Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

The Absurdly Obvious Case for a Plug-in Ford Maverick

C’mon Ford. Don’t let me down.

A Ford Maverick.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Ford

Automakers sit at the towering heights of global capitalism. Nearly every important industry or commodity — steel, rubber, chemicals, semiconductors, minerals, and, of course, oil — feeds into car-making. Car companies receive so much government support that their brands often come to symbolize the state itself: Volkswagen, Toyota, and Ford are arguably more tied up with their countries’ national histories than, say, currywurst, sushi, or cheeseburgers.

Undertaking the construction of a wholly new car is such an expensive and arduous challenge that multiple automakers will often collaborate on it, creating a “platform” that involves a shared chassis and a set of interlocking components.

So it would be folly — if not outright delusion — to look at one of these companies and tell them that they should make a car for no reason other than that you want them to. Surely Ford Motor Company has better things to do than read a column and decide to shift its product line accordingly.

But that is what I’m going to do.

Ford should take its compact Maverick pickup truck — the smallest truck in their fleet — and release it as a plug-in hybrid. Here are the seven reasons why.

1. I want them to.

I like little trucks. I realize this is a character deficiency, and a somewhat unusual vice for my demographic: I’m a city-dwelling climate-change reporter who has no particular love for the canyon-face monsters that make up most modern pickup lines. But it’s hopefully a forgivable one.

2. It would be good for compact pickup trucks.

Forty years ago, if you wanted a compact pickup, you could have bought the trusty little Ford Ranger, a 15-foot bear cub of a truck that weighed a mere ton and could haul up to 1,600 pounds. The Ranger was a revolution, signaling that American automakers weren’t content to cede the compact pickup market to Japanese brands like Mazda and Toyota.

Ford Ranger.U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration via Wikimedia Commons.

Then compact pickups began to vanish. Toyota’s sprightly Tacoma, once a tail-wagger of a utility vehicle, slowly became super-sized. Ford stopped making the Ranger in 2012. By the middle of the 2010s, essentially no small trucks were available on the American market

Recently, compacts have started to come back. Ford brought back the Ranger, although the new model is as sleek and functional as a linebacker. Hyundai has released the Santa Cruz, the closest thing in America to the venerable Australian ute. Then in 2021, Ford started making the Maverick. At 16-feet long and 3,600 pounds, it’s bulkier and heavier — but not much bigger — than the chipper Rangers of yore. The Maverick is so popular that Ford had to stop taking orders for it last year. And while the Mav is currently offered as a hybrid … Ford could do better.

3. It would be good for plug-in hybrids.

I take it as a given that Ford will eventually release an all-electric Maverick. But in the meantime, a plug-in hybrid would be potentially more useful. Here’s why.

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or PHEV, is just what it sounds like: a car or truck that has a gas tank and a battery that gets a little bit of range — maybe 30 miles. That larger battery differentiates a PHEV from a conventional hybrid, like the Prius (or the current Maverick hybrid), whose battery can only propel the car shorter distances or regenerate energy during braking.

PHEVs are more expensive than hybrids, and they have a reputation for being, well, the jazz choirs of power trains: By trying to do too much at once, they don’t do anything well.

Theoretically, you can use the gas tank in a PHEV as a backup power source, making short errands using only the battery. But a recent study from Transport & Environment, a European think tank, found that some PHEVs fell short of their advertised electric range, and therefore emitted five to seven times as much CO₂ in cities as claimed. And because of the weight of their batteries, PHEVs also require more gasoline than conventional hybrids.

But for all their downsides, PHEVs remain the best way for city-dwellers like me who don’t have EV chargers at home to take part in the EV revolution. I also only drive a few times a month — probably not often enough to justify locking up precious (and still scarce) EV metals in a vehicle that will mostly sit around on the street. Most of my trips are to the grocery store, which has charging in the parking lot. For a certain kind of consumer — i.e., me, the city-dwelling compact-pickup lover — a PHEV is ideal for right now.

4. Ford may have already done it.

According to MotorTrend, someone spotted a Ford Maverick last year with all-wheel drive and a PHEV power train. So it’s out there. It might be sitting in a Batcave-style basement somewhere in Michigan, but someone has done it.

5. A Ford spokesman told me they weren’t doing it, and it would be funny if they changed their mind.

“There’s no current need for a PHEV,” Mike Levine, a Ford spokesman, told me in an email, when I told him I was writing this story.

The “Maverick hybrid is incredibly efficient (40 mpg city) and affordable. The EPA estimates that Maverick hybrid’s total annual fuel cost is just $1,500,” he said. On top of that, Ford only sells one PHEV at the moment: a Ford Escape variant that goes for about $40,000. The Maverick, by comparison, starts at about $22,500.

6. It’s time for Millennials to buy their last gas car, their ‘forever’ truck — and the PHEV Maverick is a good one.

Let’s stipulate a few things. The first is that even if the United States aggressively ramps up the rollout of electric vehicles, gasoline — which is a fossil fuel! — will be available for a long time. The Biden administration hopes that EVs will make up 50% of new car sales in 2030 and 66% of new sales in 2032. That means that gas-burning cars will by definition make up half of the new car fleet in 2030 and one-third of the fleet in 2032. Under the EPA’s current proposal, most new heavy-duty trucks sold in those years will burn gasoline or diesel, too.

