Looks like the compact truck is back

[wymple]

Because you pull the vehicle with FWD, and push it with RWD, you can drive faster keeping it straight by pulling with the front wheels. With RWD the limits become obvious at lower speeds giving you the stern "slow down" message. So while you can go faster with FWD and 4WD, people are lulled into a false sense of security. The problem being that there is no increase in stopping ability and people tend to drive to fast for conditions. When it's time to haul it down on less than ideal surfaces you are going much faster than is reasonable and the sh*t hit's the fan. RWD kinda slows things down on slippery roads.

[oldGSfan]

I agree it's mainly skill, and have been in some amazing places in a RWD long bed pickup (my HS friend's and he really could drive). But when I drove a stock '79 Subaru FWD wagon with skinny 155 (I think) tires over several mountain passes in eastern Oregon in near blizzard conditions I really appreciated that little billy goat pulling me around the bends. My son has a '04 Tacoma PreRunner and I'm telling the same thing, you don't need 4WD 99% of the time as long as your skills are sharp. He is jealous of the 4WD but shouldn't be. I remember all the guys in 4x4 going out and crashing when it snowed because they thought they were invincible. He really likes the Maverick, says it's perfect for his MTB trips, and the MPG is sweet given the >$4 gas prices we're facing. But his Tacoma is a really fine truck.

What I learned is that, once you know what you are doing, in almost any circumstance that will be faced by an average driver, , you can go anywhere with any of them, but unless the circumstances are really, really, severe, and far out of the ordinary from what most motorists will encounter even occasionally, the difference is not significant. Driver attitude and driver skill, coupled with having the right tires for the season, will almost always get you where you want to go. People who drove in the 1930's, 1940;s, 1950's , 1960's, 1970's (before front wheel drive came into prominence)all knew this and did it regularly, in all seasons and in all weather and they did so on roads/highways that were almost nothing like what is common today.

Being able to do it is not at all special: once you learn how to drive properly it is just another day of winter weather to deal with....and maybe have fun doing it..

[timebombprod]

That's actually a really good deal for that truck I think it will sell well aslong as people get past the fact its fwd, odd to think of a pickup being fwd but thats it. I love small puck up trucks and the ones from the 90s are definitely way smaller than this but hey, a 2022 model vehicle starting under 20k is something else.

Aslong as it doesn't have that stupid dual clutch transmission it will be fine. An automatic with two clutches, who wouldve thought..

[Vmass]

I think Ford nailed it with this one and given all the options and accessories available right out of the gate, I think they know it. I just priced one out with the XLT package, upgraded engine and AWD, came in at 27k.

That is more than 10k less than the Ranger with similar options. I have always had a full size pickup and probably won't downsize for quite some time, but I think these little guys will soon be seen everywhere. Reminds me of the Ridgeline.

[bwringer]

That looks like the Explorer SportTrac on steroids and not looking too good for it. Honestly, the Ranger was forever Ford's best small truck (I bought one new from Military Sales in '91)

I respectfully submit that this truck isn't for you, a person who already drives pickups and has for a long time. (IIRC, you drive a large diesel pickup when confined to four wheels.) I think Ford is building this for people who hadn't considered a pickup until now. There's also a significant market opportunity for folks who would like to have a dose of pickup utility without the outlandish size and expense.

And I'll agree the old 80s-90s Ranger (and the first-gen Explorer on that platform) was a damn near perfect size for a personal pickup. Ford got a lot right in that one. They also got a lot wrong, but never mind that. (My wife had one with the infamously awful 2.9L engine. Fortunately it rusted to almost nothing before it needed the third rebuild.)

That said, yeah, I'll agree the styling is incredibly tepid. There's a lot of missed opportunity to make this truck look a little nicer at no added expense. And in the reviews I've seen of the same blue preproduction sample, the cost-cutting is pretty glaringly obvious. But the low cost is part of the appeal, and in fact increases its utility in many ways.

More than one reviewer complained about the basic tech and small screen, and, well, yeah. That's kinda the whole point of this thing, doofus. Roofers and plumbers and people picking up mulch at Home Depot don't need or want a shiny expensive 15" fingerprint collecting distractor in the dash or 12-way articulating seats with perineum massage.



As to those "real trucks have rear wheel drive" folks fretting over FWD, there will be an AWD version of this truck for those who feel their weenuses will fall off if they are spotted driving a FWD pickup.

And yes, the Ranger and the rest of the lineup will continue, so everyone's still free to choose the truck that matches their level of machismo:

Maverick: Small
Ranger: Medium
F150: Large (and Raptor... Larger-er?)
F250: X-Large
etc. and so on...

Obviously, the size scale has bloated drastically over the years; the F150 has become ridiculously huge and expensive, seriously cramping its day to day usability and utility. But that's a separate issue. At long last, someone is taking advantage of the gap created lower in the size scale.

Still not my cup of tea, but I do like seeing innovation and new things.

[Baatfam]

Six inches of fresh, unbroken, snow, or even snow mixed with ice, is NOT an impassable obstacle or even something to be afraid of.
I grew up doing this. So did many, many, thousands of others.

