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.
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.