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
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.
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.
Nothing as small as was common in the 90’s. Regulatory standards and manufacturer preference - not consumer demand - is forcing vehicles to be larger.
You can’t even get an S10 or Ranger sized pickup anymore.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.