Rival news: Ford Midsize EV Pickup's Bed / Bed Rails - first look peek

[E90400K]

It's been a slow news day in the Slate world since 24 April, 2025....

Bada boom!

 

[MotoGary]

I don't know what kind of vibe it has. We've seen this fraction of the bed rails, and a bit of the area that would be the grill on an ICE vehicle. And those have probably been bits of prototypes that may be changed significantly.
Anything else that has been posted has been just artistic renderings, mostly done with AI.

True. But that fraction of the bed rails totally screams Honda Ridgeline. 😁

 

[tgpii]

Midsize? Isn't that the maverick/ranger? What happened to mini trucks?

 

[Shrink36s]

I'm sensing fellow WIS nerds in this forum...

 

[beatle]

Midsize? Isn't that the maverick/ranger? What happened to mini trucks?

Ranger is midsize, Maverick is compact. Ford was never planning mini truck.

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

None of it will matter once these Chinese EV get their foot through the door... It is only a matter of time.
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...s-you-could-buy-5-new-chinese-evs-2026-04-28/

 

[Shrink36s]

None of it will matter once these Chinese EV get their foot through the door... It is only a matter of time.
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...s-you-could-buy-5-new-chinese-evs-2026-04-28/

The automakers have a huge lobby, and fight this like crazy, and for good reason...
https://moneywise.com/auto/auto/toyota-honda-ford-ceos-warning-china-portfolio
Now, they could pull their heads out of their rear ends and retool and rethink what they do, but will they? Doubtful. Which is really sad. My family has a long history with the automotive industry here in Michigan, and I'd really hate to see the US automakers tank completely. They will make their own beds, however, they always do.

 

[tgpii]

Ranger is midsize, Maverick is compact. Ford was never planning mini truck.

Mavetick is midsize. 80's toyota compact. Kei compact, 80/90s ranger compact. Mitsubishi mighty max compact. Dodge Ranpage compact. Subaru brat compact.

 

[tgpii]

None of it will matter once these Chinese EV get their foot through the door... It is only a matter of time.
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...s-you-could-buy-5-new-chinese-evs-2026-04-28/

Chicken tax part 2?

 

[beatle]

Mavetick is midsize. 80's toyota compact. Kei compact, 80/90s ranger compact. Mitsubishi mighty max compact. Dodge Ranpage compact. Subaru brat compact.

If the Maverick is midsize (and it's not) then what's today's Ranger? (Hint: it's a midsize.)

Kei trucks are mini. They're 3 feet shorter than the other vehicles you listed, and 2 1/2 feet shorter than even the Slate.

Like it or not, the Maverick and Santa Cruz are the only compact trucks sold in the US today. The size classes are not frozen in time. They're just used to compare across vehicles of a similar size available at the same time.

Also, the F100 is about the same length as the Maverick.

 

[tgpii]

If the Maverick is midsize (and it's not) then what's today's Ranger? (Hint: it's a midsize.)

Kei trucks are mini. They're 3 feet shorter than the other vehicles you listed, and 2 1/2 feet shorter than even the Slate.

Like it or not, the Maverick and Santa Cruz are the only compact trucks sold in the US today. The size classes are not frozen in time. They're just used to compare across vehicles of a similar size available at the same time.

Also, the F100 is about the same length as the Maverick.

In 1997 my first car/truck was a 1987 regular cab toyota pickup. That was compact.

 

[Shrink36s]

This compact vs midsized debate is easily settled by the standards of the industry. These are not opinions.
Compact is smaller and most often built upon a compact SUV unibody, better fuel economy. Full-size, body-on-frame, larger, pour fuel economy, and built for towing and hauling (and running over children due to huge blind spots in the front and rear). Mid-size is in between, typically body-on-frame, but there are some unibody designs, and meets in the middle.
Maverick is compact, along side the Santa Cruz, and Subaru Baja of years past. Ranger, Colorado, Tacoma, etc. are mid-sized body-on-frame, and the Honda Ridgeline an example of unibody mid-sized.
The Slate is compact like the Maverick, Santa Cruz’s, and Baja.
The kei/mini trucks are much smaller, and kei specifically have a very well defined maximum size it can be, and it’s small.
The El Camino was something different, considered a coupe utility vehicle. Modified station wagon with a cab and integrated bed. Not a truck. Which, to me, seems like a better classification for the Baja and Santa Cruz, but I’m not the decision maker.
There is truck class 1-8 as well, which is about gross vehicle weight. The maximum weight the vehicle can operate under. That has zero to do with size. If one could make a kei sized truck manage to haul 33,000+ pounds, it could be a class 8!