I grew up doing this, also.
But neither you, or me, can drive our a RWD Durango up my driveway with even 1" of snow.
Most FWD cars can, most RWD cars can't. I don't care who is driving.

[cowboyup3371]

Maverick: Small
Ranger: Medium
F150: Large (and Raptor... Larger-er?)
F250: X-Large
etc. and so on...

Obviously, the size scale has bloated drastically over the years; the F150 has become ridiculously huge and expensive, seriously cramping its day to day usability and utility. But that's a separate issue. At long last, someone is taking advantage of the gap created lower in the size scale.

Still not my cup of tea, but I do like seeing innovation and new things.

I like how you wrote this Brian. I used to say the Ranger was the small kid, the F150 was the teenager, and the F250 and higher were the grown up pickups so your analogy fits right in there. But honestly, the 4 foot bed isn't going to help anyone more than how you described it - the occasional mulch grabber. There is no way you can fit anything worthwhile in there and move it around town for any length of time; that is one reason i got rid of the Ranger and it's 6-foot bed and insisted my F250 I bought in 97 (sold for my current F350) have the 8-foot bed. I think the small time plumber or even the pest terminators might go for this but anyone with any sort of large business will say this is too small.

Interested to hear some real world opinions though

[RichDesmond]

Front wheel drive is better when you are stopped and want to start moving. That is because the bulk of engine/transmission weight is on the front wheels. which improves initial traction.

After that, it has little to offer and, depending on driver skill, ithcan be detrimental..


What I learned is that, once you know what you are doing, in almost any circumstance that will be faced by an average driver, , you can go anywhere with any of them, but unless the circumstances are really, really, severe, and far out of the ordinary from what most motorists will encounter even occasionally, the difference is not significant. Driver attitude and driver skill, coupled with having the right tires for the season, will almost always get you where you want to go. People who drove in the 1930's, 1940;s, 1950's , 1960's, 1970's (before front wheel drive came into prominence)all knew this and did it regularly, in all seasons and in all weather and they did so on roads/highways that were almost nothing like what is common today.

Those who have learned that skill understand this. Those that have bought the fairy tale that they actually NEED 4 wheel drive have a mental block that prohibits understanding that there were decades when front/four wheel drive did not exist and road conditions were far worse than what you are likely to see in almost every urban situation today, and everyone went about their business all year. Many millions of drivers regularly did what so many today have been brainwashed to believe must be impossible.

To keep this in perspective, my attitude has always been I will go wherever I want to go.. whenever I want to go there.....every winter. Excepting micro bikes and trikes, which I have never been on, I have done this in/on every type of road vehicle out there. There is nothing exceptional about me as there are many thousands like me who do the same year after year.

Six inches of fresh, unbroken, snow, or even snow mixed with ice, is NOT an impassable obstacle or even something to be afraid of.
I grew up doing this. So did many, many, thousands of others.


Being able to do it is not at all special: once you learn how to drive properly it is just another day of winter weather to deal with....and maybe have fun doing it..

Dude, give it up. Anybody with experience driving various drive configurations knows that in any kind of low traction situation FWD is better that RWD (by a lot) and 4WD is better than FWD (by a smaller amount)
How much it matters in the real world depends on the exact circumstances. Relatively level ground and 3-4" of fresh snow, not much of problem. Replace that snow with ice (common here in Oklahoma) and throw in some hills and you very rapidly get to a place where a RWD vehicle is basically unusable while a 4WD can still get to the store.
And of course there's a spectrum in between. But if you have a choice of buying a vehicle that give you more control rather than one with less, seems to me that the former is a wiser choice, other things being equal.

You might consult your sig line, wise words there...

[LAB3]

I like how you wrote this Brian. I used to say the Ranger was the small kid, the F150 was the teenager, and the F250 and higher were the grown up pickups so your analogy fits right in there. But honestly, the 4 foot bed isn't going to help anyone more than how you described it - the occasional mulch grabber. There is no way you can fit anything worthwhile in there and move it around town for any length of time; that is one reason i got rid of the Ranger and it's 6-foot bed and insisted my F250 I bought in 97 (sold for my current F350) have the 8-foot bed. I think the small time plumber or even the pest terminators might go for this but anyone with any sort of large business will say this is too small.

Interested to hear some real world opinions though

I'll refer back to one of my previous comments, it boils down to NEED. Obviously a building contractor NEEDS a full sized truck, a suburbanite that wants to occasionally haul a couple of sheets of drywall will find this suits their NEEDS just fine! The guy who works for that contractor might not NEED a full sized truck if that's all he's hauling is his tools, let the boss supply the hauler and make the monthly payment. Do you have a 20 foot fiberglass boat to haul down to the lake? No, this rig won't do that. Do you want to put a cap on the bed and try to live out of the back end? No, this isn't the rig you want. Still though, I think it's a far more versatile rig than your typical SUV for MY needs.

