• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Maverick is 7 inches longer, 4 inches wider, and 5 inches taller than a 1990’s Ranger. Despite that, the Ranger’s bed is 20 inches longer than the Maverick’s.

    The Maverick is more comparable to a 1990’s F-150 than the Ranger. Maverick is 6" longer than a 1990s F-150 with the same bed length

    CAFE standards favor the larger footprint.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The reason they don’t make a 2-door version is because the shorter length of a 2-door would tighten the CAFE standards, and it would not be able to comply.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            All other things being equal, the smaller vehicle will have better economy than the larger. So the more relevant observation is “it doesn’t have to be longer”. There is no engineering reason why the Maverick has to be bigger than the Ranger, and it would be more economical if it weren’t. It is bigger only to satisfy regulatory compliance.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I understood you perfectly. Don’t conflate “rejection of your argument” with “lack comprehension”.

                You would have a valid point if they made a 2-door variant, even if that 2-door variant came with a bed 6" longer than the Ranger’s bed. But they don’t. You would have a point if used 2-door Rangers were valued substantially less than 4-door models. But they aren’t.

                There is no justification for your claim that “consumer demand” is even a significant factor, let alone the primary reason why the “compact” Maverick has a “full size” length.

                The reason that their “compact” truck today is the size of a full-size from the 1990s (and why their full-size F-150 today is so much larger than one from the 1990s) is CAFE standards. Even though the Maverick would have better economy, less emissions, greater range, a better MPG rating with a Ranger-sized body, it would not meet the tighter restrictions that a vehicle with a Ranger-sized body would have to meet under CAFE.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    The quote you selected doesn’t mention doors at all. The number of doors is irrelevant. The relevant factor is the size. The overall length of the truck and the overall width of the truck had to be substantially more than the Ranger. CAFE standards prohibit a Ranger-sized truck with the Maverick’s fuel economy.

                    Ford used an extra row of seats to achieve the length they needed to reach.