 

[kvermeer]

This compact vs midsized debate is easily settled by the standards of the industry. These are not opinions.
Compact is smaller and most often built upon a compact SUV unibody, better fuel economy. Full-size, body-on-frame, larger, pour fuel economy, and built for towing and hauling (and running over children due to huge blind spots in the front and rear). Mid-size is in between, typically body-on-frame, but there are some unibody designs, and meets in the middle.

The "standards of the industry" have been shifted by that industry to sell bigger, more costly, more profitable trucks.

There's no reason that compact trucks couldn't be built on a frame. My old '93 Ranger was, and it was smaller than most new "compact" trucks.

There's no reason that a full-sized truck intended for street use has to have huge blind spots front and rear because it's lifted on 36s with a 6' hood like some Tonka truck. You want to see something with real tow capacity? Look around before your next flight for the airport tug pushing your 100,000lbs 737 back to the jetbridge: Barely taller than their tires, perfect unrestricted visibility in all directions, more tow capacity than a whole dealership full of F150s!

I don't think that Slate should feel compelled to adhere to the norms of the North American auto industry. That kind of thinking is what's killing pedestrians and killing our economy! Build a small truck that's a small truck from the start, regardless of frame configuration and suspension height.

 

[Shrink36s]

The "standards of the industry" have been shifted by that industry to sell bigger, more costly, more profitable trucks.

There's no reason that compact trucks couldn't be built on a frame. My old '93 Ranger was, and it was smaller than most new "compact" trucks.

There's no reason that a full-sized truck intended for street use has to have huge blind spots front and rear because it's lifted on 36s with a 6' hood like some Tonka truck. You want to see something with real tow capacity? Look around before your next flight for the airport tug pushing your 100,000lbs 737 back to the jetbridge:

Ummmm, what part of what I posted do you actually have issue with?
I was simply remarking at the silly back and forth regarding size opinions when standards are out there.
I figured my comment about running over children due to blindspots would have made it clear what I think of how large trucks have gotten…
Regardless of the standards changing, today they have definition of size. You can believe a Maverick is a mid-size or a kei, or that a Colorado is really a full-size because 1965 exists, and that’s your prerogative. You will just be wrong, definitionally, when applying the standards of the now.
Want to have a debate on opinions of those standards, in support of or against, that’s a different discussion than whether or not these trucks meet a well defined standard.
Or maybe you just didn’t read my whole post…
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[KevinRS]

Ummmm, what part of what I posted do you actually have issue with?
I was simply remarking at the silly back and forth regarding size opinions when standards are out there.
I figured my comment about running over children due to blindspots would have made it clear what I think of how large trucks have gotten…
Regardless of the standards changing, today they have definition of size. You can believe a Maverick is a mid-size or a kei, or that a Colorado is really a full-size because 1965 exists, and that’s your prerogative. You will just be wrong, definitionally, when applying the standards of the now.
Want to have a debate on opinions of those standards, in support of or against, that’s a different discussion than whether or not these trucks meet a well defined standard.
Or maybe you just didn’t read my whole post…
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The industry, and reviewers have defined the Maverick, Gladiator, Ridgeline, and more as compact trucks, Of course if you look up a list of mid sized trucks half of the list overlaps with the compact list, even from the same site. But that is just because there are no smaller options available. Smaller trucks got discontinued or got bigger.
Most people if they walked up to a maverick by itself or among vehicles that aren't trucks or SUVs wouldn't describe it as small, or as compact, but they only go up from there.
If you aren't around trucks all the time you don't realize how big they have gotten unless you really start paying attention. I am 6'1" and sitting in my compact car, which is a 4 door sedan, not a ground hugging sportscar, my eyeline is below the top of the beds of most of these trucks. The mid to full sized ones don't fit in parking spots. It isn't that way with older trucks.

The "Standards" aren't standards. They are whatever someone decides to call them, unless there is actually some kind of number attached.