[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/o/ - Auto

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 82 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!




File: 1200x-1.jpg (246 KB, 1200x900)
246 KB
246 KB JPG
>>
>>25765833
What's wrong?
>>
>>25765835
People who live in urban areas
>>
File: DOWANT.jpg (7 KB, 274x184)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
They were thing let's build something that will sell like hotcakes and we can make money on. Don't worry if you don't like it OP. It's sold out with no end in sight. I'll probably trade my Ranger for one in a few years when demand subsides. You can go out and get a Santa Cruz, plenty of stock available on those.
>>
>>25765864
>I'll probably trade my Ranger for one
But why? Ranger is a Maverick but better.
>>
>>25765833
95% of truck owners should have been using a honda ridgeline for years now, the Maverick the the same.
This is just the drop in replacement for the insecure shits who couldn't accept all their truck related tasks where Honda truck tier.
>>
>>25765835
see
>>25765937
>>
Nothing wrong with it
>>
>>25765833
It's just a truck that doesn't rely on a floppy-ass ladder frame.
>>
>>25765864
Kinda OT but assuming it's a current-gen Ranger, how are you liking it? I'm in the market to get something in the next month or so and keep coming back around to one, seems to fit all of my requirements better than anything else on the market does.
>>
>>25766149
So you get a $7k body shop job when a shopping cart hits the bed?
>>
>>25765835
>no AWD or RWD options without downgrading from hybrid to ecotoot effectively paying a premium just to make it a shittier ranger but LARPers gotta LARP
>no full or longbox, stuck with quadcab+chodebox because unibody so other configurations are cost-prohibitive for an introductory run

Otherwise bretty gud.

>>25765937
Ranger is undoubtedly a better truck but that should be obvious when the Maverick isn't even a truck to begin with; it's an ecoshitbox with a bed instead of a trunk and it does a better job of that than the nuRanger can.
>>
>>25766226
I think a reasonable case can be made for the AWD Mav. You can put a pretty decent spec one together for about 30k, while a Ranger with similar equipment is more like 40, and the Mav gets 30+ on the highway while the Ranger is 24 at best. If you just want a DD with modern convenience features and a small bed it seems like a reasonable alternative to the Ranger. Personally I'm still gonna go with the Ranger or something similar but if the Mav Tremor were out and available at a reasonable price I'd be very tempted by it.
>>
>>25766249
You can get a 4x4 4 door half ton for $35-40k and cheaper if you're willing to sacrifice some things. The Mav would be a good option if you got a nice interior and shit like adaptive cruise for that $30k but a $30k Mav is still shitty. A half ton or even a Ranger is going to have a much, much higher resale value so the upfront cost is pretty irrelevant.
>>
>>25766167
Other way around. Instead of a minor collision causing frame replacement, you'd just repair the section affected. Unibody has its benefits.
>>
>>25766260
The maverick is the truck for the average truck buyer. The guy who tows a small landscaping or a couple engines a few times a year.
>>
>>25766262
>a minor collision causing frame replacement
Do you have any idea how hard it is to bend a proper truck frame? A crash that bad will 100% write off a unibody truck.

>>25766267
Half tons fulfill the same function hence why they're the best selling vehicles in the world. There's no point in driving a compromised "truck" to save a couple MPG.
>>
>>25765835
>What's wrong?
Unibody has its benefits, but for a truck bed under load, it means the car owner must pay constant and careful attention to corrosion especially when used in a salty environment. This is because putting weight in the truck bed could cause unibody welds and unibody seams to break, torsion, or tear apart.
>>
>>25766279
Insurance say otherwise. The ladder frame costs more than the total worth of vehicle? It gets totaled. Body panels are cheaper to fix and aren't written off unless it destroys the shock tower.
>>
>>25766312
>Body panels are cheaper to fix
No they aren't... This is why modern vehicles get written off so easily. Modern paint is extremely hard to match.
>>
>>25766279
Well their target demo seems to disagree because they're apparently selling like hotcakes
>>
Its like an Ecosport but actually useful
>>
>>25766320
Not anywhere near half tons and even 3/4 tons. Sorry but they're just not good vehicles for your money. Just because they manage to sell every unit of a 20k unit production run doesn't mean people want them.
>>
>>25765833
When I drive past the kids they all spit and cus
Because I’ve got a bitchen Camaro and they have to ride the bus
>>
>>25766325
>it’s like something completely gay but slightly better
Not that I believe you, but, ok.
>>
>>25766332
Fucking hell that's hideous.
>>
>>25766335
Post your car manlet.
>>
>>25766338
Which one? I'm 6'2'' btw. Just remember they're laughing with you kek.
>>
File: fdgdfg.jpg (92 KB, 946x532)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
Should have made it easy to remove the rear row and made a bed cap standard so you could have hueg internal storage space.
>>
>>25766326
They sold 75k mavericks in May alone and the maverick represented 10% of their total sales year to date. You can keep coping however you like but the maverick is a small truck that people want
>>
>>25766360
and they probably sold 750k F-150's... I'm sure beyond burgers sell pretty well but not as much as a beef cheeseburger. That doesn't mean that's what the people want. Also orders to not equal delivered vehicles. Don't be like a Teslafag.
>>
>>25766353
They might do that. They have a patent for adding a pass through to the bed for ac and heat.
>>
>>25766375
>probably

