this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
268 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
60954 readers
3876 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
Not even close.
Prius: 57mpg city, 56 Highway
Maverick: 22mpg city, 29mpg highway
Even the hybrid version comes up short:
Maverick Hybrid: 42 mpg city, 33 mpg highway.
The Maverick's 61 sq ft footprint in the light truck category requires a minimum 28 mpg combined rating to comply with CAFE standards for the 2024 model year.
If it had the 52sq ft footprint of a 2-door ranger, it would need to have a minimum 34 mpg combined rating to comply with CAFE standards in 2024. It doesn't meet this with its standard engine.
Relative to the requirements on a vehicle the size of a 1990s Ranger, the Maverick needs either 6 mpg better economy, or an additional 9 sq ft of footprint to comply with CAFE standards.
The rear axle in a pickup needs to be located close to the center of the bed to maintain proper handling. To get the wheelbase they need by lengthening the bed, they would need to add as much length behind the axle as they add in front of it, keeping the rear axle centered. A 2-door "compact" Maverick would end up longer than a 4-door "full size".
To get the wheelbase they need without making the overall length absurdly long, they needed to extend the cab.