New Ford Bronco aimed at the Jeep Gladiator

[rob_s]

Salesmen call anything body on frame a truck these days. Terminology changes over time. A trucker explained to me one time that pickups aren't trucks. His Kenworth was a truck. I had a pickup. I always thought a pickup was something that was designed to haul things other than people. But now that isn't true anymore because pickups are made to haul people and other things.

my "truck" is 2WD. Some folks where I live now, and a lot of folks where I grew up, would tell you that I don't have a "truck", or at best it's a "city truck".

I still call my own truck a "city truck" more often than not.

Like a lot of things, people need to get over their emotional attachment to words. Words have meaning, yes, but shouldn't have emotion when we're talking about objects.

unless it's bbq. anyone calling something NOT slow-cooked over smoke "bbq" should be flogged.

[TGS]

How do you define good? I want to know why mid sized v6 suv's and trucks get the fame fuel economy as full size v8 trucks. I'd like to downsize a little so I can actually use my garage but nothing smaller thats decent gets better economy than my full size truck.

I never understood why people buy the cuv's like the pilot, front wheel drive and unibody are supposed to save weight over a rear wheel body on frame suv, if the unibody cuv weighs the same and gets the same mpg whats the point?

My truck is 4x4 also, with a v8 and frame and gets 21mpg and I see a lot of SUV's and SUV's that have v6's and get the same.

Maybe @farscott has some inside technical info he can share.

With that said, the Honda Pilot is rated for 20/27, Subaru Ascent at 21/27, Chevy Blazer at 22/29, Ford Edge at 21/29, and the Toyota Highlander is 21/29. That's quite a big difference from your full sized truck that gets 21 highway....doesn't really fit into the narrative you're putting down, if I'm reading you correctly. It's possible I'm misunderstanding you, as your posts seem to intermix two different classes of SUVs (CUVs and traditional 6-cyl midsize SUVs) as if they're the same. People who are buying a Toyota 4R or Ford Explorer obviously aren't buying them for gas efficiency vs a full sized truck as you've pointed out they don't really do any better, but the same isn't true for the CUV type vehicles.

I don't know how much difference it would make these days, but are you also comparing your fuel economy in 4WD to the AWD vehicles? Or are you comparing your fuel economy when driven in 2WD to the AWD vehicles?

[vcdgrips]

Edge of my lane:

I concur that the Maverick is not a truck in any meaningful sense. It does represent what could be a competent people/gear hauler for the more urban/suburban of us who are tired of 40K-60k+ SUVs/Trucks and think we need a truck when we really don't.

AWD, the ability to carry 4 adults comfortably and haul gear/luggage/equip/tools/furniture and the occasional piece of drywall/sheetrock/plywood/lumber/bags of mulch/potting soil etc. and/or tow a couple of bikes/scooters/personal watercraft has me looking at it very hard when my present lease expires in Aug 23. If the "configure it" app is correct, I could set one up at 25ish-27 ish max with AWD, the bigger engine, tow pkg, bed liner etc. Everything I "need" and nothing I do not.

FWIW.

[farscott]

Why people buy CUVs versus SUVs is the focus of a ton of marketing and research. First, some people want a larger or smaller vehicle for various reasons, including fitting in garage, ease of parking, and cargo hauling/towing. A lot of CUVs are sold because people want to sit high like in a SUV but do not want to drive a large vehicle. Family size also plays a role as well as extracurricular activities. There are also considerations, such as ride quality and the fact that CUVs have smaller wheels and tires. Body-on-frame vehicles tend to ride rougher than unibody vehicles. The smaller wheels in a CUV mean more revolutions for a given distance, which means more engine RPM for a given speed and transmission drive ratio.

The biggest factor today in EPA fuel economy is the number of gears in the transmission. More gearing options allows the vehicle to be tuned so it has good torque for acceleration and gets great fuel economy at steady-state speeds. A V-8 with a ten-speed transmission will likely use less fuel than a V-6 with a six-speed transmission, even if the V-8 makes more net BHP, as the additional gears allow the vehicle to be tuned to use less fuel at highway speeds.