Ooof
>>
>>25766320
how can they be 'selling like hotcakes' when stock is limited due to the chip shortage and they're all sold out? can't have it both ways faggot.
>>
>>25766162
>assuming it's a current-gen Ranger, how are you liking it?
I went from a 2WD RC 2nd gen Ranger to the CC 4x4 '21. I like the new truck but climbing in and out is a chore compared to the 2nd gen, the bed height is a pain to load and unload and I used the 4x4 once. I bought it in part to tow my 5k lb camper, but I still have a 4.6 Explorer capable of that. The Ranger is a good truck but I still find myself taking my 1st gen whenever I want to put something in the bed because it's easier to load/unload.

Maverick would achieve that goal with better emmpeegees to boot. Snow tires and FWD would work just fine.
>>
>>25766408
You sound like a fat manlet.
>>
>>25766411
Not wrong.
>>
File: big.LITTLE trucks.jpg (905 KB, 3674x2066)
905 KB
905 KB JPG
>>25765833
>What the fuck were they thinking?
wow there's a lot of retards buying up our used F150s for +20k, and they don't even use it for truck stuff.
lets make an ecobox for that market.
>>
>>25766260
Not so much these days, you're lucky to get a half ton for MSRP and that's close to 50k for a crew cab 4x4 now, and around 40k for a Ranger with similar options to the Mav. Obviously you're getting much more capable vehicles but if you just want shit like heated seats, leather steering wheel, decent infotainment with carplay, and so on there's a nearly 10k gap between each size of pickup. If the old deals DO come back the Mav will probably get discounted pretty heavily too, wouldn't surprise me if it was 5k+ off that 30k config judging by pre-2020 discounts on Ford crossovers.
The resale value thing is reasonable but not as much of a factor as overall price for a lot of people.

>>25766408
>Snow tires and FWD would work just fine.
Not where I'm about to move, unfortunately. Anything that isn't 4x4 legally has to run chains and that's a massive pain in the ass. I'm not too bothered about the height, it'll be something to get used to since I've spent my life driving low sporty cars but I didn't find it too hard to get into, even compared to other midsize trucks, and I think I can live with the bed height for the stuff I'm gonna do with it. (I wish it had the bumper steps of the new gen though.)
>>
>>25766447
>Not so much these days, you're lucky to get a half ton for MSRP and that's close to 50k for a crew cab 4x4 now
Yeah no that's a load of shit. The Ram dealer lots are full of trucks again and they're offering 10%+ discounts on them. Even if you have to spend $10k more than a Maverick you will get it back on the resale value. Nobody is going to buy a miled out Ford with a CVT.
>>
>>25766458
10k more than Maverick gets you a V6 Regular cab "Classic" 1500 with steelies
>>
>>25766506
No you're being dumb.
>>
>>25766514
Buying a Ram is dumb. The warranty is 3/36 because they know the ball joints and tie rod ends and everything else in the front end will be shot at 40k miles.
>>
>>25766525
Why do you think Ford sells so many trucks? They fall apart after 4 years and their dumb owners keep buying them. Both are shitty vehicles.
>>
the only thing wrong with the maverick is fwd
>>
>>25766398
>not selling like hot cakes
>sold out
Damn dude you got me.
>>
>>25765833
I get a stupid amount of interest in mine. I get stopped in parking lots everywhere I go by people that want to ask me about it and take a look inside. Had a few people even ask to sit in it. Turns out you will sell a ton of vehicles if you give people something affordable, seats 5, gets 40+mpg and has the utility of an open bed.
>>
>>25766334
People buy crossovers even if they're gay. Maverick is a crossover with a bed.
>>
>>25766375
Lol, you fucking retard, ford sold literally every maverick they could make and there are still tens of thousand of order from the 2022 model year that are being pushed into the 2023 model year. The mental gymnastics you need to engage in to somehow believe the maverick has been anything other than an incredible success is mind boggling.
>>
>>25766585
>wheels
>>
>>25765835
the ford Maverick used to be a car.
why the fuck they would take the model name of a car and use it to name a truck

