Hit or Flop? Ford Maverick | Page 7 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Hit or Flop? Ford Maverick

oioioi

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Nice @oioioi never thought of the Element to be that practical!

I love the Baja but don’t need it. My favourite is always the wagon. Even though it won’t fit a bike it seems to be the ultimate in utility.

Our 2012 Hyundai Elantra GLS was the best in terms of storage. Good engine, garbage transmission made of glass, comfortable, good handling, sporty suspension, and one of the best steering wheels I’ve ever felt. Overall super happy with it if it wasn’t that transmission (4 speed auto) it would be at the top of my list for cars owned.
Station wagons are also one of my preferred cars.
We went to Europe a few years ago and rented a Škoda Octavia station wagon (same thing as a Jetta station wagon)
We fit more luggage/stroller into the station wagon than we would have been able to into the CRV that we had at the time here.

Again, I tried to convince my better half but a quick "No"
 

Dimitri

Well-known member
Know anyone with a Fiat diesel in a Jeep Liberty, Grand Cherokee or RAM? Ask them how many turbo actuators they have had replaced, EGR overhauls, and whether they kept their car when it came time to do a timing belt service.

I used to fix them for a living. They didn't have any more problems then Ford's Powerstrokes or GMC's Duramax.

P0401 EGR issues are a common problem for all diesels.
 

crankcall

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I would suspect too many buy diesel for the "power" , not because it makes any sense at all. But that is also 50% of car purchase in North America. The rest of the planet sees transportation, we see a statement of affluence and image.
Both are fine.

When opportunity allows I'll go drive a Maverick , at 35% less than ridgeline it would have to be pretty awful.
 

Brian P

Well-known member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Why the complications of a hybrid

What complications?

The internals of a Ford or Toyota power-split ECVT (which are conceptually identical) are a lot simpler than those of, let's say, an 8-speed automatic transmission. It's one planetary gearset, NO clutches to wear out, two motor/generators (mechanically nothing to them), and some power and control electronics, and a relatively small battery pack. Toyota's system has been around longer and sold in greater numbers ... they have proven to be extremely reliable. The "Atkinson cycle" on the engine, is a different camshaft (and different pistons). As long as they don't botch something in the implementation, there's not much to be concerned about.

The fact that Toyota is applying Hybrid Synergy Drive to just about everything (standard equipment, and only available powertrain, on Sienna, for example), suggests that they are making money on them.

The fact that Ford is including the hybrid powertrain as standard equipment on the Maverick, on the lowest-priced Ford that you can buy (!!), suggests that they're not losing money on them, either. That the plastic engine cover was cost-reduced out ... is no great loss (means nothing to the end user). That it appears that cruise control is not included on the base model (!!) ... is purely to make people buy the next trim level or option package up (which most people are probably going to do, anyhow).
 

SunnY S

Well-known member
Site Supporter
When opportunity allows I'll go drive a Maverick , at 35% less than ridgeline it would have to be pretty awful.

Not so fast, I believe in "you get what you pay for."

The Maverick is compelling for sure and will win many buyers.

Even the "base" Ridgeline is pretty loaded. Standard AWD, V6 engine, 5000 lbs towing, all LED lighting, all the Honda Safety Suite collection avoidance stuff (Blind spot, cross traffic, forward collision warning, lane departure, road departure, collision mitigation braking, adaptive cruise, lane keep assist, Electronic Brake Distrbution, Trailer stability assist)

On top of all that, The Honda will be more refined, better quality (upgrade) materials, and I'm willing to gamble it will have a far better ride.

Oh, and I WON'T be embarrassed when I pop my hood to show people my tidy and neat looking engine. :)


I'd pay the premium easily.
 

Attachments

  • 761223.jpg
    761223.jpg
    66.6 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:

mimico_polak

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Good points in both camps...but if it's a 35% savings over the Honda...unfortunately not everyone can afford the Honda. Even looking at used ones the pricing commands a premium. Hell I saw a 2013 Honda Ridgeline with 170,000km for 24k listed recently.


While I agree depreciation will be better on the Honda...if I only have 30k...my money's going to Ford. Nothing against the Ridgeline (which I would love), but money is money.
 

Brian P

Well-known member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Maverick isn't in the same market segment as Ridgeline. It's the next size class smaller. Less $ to buy, less $ to run. (Honda hasn't yet built a hybrid Ridgeline, for example.) Of course the Ridgeline has some bells and whistles that the Maverick doesn't.

The presence or absence of a plastic engine cover has precisely 0.00% influence on my decision of whether to purchase a specific vehicle or not.
 

SunnY S

Well-known member
Site Supporter
definitely same market class appealing to the same type of buyer.

front wheel drive unibody pick ups. the Santa Cruz will join as well.

the ridgeline and santa cruz are simply upscale models.

Good on ford for offering a cheap version, they were never good at upscale products anyway.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
While I agree depreciation will be better on the Honda...if I only have 30k...my money's going to Ford. Nothing against the Ridgeline (which I would love), but money is money.
I disagree about Honda depreciation. My parents drank the kool-aid for a bit (buy a honda, they don't depreciate blah blah blah). Went to Honda to trade in a Pilot for a Pilot and Honda said the old Pilot had depreciated at $700/month but don't worry, give us your money for the new one and things will be different next time. The bought a CX5 and are very happy with it and will probably never buy another Honda.
 