A rollout that quick may be delusional — you can make a plausible case that the EV transition will go faster or slower than the government believes. But if we assume that it’s a plausible base case, then we can also conclude that gas-burning cars will remain on the road well into the late 2040s. They might be costly to run and face extremely high fees in some places; driving one may incur some social stigma, like smoking indoors today; gasoline itself may even become a specialty rural fuel. But without a mandatory federal buy-back program of internal-combustion cars, it will probably be no rarer to see a gas car in the year 2050 than it is to see, say, a Subaru Baja today.

And that will be bad. Fossil fuels cause climate change. We should aim to eliminate them from society as soon as possible. But if you are alive in the 2040s, God willing, then you probably won’t be running to the Wal-mazon Mart in a gas car. Most vehicle miles traveled in the year 2050 probably won’t involve gasoline or diesel.

But it’s plausible that you, you Aging Millennial, may — you just may — have a gas-powered truck in your garage, one that you almost never use but that reminds you of your younger, freer days. One that mostly sits there, smiling idly, til you take it out to give the grandkids a ride around the farm or haul the occasional stump. A trusty, plastic-cladded friend. A golden retriever of a vehicle.

A plug-in hybrid Ford Maverick.

7. I could put stuff in the back.

Can you help your friend move with a Prius Prime? Can you carry some flat-packed bookshelves home from an Ikea run? Can you carry an unused mattress to the dump? Don’t answer that because you actually can do all three things with a Prius. But it would be way more fun to do it with a truck.

Yellow

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

A Rare Earths Civil War

On Last Energy’s milestone, California CCS, and RFK Jr. vs. microplastics

A mining truck.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: The summerlike heat in the Northeast is set to drop by double digits as cold Canadian air blows southward, sending temperatures in Boston as low as 50 degrees Fahrenheit by Saturday • Temperatures are nearing 100 degrees in Cordoba, Spain, as Western Europe’s record-breaking heatwave continues • Juba is also nearly 100 degrees as heavy thunderstorms roll into the capital of conflict-riven South Sudan.


THE TOP FIVE

1. America’s two rare earths champions are fighting each other

Last year, in a move so bold it made Biden administration officials jealous, President Donald Trump took an equity stake in MP Materials, making the federal government the largest shareholder in the United States’ only active domestic rare earths producer. The deal became a trend, with the U.S. government taking minority ownership stakes in at least a dozen more companies that produce or process critical minerals, of which China controls the global supply. In January, USA Rare Earth, a manufacturer of rare earth magnets that aims to eventually mine and process fresh ore in Texas, became the second large rare earths-focused company in the Trump administration’s portfolio. Now America’s two champions in the war against China’s metal monopolies are instead battling each other. On Wednesday afternoon, the Financial Times reported that MP Materials had filed a lawsuit against USA Rare Earth, accusing its rival of “stealing” its technology for making the permanent magnets that go into everything from phones and electronics to electric vehicles to fighter jets. “USA Rare Earth has repeatedly failed to meet its commercial and performance targets and is now resorting to stealing technology to dig itself out,” MP Materials alleged in a complaint filed last week in Texas court. In response, USA Rare Earth said: “MP Materials’ complaint has misrepresented our company, our culture, and our people, and we will defend ourselves vigorously.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Climate Tech

Climate Tech Bets on Space

In space, no one can oppose your data center.

Solar panels in space.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Wikimedia Commons

An investment boom is exploding in outer space. Investors have thrown their backing behind space-based solar power, orbital data centers, and even extraterrestrial power grids. SpaceX is pursuing an IPO — potentially the largest the world has ever seen — in part to fund its own off-Earth data center ambitions. The Space Foundation reported that the global space economy reached $613 billion in 2024, combining commercial revenue and government funding, while PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the sector could grow to reach $2 trillion by 2040, largely driven by private sector innovation and support.

Different though they may be, these technologies all leverage the vast unknown outside our atmosphere to monitor, manage, and optimize terrestrial energy and climate systems.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
AM Briefing

Nuclear Option

On Chinese nuclear exports, Canadian LNG, and Otovos U.S. push

Plutonium storage.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: The French government has recorded at least seven deaths linked to the record early heatwave roasting Western Europe • New York City’s springtime temperature swing is surging upward to about 85 degrees Fahrenheit before dropping back into the 60s later this week • Temperatures in Berbera, the prized Red Sea port city in the de facto independent state of Somaliland, are revving up to 100 degrees today.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Trump wants to give weapons-grade plutonium to nuclear startups to use as fuel

The Trump administration is considering handing over leftover weapons-grade plutonium that was set to be buried to companies that aim to use the highly radioactive material as reactor fuel. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy selected five finalists to submit plans to safely transfer the plutonium from a government stockpile. The companies include fuel maker Standard Nuclear, waste reprocessor Exodys Energy, fusion company Shine Technologies, and reactor developers Flibe Energy and Oklo. The move is sure to draw criticism from non-proliferation experts who worry that, unlike the low-enriched uranium used as fuel in conventional reactors, plutonium increases the threat of a rogue actor obtaining material for a bomb. “Countries have tried this before, and they concluded that, as nice as it would be to use that plutonium as fuel, it’s really just a liability and we need to dispose of it permanently,” Scott Roecker, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told The New York Times. In an emailed statement to me, Shine Technologies CEO Greg Piefer said the access to fuel solves “one of the hardest problems in the advanced reactor industry right now.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow