550168
Yes, I’m saving it drives like a car

>>28549687
Minivans rule and you should just not give a fuck if you have kids anyways. Having a type of car doesn't make you a man its just a means of moving people and things.

>>28550351
>its just a means of moving people and things.
And yet you claim that people who own EVs arent real men or whatever

>>28549426
What are you not? MSRP on basic F150s starts $42k or so. Notamiata optioned his maverick for something like 42k CAD. After you convert to burger bucks he could have just bought the basic F150 to haul his sports car and more, but the maverick is enough for him and I ain't knocking his decision.

>>28550441
No I dont like EVs because the batteries go bad and cost 20k to replace which is retarded. If you bought a tesla they can remote control your car and that makes you a cuck. Besides that its good EVs are developing and the next leap in battery tech should make them more viable.

>>28550454
Genuine question bro how is it possible to be so misinformed in this day and age? I'm not saying you have to like EVs but you're operating on literally 10+ old information here. Like how are you able to prevent yourself from accidentally learning anything new despite being online?

>>28550524
I forgot that new electric cars batteries don't go bad and are very cheap and easy to replace. I forget what's the new battery tech that isn't lithium again like they used 10 years ago?

>>28550138
>You're such a filthy coper.
Meaning?
>no not that truck, one that I like!
Isn't that how market works? People spend money on what they like.

>>28548075 (OP)
this looks like a faggot mobile

>>28549687
You're such a fucking faggot holy shit. Bet you're a soft doughy fuck too underneath the cope.

>>28550218
So do all of these "trucks"

>>28550138
early in development the Silverado EV was rumored to be called the Avalanche, before bean counters realized they could squeeze 5 more sales out of it by using Silverado branding instead. makes sense alongside the resurrected Hummer branding, to rebrand old dinosaurs as “efficient” EVs
>>28549489
its nice because 90% of the time id get more use out of the back seats (am dad). a folding midgate is perfectly suited for the maverick which would expand your bed from 4.5ft to maybe 6ft.
then i wouldnt need to rent a larger truck or a trailer for the few times i need the extra space

>>28550882
Yeah, how well are either of those trucks selling?

>>28550158
its all about maximizing the utility out of the car i have for the least up front and running costs. I dont need or want an F150, i wouldn’t use 80% of its capabilities, it’s expensive, and it gets shit fuel mileage to boot. The ranger is better, because its smaller, but does not have a hybrid option available.
So for $40k, hypothetically, i can get a pretty nicely optioned Maverick with a midgate that does all the things a Ranger’s bed could do, or for $40k i just get an optioned down ranger. but consider my main use case (flat highway driving to work). here i get better fuel economy because the maverick is smaller, lighter and a hybrid. the folding midgate gives me similar performance to the ranger for the once a month i need more bed space. that’s worth it to me.

I’d probably buy a ranger hybrid if they offered one, but even then, I’m not gonna use most of its capabilities in my normal use case. and a ranger hybrid would be $15k more than a maverick hybrid.

>>28550893
the hummer is selling surprisingly well considering how expensive and excessive it is. it’s eligible for the LLC business expense loophole like 3500 series trucks, so that helps boost sales to some degree

>>28550894
You're an odd fella then, you'd be happy with a $45,000 high opened maverick because a $42,000 F150 is just too much truck? huhhhh

>>28550900
>the hummer is selling surprisingly well
How many units is it shipping? How about the EV Silverado? Are they getting anywhere near recovering the $15Billion or so they spent developing them?

>>28550906
>nice car that does everything I need and want
vs
>piece of shit in which half of the cost goes to a function i can't even utilize
and this has confused you?

>>28550941
>and this has confused you?
Yes, it does confuse me. It makes no sense to get EXACTLY what you think you'll plan on using a vehicle for especially if you're about to pay $40,000 over several years (presumably) for it, and keep it for many years after paying it off. You really think your life will not be changing in the next 5-10 years where you already know you'll never need a slightly larger, more capable vehicle when it costs the same?

>>28550973
If he had a fuckin' crystal ball that told him exactly what he'd need in 10 years, I guarantee you he wouldn't be wasting his time talking to you.

You reason like a child.

>>28550973
Do you drive a crew cab long bed drw diesel truck? Because by your logic, that's what everyone should drive.

>>28550973
You sound like an absolute Karen you closeted troon. Do you also consider sports cars an abomination because sooner or later you'll have children you cunt?

>>28550977
>>28550987
>>28550995
>anti-truck homos are up at this hour
You guys are silly. That is all.

>>28550997
>If you don't buy the same vehicle I would, you're some homo.
Okay, kiddo.

>>28550906
in what world are you getting a reasonably optioned new F150 for $42k?
i dont want the base 2wd XL with steelies, vinyl floor, and unpainted bumpers. that pushes you into the $60k range before even adding ACC or heated seats. a $42k maverick is gonna have all of that

>>28550973
and fuel efficiency is arguably the only thing i care about right now, which no F150/Silverado/RAM today does well. Maybe the Ramcharger could be enticing as a half ton, but that’s going to be priced to the moon

>>28551153
Let me guess, STX isn't high enough trim level despite being very similar to the Mavrick XLT trim level. Never mind this is under the $42k number.

Mavrick getting 30-35mpg on the highway is less impressive when other CUVs are getting that too.

>>28548817
They really missed the mark with that one. Maybe the next gen will do it. Th3 Baja could do it but the opening was limited because it's a hacked up Outback. A clean sheet design could have maximized the opening and still maintained body structure.

>>28551153
>t. Retard who doesn’t shop around

>>28550906
>because a $42,000 F150 is just too much truck?
yes, it's fuck huge compared to the mav

>>28551170
Face it, ultimately some people just want less truck.
It's less of an eyesore and easier to maneuver around.
That may not have a direct quantifiable cost, but if it makes the owner of the maverick feel better, then it's worth it.
would you drive an F650 if i sold it to you for $15k?

>>28554047
Have your wife load a kid into a Mav then do the same with a half ton. I can tell you which one you'll be leaving the dealership in.

>>28548075 (OP)
I think it just really depends on individual use cases for that family. Some people need to haul dirty shit on a regular basis that you wouldn't want on the inside of a suv. But a lot of people would probably be better off with a crossover and a small utility trailer.

>>28554106
>would you drive an F650 if i sold it to you for $15k?
No, but I'd take a V8 F150 4x4 if it were the exact same price as a 2wd maverick of the same trim level.

>>28554653
And I'd take a GT2 RS if it were the exact same price as a soda from a vending machine

>>28554699
Amazing, you're proving the point; if its the same price, just get the thing which will have more utility and potential utility in your life. I think you're beginning to understand why a $45k Maverick is a bad choice compared to a $45k F150.

>>28554716
If they were the same price then sure. They're not but if they were then that would be great.

>>28554720
Except we showed above a fully optioned out Mavrick is basically a mid-level F150. What are you not understanding?

>>28554742
>fully optioned
Lol

>>28554716
Its that simple not everyone is jerking off to towing numbers because they don't tow but they do drive into their city or downtown and like a smaller truck. People want smaller trucks the market has shifter to cater to that because of the demand.

>>28554653
>No, but
Why not? I'm giving you more truck for less money? Why wouldn't you drive an F650?

>>28554783
Gee, lets compare the worlds of difference outside of vehicles normal people cross-shop for and wonder why anon thinks you're a doofus.