How It Compares to Ranger, Old and New

But what about the old Ranger? The final holdout between the truly small body-on-frame pickups—the Tacoma was mid-size for 2005, the S-10 was knocked out in favor of the larger Colorado for 2004, and the second-generation Frontier also expanded for 2004—the compact Ranger held out. until 2011.

Unlike, say, Nissan, Ford is refusing to use the mid-sized and global Ranger as a replacement, instead gently pushing buyers towards a low-priced version of the full-size (and more profitable) F-150 lineup. Now, ten years later and in a regulatory and consumer environment that places pressure on fleet emissions and the economy, compact trucks are back. While far, far apart from the Ranger, they are close enough in size to draw some interesting comparisons.

How Big Are Maverick, Ranger, and Old Ranger?

With a hair length of under 200 inches overall, the Maverick is slightly smaller than the longest old Ranger and much shorter than the newer one. But in another major dimension, it floats between the two. The old Ranger comes in two wheelbases (single-cab versus Extended SuperCab); Cabin crew-only Maverick slots neatly in between. And with the wheels being pushed further and the bed short, you can see that compared to the new Ranger, the wheelbase is more than the length. It also has a wider track than the new Ranger, making it look like a car.

How Do They Compare Inside?

The Maverick is also taller than the old Ranger, hinting at much more spaciousness in the cabin. That’s to be expected; The old Ranger is only available in single-cab or extended-cab SuperCab formats. Crew cabin configuration—the only way you can get a Maverick—isn’t an option. But in terms of space, comparable to the new Ranger, it only lacks a bit of headroom up front.

Otherwise, it’s on par—comparing the SuperCrew Ranger to the similar Maverick, the Maverick has both rear legroom and rear headroom advantages. In total, the Maverick has 100.3 cubic feet of passenger volume compared to the Ranger SuperCrew’s 97.6 cubes. Remember, the current Ranger also comes as a SuperCab with an expanded cabin, with a more solid rear seat area that isn’t very passenger friendly.

How Much Space Do They Have in the Bed?

The Maverick’s main trade-off for achieving a livable cabin with a relatively compact overall footprint is evident at the rear. The bed is tiny—only 54 inches long, more than 18 inches shorter than the 6ft bed in the old and new Ranger. But the volume is relatively healthy, nearly on par with the old Ranger thanks to the taller bed (20.3 inches compared to just 16.5 inches). And the optional tubular bed extender, to some extent, negates the length advantage by extending the enclosed bed space to an effective 6 feet. Additionally, the Flexbed’s tailgate has a half-down position, which also helps transport larger items.

What about Payloads?

In terms of sheer volume, the 2022 Maverick is on par with the compact Ranger, and its 1,500-pound payload rating is considerably larger than the 2011 base Ranger—much closer to the highest-paying version of the old Ranger (and, for that matter, many midsize pickup versions on the market today). ). Users who need to haul heavier but less bulky items—think concrete bags rather than dirt bikes—may find this combination of characteristics desirable.

And Maximum Withdrawal Number?

Where Maverick falls a bit, and shows one limitation of the unibody construction, is in the absolute number of pullers. If properly equipped, it will pull 4,000 pounds, but the old Ranger can pull 1,860 pounds more. And the bigger, fatter Ranger can handle 7,500 pounds. That said, Maverick’s base crane rating is greater than the old Ranger’s.

How Powerful and Efficient Is The Engine?

While the new Ranger, somewhat famously, offers only a single powertrain—a 2.3-liter turbo producing a solid 270 hp and 310 lb-ft of power—both the penultimate Ranger and the new Maverick offer several options. The Maverick’s base powertrain, the hybrid-CVT combo, has no parallel, and is far and away an MPG champ, offering up to 40 mpg. But without fuel economy estimates for the more powerful 2.0-liter turbocharged EcoBoost Mavericks, it’s hard to draw further conclusions about how it compares to its more powerful, larger stablemate.

One thing seems clear: the turbocharged Maverick has a favorable power-to-weight ratio. In front-drive form, each horsepower has 14.3 pounds to carry; the 168-pound penalty for AWD reduces this to 14.9. But it compares to the new, lightest Ranger, the 2WD SuperCab, which puts out 15.6 pounds per horsepower. Meanwhile, the base 2011 Ranger 2WD single cab, for reference, delivers 21.2 lbs/HP, while the Maverick hybrid is slightly more advanced at 19.2 lbs/HP.

Especially in AWD form, the turbocharged Maverick should be sprightly. But it remains to be seen if steering torque accentuates the twisty heads on the EcoBoost FWD.

Leave a Comment