As for EPA numbers, the sole value is in comparing fuel usage between vehicles. One that gets 21/29 should use a bit less fuel than one that gets 20/28. But neither should be used to forecast what you get as how you drive, where you drive, the HVAC settings, what fuel you use, how much weight you carry, and how you maintain the vehicle are much larger factors than EPA values. Depending upon how I drive and the routes I choose, I can either crush the EPA numbers or sadly underperform them.

[Borderland]

Maverick strikes me as a hybrid Honda Ridgeline. Although Ridgelines don't sell very well it's a good idea. I looked at those a few years ago and came very close to buying one.

I think the Maverick will sell very well as it's target is urban and suburban city dwellers. Most people don't need a full size pickup. Probably the reason Tacomas and midsize pickups are so popular. I sold my full size pickup because I wasn't towing anymore, parking is a PIA and the mileage was terrible.

[littlejerry]

One of the other benefits of unibody is overall packaging. More efficient use of space for both suspension layout and interior storage.


The Maverick is a good bit smaller than the Ridgeline. The smaller footprint combined with substantially lower price will make it successful IMO. If I'm spending $40k on a Taco/Colorado/Ranger sized thing then I want it to be as capable as those vehicles. If I'm spending $25K on a CUV sized thing I'm comparing it's capability to hatchbacks and small CUVs. The Maverick excels(on paper) in that comparison.

I still want a Ranger though. Just not at $40k.

[Crazy Dane]

I wouldn't want to tow anything that weighed more than 3K with an SUV. The wheelbase is too short.

3/4 ton pickup or bigger is what you need.

LOL No. I have a Ram Rebel now and it does just fine tow either of the 2. Older tow vehicles include the F150, Tundra and Explorer though I wouldn't try the camper with the xploder. I was looking a Tahoe before the used market got crazy. A second tow rig is a want not a need so I can shop while I wait. If the Bronco was more capable I was thinking of putting the wife in one. I don't think she would mind, her first vehicle she ever bought herself was an Bronco, early 90s model.

[Eugene]

I would argue that the Maverick isn't a "truck" in the same way as it sounds like you're looking for. More similar to an El Camino or a Ranchero than a "truck".

Just like the Jeep Gladiator isn't really a "truck" in the same sense.

The gladiator at least has a frame, drive shaft, etc so its at least pretty much a truck even if it has a tiny bed.

[Eugene]

my "truck" is 2WD. Some folks where I live now, and a lot of folks where I grew up, would tell you that I don't have a "truck", or at best it's a "city truck".

I still call my own truck a "city truck" more often than not.

Like a lot of things, people need to get over their emotional attachment to words. Words have meaning, yes, but shouldn't have emotion when we're talking about objects.

unless it's bbq. anyone calling something NOT slow-cooked over smoke "bbq" should be flogged.

A pickup is still pretty much a truck, it has a frame, drive shaft, separate body/bed. Its not really emotion, its being able to communicate. When people call unibody things trucks or suv's it causes confusion. For example on forums a lot people will post that they need/want a new truck and someone will then call a unibody potato a truck and suggest it.

[Eugene]

Maybe @farscott has some inside technical info he can share.

With that said, the Honda Pilot is rated for 20/27, Subaru Ascent at 21/27, Chevy Blazer at 22/29, Ford Edge at 21/29, and the Toyota Highlander is 21/29. That's quite a big difference from your full sized truck that gets 21 highway....doesn't really fit into the narrative you're putting down, if I'm reading you correctly. It's possible I'm misunderstanding you, as your posts seem to intermix two different classes of SUVs (CUVs and traditional 6-cyl midsize SUVs) as if they're the same. People who are buying a Toyota 4R or Ford Explorer obviously aren't buying them for gas efficiency vs a full sized truck as you've pointed out they don't really do any better, but the same isn't true for the CUV type vehicles.

I don't know how much difference it would make these days, but are you also comparing your fuel economy in 4WD to the AWD vehicles? Or are you comparing your fuel economy when driven in 2WD to the AWD vehicles?

I guess I should have specified real world as ratings are usually different.

I see a lot of people brag about how their Toyota Tacoma and Honda Ridgeline getting 20mpg.

We made the (unibody) minivan mistake. It could hit 25 or so mpg highway but down to 15 ish city so it averaged out to around 20. I still want my 1988 s10 back, 4wd and 27+mpg highway plus a 20 gallon tank. Its still the only vehicle I've owned that could make it the 250 miles to the farm and 250 back without stopping for gas.