• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.