Priller

Well-known member
I disagree about Honda depreciation. My parents drank the kool-aid for a bit (buy a honda, they don't depreciate blah blah blah). Went to Honda to trade in a Pilot for a Pilot and Honda said the old Pilot had depreciated at $700/month but don't worry, give us your money for the new one and things will be different next time. The bought a CX5 and are very happy with it and will probably never buy another Honda.
To be fair, I think it affects some models more than others (CR-V resale is always strong, for example), and dealer trades aren't always going to tell the same story as a private sale.

Nobody can touch Toyota, particularly as they never put their new vehicles on sale, which pushes down used values, but for the high selling or well known models (CR-V, Civic, Accord, Odyssey), Honda is still way up there.

(Just headed to their website to look at the list of models, and front and centre is the "Canadian Black Book - Best Retained Value 2021" logo for the CR-V...)
 

backmarkerducati

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Selling back to the dealer they will of course low-ball ("wholesale") value as they need to make their cut when they flip it. At the same time they may work the buy back price a bit to make the new sale, but then again if they (new sales) are flying off the lot why work it?

****
As for the plastic covers it is really a market segment/price point thing. Look at a new Benz ICE and you really don't see much workings other than covers. Look at our VW Jetta and it looks like steam punk under the hood--other cars somewhere in between. Part of it is for noise control and part for looks, both can be dropped to make a price point and/or customer expectations.
 

Mad Mike

Well-known member
European mass-market brands all got a bad reputation here ... even VW, which is well-regarded in Europe. Just imagine what would happen if Citroen or Renault were to attempt to sell something under those brand names here. The Fiat brand name isn't likely to survive much longer in North America - but they're huge in South America.

YES, the last time a Citroen or Renault was sold under their own name in North America, was before the auto industry in general had figured out corrosion protection. Japanese cars back then (1980s) rusted just as badly, but somehow they got away with it.

European roads are filled with Renaults, Citroens, Fiats, VWs and all their cousins (Seat, Skoda) as well as European Ford and GM (Opel, Vauxhall), and they seem to do okay with them ... and Honda (well-regarded here) have a hard time surviving in Europe! Seems that Australians don't buy Honda cars, either. Honda are considered to be pensioners' cars in the UK.

Modern manufacturing processes have converged in many ways. Everyone builds stuff in more-or-less the same ways using similar materials nowadays, with parts and subassemblies bought in from the same core groups of suppliers for each type of product. Buy whatever suits your needs.
True for assembly, but you can say the same about food. Mac Donald’s and the Keg get their beef, potatoes and dairy from the same suppliers, it’s what they do with the stuff and the grades they pay for that makes the difference.

Outside of VW, euro cars are not usually economical to own once the initial warranty expires. Many sell for the price of a major repair.
I used to fix them for a living. They didn't have any more problems then Ford's Powerstrokes or GMC's Duramax.

P0401 EGR issues are a common problem for all diesels.
Thing is the Fiat diesels were sold based on TCO being lower than their gas counterparts. A Jeep with a 3.0 CRD might get save 2l/100km, but that's not enough to offset the additional $10K purchase price, $250 oil changes, and the really expensive repairs. Routine failures (the when type, not the if type) of catalytic converters, DEF injectors, EGR, crank and NOx sensors plagued the Fiat eco-diesel.

All comes down to the same old problem you get with many Euro auto manufacturers, endurance and dependability engineering not included.
 

SunnY S

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Assuming you are correct then I’ll sit back and watch Ford obliterate sales in this segment vs the competition. I don’t tend to pop my hood to show off plastic covers.

And FWIW I own and love a Honda

100 percent ford will win. It's a cheaper product and always has incentives.

Doesn't mean they won't cross shop a Ridgeline and Santa Cruz.

The Honda is a premium product. Everybody knows that.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
The Honda is a premium product. Everybody knows that.
Honda sure as hell thinks this. It is right in a lot of occasions but not all the time. They are completely incapable of believing they are not the best even when they are obviously at the back of the pack with some of their vehicles (and before anyone asks, I haven't looked carefully at their current lineup so I don't know if they have any turds in it right now).
 

Dimitri

Well-known member
Thing is the Fiat diesels were sold based on TCO being lower than their gas counterparts.

If anyone buys into diesels because they think they are cheaper, then they are well fools.

Diesels have always had a higher cost of ownership. Both in initial purchase price and cost of maintenance.

And the fuel savings at the pump due to fuel economy are offset by diesel being more expensive then regular.

It's not Fiat's fault people buy into what their local sales guy says.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
If anyone buys into diesels because they think they are cheaper, then they are well fools.

Diesels have always had a higher cost of ownership. Both in initial purchase price and cost of maintenance.

And the fuel savings at the pump due to fuel economy are offset by diesel being more expensive then regular.

It's not Fiat's fault people buy into what their local sales guy says.
VW diesels came out lower on TCO if you drove a lot (pre-DEF, no idea if that generation changed the equation). Diesel is not always more that regular. It is much more stable pricing. You don't have ten cent swings in a few hours, more like a few cents over a few day while gas bounces around like a ping pong ball. They also give range that is hard for gas to touch (although it is getting closer). I drove a 2.0 TDI from Toronto to Ville-Marie to Ottawa to Flying J in Napanee on a tank. That was not babying it and giving it all it could suffer on Mattawa road. It was really hard to burn more fuel in the TDI hammering it than the current gasser burns driving like an old man. With dieselgate, that turned out to be the lowest TCO of any vehicle I will ever own (although that is obviously a special situation).
 

Top Bottom