These things remind me of my dad's 90's ford ranger. I would love a small functional pickup. I don't need to drive a battle-tank around town. If all works out for these trucks, it's a top contender for my money in the near future.

▲

jollyllama 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> my dad's 90's ford ranger

The only reason it takes an EV to get this is CAFE.

▲

malfist 13 hours ago | parent [-]

The maverick isn't an EV

▲

Server6 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The Maverick is barley a truck. It's a unibody SUV with a small truck bed. Its built on the Escape/Bronco Sport platform.

▲

malfist 11 hours ago | parent [-]

The dimensions of the maverick vs a 1990's ford ranger are almost identical. The Maverick is slightly bigger.

So if the maverick is barely a truck, then the 1990's ford ranger is barely a truck too.

▲

officeplant 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1990 Ranger Regular Cab Short Bed [1] 108in wheel base, 175.6in long, 66.9in wide, 6ft bed.

2025 Ford Maverick 121.1 inch wheel base, 199.7in long, 72.6in wide, 4.5ft bed.

1990 Ford F150 Regular Cab Short Bed 119.9 wheelbase, 202.2in long, 78.4in wide. 6.5ft bed.

Idk how you get "almost identical" out of those numbers, unless you are using the long bed ranger or an extended cab short bed ranger. Even the longest 1990 ranger was shorter than a Maverick by a few inches.

The Maverick is actually the size of an F150 from 1990. Similar to how the Colorado/Ranger today is the size of a full size truck in the 2000's

The Maverick is barely a truck because of the bed size. But a lot of modern trucks have comically small useless beds so it is hard to fault it for that.

[1]https://www.therangerstation.com/tech/ford-ranger-dimensions...

	▲	throwaway041207 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The Maverick is actually the size of an F150 from 1990. Similar to how the Colorado/Ranger today is the size of a full size truck in the 2000's A 13th gen RCSB F-150 is only modestly larger than a 1990 RCSB by your definition here, but we know that's not practically true because you are only comparing very specific measurements. Anyone that's had an OBS and been around Mavericks would never say the Maverick is the actual size of an OBS F-150. Trucks are bigger than ever, that's self evident, but saying an OBS and Maverick are the same size is a stretch.

▲

alamortsubite 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Size has nothing to do with it. The Rangers were body on frame.

▲

malfist 8 hours ago | parent [-]

truck [truhk] / trʌk / noun

> any of various forms of vehicle for carrying goods and materials, usually consisting of a single self-propelled unit but also often composed of a trailer vehicle hauled by a tractor unit.

> any of various wheeled frames used for transporting heavy objects.

> Also called hand truck. a barrowlike frame with low wheels, a ledge at the bottom, and handles at the top, used to move heavy luggage, packages, cartons, etc.

> a low, rectangular frame on which heavy boxes, crates, trunks, etc., are moved; a dolly.

> a tiered framework on casters.

> a group of two or more pairs of wheels in one frame, for supporting one end of a railroad car, locomotive, etc.

> Movies. a dolly on which a camera is mounted.

> British. a freight car having no top.

> a small wooden wheel, cylinder, or roller, as on certain old-style gun carriages.

> Nautical. a circular or square piece of wood fixed on the head of a mast or the top of a flagstaff, usually containing small holes for signal halyards.

I see no mention of "body on frame" as part of what makes a truck a truck.

▲

alamortsubite 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not that complicated. When you buckle your unibody, you'll understand.

	▲	malfist 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe don't do that?

▲

klooney 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's pretty big, too

	▲	jollyllama 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed, it's wider and taller. And more importantly, it's unibody.

▲

tonyarkles 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have a 91 Ranger Club Cab, 4.0L RWD sitting around waiting to get used again. The only reason I upgraded (2016 Tacoma) was because of how bad it was in the winter (Western Canada, lots of snow and ice). Couldn’t get good tires for it anymore (15” is so passé) and often got stuck on flat icy surfaces. If it had been 4WD I’d probably still be driving it every day.

I love the Tacoma for a lot of reasons, but that Ranger really had a lot going for it in the summer.

▲

RhysU 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Loved that Ranger my father owned. Rolled it onto the driver's side, totalling it. Still have road rash on my left forearm from when the window broke mid-accident and my left arm dragged a touch.