Anyone else ordered or got a Ford Maverick?

[NoTrespassing]

Whatever the choice; I cannot imagine buying another vehicle that doesn't have 4W disk brakes.

That's what I thought until my Mazda3 ate the rear pads in 50K miles. The front pads are still about 50%. I asked my local trusted mechanic about it and he said it's not unusual on many of the small late model cars to eat rear brake pads these days. He actually claimed he'd take rear drums over discs.

 

[ruffdog]

That's what I thought until my Mazda3 ate the rear pads in 50K miles. The front pads are still about 50%. I asked my local trusted mechanic about it and he said it's not unusual on many of the small late model cars to eat rear brake pads these days. He actually claimed he'd take rear drums over discs.

Swept area of rear drums is way more than the dinky rear disk brakes.

 

[ruffdog]

Differences between the cheaper hybrid and an optioned out Maverick:

 

[Oaktree]

That's what I thought until my Mazda3 ate the rear pads in 50K miles. The front pads are still about 50%. I asked my local trusted mechanic about it and he said it's not unusual on many of the small late model cars to eat rear brake pads these days. He actually claimed he'd take rear drums over discs.

Swept area of rear drums is way more than the dinky rear disk brakes.

Curiously, what's the reasoning behind drums in the rear on some vehicles? Is it just a cost saving move or is there science behind it?

 

[NoTrespassing]

Curiously, what's the reasoning behind drums in the rear on some vehicles? Is it just a cost saving move or is there science behind it?

I was always under the impression disc brakes were more efficient and most of the stopping power comes from the front wheels. My mechanic commented that the rear discs get covered in more grime/dirt etc. and could contribute to increased wear.

 

[M59]

Oaktree,

Rear drums vs disk brakes. The front brakes do 90+ percent of the braking work so the choice of rear drum vs disk is largely one of additional performance in braking vs component/ assembly cost. Drum brakes are dirt cheap to build and assemble. Disk brakes on all 4 wheels are associated with "better" performance by general public.

The average and even the above average driver is not going to use and is probably incapable of using the increased braking performance associated with rear disc brakes.

 

[sd455dan]

Wow, that's the first time I've heard of a tacoma being described as "too big". Stepson has one (I think his is a '12), barely enough legroom for me to fit in it, maybe 40?" bed not big enough to be useful for much of anything.

Let's be real, most if not all 70s vehicles were barely tolerable. That decade wasn't exactly the high point of automotive excellence. The old Maverick wasn't too bad, it was the next generation of the Falcon. Attractive styling.

Yeah, between the first year blues of any new/redesigned vehicle, you have to wonder what corners were cut to reach the price point they're being sold at too.

Meh. Never had much use for any of those 80s vintage Japanese trucks. Too small, woefully underpowered and they all rusted like a brillo pad. Pretty rare to see one more than a couple years old with the original bed, fenders were the next to go. Considered them little more than toy trucks.

Other than Maverick what else? I'm not counting when a discontinued model is brought back as the same body style (ie-Bronco or Ranger).

yeah don't forget the wonderful ride quality either.

One of my friends was a Datsun/ Nissan salesman back in the mid 80's.

We went four wheeling in my 77 Jeep Honcho and were about to get into the rough stuff. He instinctively put his arm up and braced it against the ceiling.
J10 fully articulated through the rough and sucked up the bumps. He said I just cant believe this Jeep soaked up all of that.
If this had been one of the brand new Nissan 4x4's I sell, we both would have needed neck braces after having our heads beaten in by the roof.
A few months later his dad bought a lightly used J10 as well.

Really like the new Maverick Ford has a winner along with the Tremor

 

[Oaktree]

Oaktree,

Rear drums vs disk brakes. The front brakes do 90+ percent of the braking work so the choice of rear drum vs disk is largely one of additional performance in braking vs component/ assembly cost. Drum brakes are dirt cheap to build and assemble. Disk brakes on all 4 wheels are associated with "better" performance by general public.

The average and even the above average driver is not going to use and is probably incapable of using the increased braking performance associated with rear disc brakes.

Yeah, kind of what I figured. Brake design for a truck must be a lot more complicated than a car/SUV due to the front/rear weight imbalance (not to mention loaded vs empty differences).

 

[Jstpssng]

Yeah, kind of what I figured. Brake design for a truck must be a lot more complicated than a car/SUV due to the front/rear weight imbalance (not to mention loaded vs empty differences).

GM put discs on their pickups sometime around the mid ‘90s if I’m not mistaken. After a couple of years they went back to drums for a while; the passenger side pads kept breaking. The reason or theory I heard was that there was a lot of road debris kicked up on that side, whereas the the fuel tank on the driver’s side protected the pads somehow. Whatever reason, they’ve gone back to discs.

I believe that drums may work better with heavy loads. The only disc trailer brakes I see are for 2000 lb axles; any heavier all that you can find is drums.

 

[RalphVa]

Maverick is 4w discs.