[bwringer]

I like how you wrote this Brian. I used to say the Ranger was the small kid, the F150 was the teenager, and the F250 and higher were the grown up pickups so your analogy fits right in there. But honestly, the 4 foot bed isn't going to help anyone more than how you described it - the occasional mulch grabber. There is no way you can fit anything worthwhile in there and move it around town for any length of time; that is one reason i got rid of the Ranger and it's 6-foot bed and insisted my F250 I bought in 97 (sold for my current F350) have the 8-foot bed. I think the small time plumber or even the pest terminators might go for this but anyone with any sort of large business will say this is too small.

Interested to hear some real world opinions though

You touch on another interesting point -- the death of the long bed, and the near death of the useful pickup bed. There's a SIGNIFICANT market opportunity for a manufacturer who brings back the long bed pickup, especially a compact-ish long bed.

Even with its way-too-short bed, the Maverick does have a simple but clever way the owner can haul 4x8' materials; there's a middle position that holds the tail gate at an angle such that it's even with the flat tops of the wheel wells. Not ideal for saggy stuff like drywall or paneling unless you put a sheet of plywood down first, but a pretty clever and very simple workaround.

A 2-seat long bed Maverick would sell extremely well. Dunno if that's in the cards.

As I said, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I do appreciate seeing new things and new thinking about real-world usability. Ford is killing it lately.


Ford's upcoming electric pickup will likely sell extremely well to the trades; 99% of these vehicles never go more than 50 miles from base and company owners cannot ignore the much lower operating cost.

[RichDesmond]

You touch on another interesting point -- the death of the long bed, and the near death of the useful pickup bed. There's a SIGNIFICANT market opportunity for a manufacturer who brings back the long bed pickup, especially a compact-ish long bed...

Yep. You used to be able to get a Tacoma with a 7' bed. That would be useful.

For me, 6' beds are kind of the anti-Goldilocks size. Not enough bigger than a 5' to really matter for what I need. So my Tacoma is the 4-door 5'. A 6' access cab is basically same length, and they also make a 6' 4-door that's obviously about a foot longer than either. What I'd buy in a heartbeat would be an access cab with a 7' bed.

[Vmass]

You touch on another interesting point -- the death of the long bed, and the near death of the useful pickup bed. There's a SIGNIFICANT market opportunity for a manufacturer who brings back the long bed pickup, especially a compact-ish long bed.

The long bed ( 8' ) has never left us. It is available on 1/2 ton models, such as the F-150. Not something you see on the lot too often due to a limited market.

This new Maverick bed is extremely useful, and I would think anyone who has ever owned a pick up would agree. It's like owning an eclosed trailer, once you have owned one you would never do without!

[dpep]

Small-ish, anyway... still quite bloated compared to the beloved and adored Toyota Pickup of the '80s and '90s.

..........

I also hope they figure out how to make a 2-door long bed version; now THAT would sell like hotcakes and free beer combined.

Amen.

My 1988 Toyota Xtra cab 5 speed pickup with the 2.2L engine and 7ft bed. When I loaded one of my 850s the tailgate locked closed just snug on the rear tire. If a manufacturer had handed me a blank legal pad and a pencil I could not have spec'd out a better fit for what I wanted and needed a truck for.

I bought it new in October, 1988 and was blessed to own it for a month shy of 30 years. I would patiently tell each of the strangers who asked me if I would "like to sell it" that no, this vehicle is going to be in my estate sale. But nature bats last.



By that time pickup trucks had become way oversize square shaped four door sedans with a small open rumble seat behind the passenger cabin.
...

[Jethro]

Oh man, that picture is tragic! What a great vehicle.

[GSXR7ED]

Tacoma Time!!!

Yep. You used to be able to get a Tacoma with a 7' bed. That would be useful.

For me, 6' beds are kind of the anti-Goldilocks size. Not enough bigger than a 5' to really matter for what I need. So my Tacoma is the 4-door 5'. A 6' access cab is basically same length, and they also make a 6' 4-door that's obviously about a foot longer than either. What I'd buy in a heartbeat would be an access cab with a 7' bed.

I finally bought my 2021 Tacoma Sport!

It's my first new truck and second overall. I had a used "Izusu Pup" when I was stationed at Hickam, Hawaii--1999-2003. Used it mostly as a transition car since we bought our 2003 Pilot in Hawaii (then shipped it to Germany) and sold the 96 Accord (once I had the Izusu Pup)

I've recently used the 5ft bed getting top soil (4 bags), mulch (3 bags) and 4 step stones from Lowe's...haven't had the need to transport 6-12ft of wood (I did that with my 2010 CX-9 and my HF trailer).

The 3.5L/V6 is smaller than the 3.8L/V6 that was in the CX-9 (which was AWD). Tank size increased from 19 to 21 gallons in the Tacoma. The power is perfect (about as perfect as can be) for this medium size truck. I did not have the truck lifted nor did I replace the wheels/tires with SIZE increased package. The truck looks beautiful just as it is.

The after market options I bought are the side steps, mud flaps and chrome black exhaust tip...plus red lettering for the outline on the gate since my truck is Midnight Black.

Back to the Ford this thread is about...it looks like a good first time truck for anyone who has never owned one. It's subtle but it serves its purpose for first-time owners. It has options that the Tacoma has...I did not see a rear-view camera on the gate...but it has those options that appeal to the younger generation.

Ed

****