fucking clown world retarded fucks
>>
>>25766704
You’re the only one that gives a shit about a dumb car name from decades before you were born.
>>
>>25766319
Merely a skill issue, for you.
>>
>>25766748
fuck off zoomer
>>
>>25766787
Kill yourself incel
>>
Basically all modern vehicles are cheap throwaway shit.
>>
>>25765833
"Let's make a trugg for country girls"
>>
>>25765833
Screenshot this. The Ford Maverick will be recalled due to issues with the 110 watt outlet inside of the cabin. My friend who owns one had his outlet shortout and filled his cabin with smoke as it burned up. This happened despite never even using it and now it's at the dealership waiting for the top dogs at Ford to come investigate thr issue.
>>
>we have a bunch of Escape parts laying around
>how can we package them just well enough to sell them to retards?
>oh lets congeal them into a crossover with a bed

>hhhhhnnnng
>hhhhhnnnnnnnnnggg
>oohhh god it's finally sliding out of our ass
>hnnnnnnnnnnnnngggg
>splash

We'll call it the Maverick.
>>
File: gayht.jpg (24 KB, 349x173)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>25766458
>The Ram dealer lots are full of trucks again and they're offering 10%+ discounts on them
Maybe in Canada or some shit. Here in the country that 99.9% of people are talking about the best you're gonna find is $3k off at some random midwest dealerships and that's if they're not tacking on $5k of scam "accessories" like a lot of dealers are doing these days. A Ram 1500 with equivalent features to a $30k Mav is also $50k so even if you *did* get 10% off it'd still be $45k anyway.

Also, captcha says half tons are gay.
>>
I like it, just waiting for AWD+Hybrid option, they got the parts for it just wanted to keep it simple on the first run. Should happen by the next body refresh at worst.
>>
>>25766353
Isn't this just an Escape?

>>25766408
I hate bed heights and how fucking tall trucks are. Who the fuck wants to lift shit that high?
>>
>>25767063
AWD + PHEV would be nice.
>>
>>25766433
I wish minitrucks were a thing again.
>>
>>25767042
Have you ever bought a new car?
>>
>>25766167
>caring about bumps and scratches on a 20k truck
>>
>>25766692
Meds.
>>
man oh man you maverick haters are all bus riders lmaooooo
>>
File: 1629641156655.jpg (239 KB, 1024x883)
239 KB
239 KB JPG
>>25766704
>>
File: thisiswhattheytook.jpg (1002 KB, 2016x1512)
1002 KB
1002 KB JPG
>>25767082
>I hate bed heights and how fucking tall trucks are. Who the fuck wants to lift shit that high?

Sad. Many such cases.
>>
>>25766375
>insecure truckold
>seething about the maverick
Many such cases. Sad!
>>
>>25768153
Oven
>>
>>25766704
After 20 years nameplates go back into the general use pile and any manufacturer can start using it.
That's why the Cougar was was brought back 20 years ago as a rebadged mazda- so Ford could retain the nameplate for another 20 years.
Since Ford is limited on how many models they currently offer but they had an upcoming "truck" they were able to once again retain a nameplate but didn't have to waste resources on a dead end model to do it.
>>
>>25766447
I can slap on a good set of chains in 3 minutes. They're not a big deal.
Just don't buy some rubber band and cable garbage from vatozone.
>>
File: test_wood_377x340.jpg (17 KB, 377x340)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>25766353
Chebby did that 20 years ago
>>
File: black-lagoon.gif (3 MB, 498x498)
3 MB
3 MB GIF
>>25767524
me too, anon... me too
>>
>>25765833
I would have far less problems with it if only they didn't make it ugly as shit. also
>155lb-ft
>tiny bed
lel
>>
>>25768496
It's still an extra pain in the ass that I'd really prefer not to deal with, and a major problem is that they make you run them when the snow is light and intermittent, or well before the actual snowline when it's higher up into the mountains, so you end up constantly having to buy new chains because they get destroyed from running on mostly bare pavement. It also forces you to drive way slower than the conditions allow for on proper winter tires. These chain laws are mostly to keep lowlanders from hauling ass on bald all seasons and causing pileups and there's a reason everybody who actually lives in these areas drives 4wd with snow tires or winter-rated ATs.
>>
>>25766360
They’ve sold 45k Mavericks year to date, they sold less than 7,000 in July.

I’ve seen cars with better sales figures canceled on multiple occasions.
>>
>>25768663
Also it’s important to note the Ranger has sold almost 30k less at this point than it did last year - meaning the Maverick is likely taking sales away from other Ford vehicles which is a huge no-no. One of them is going to get cancelled in short order.
>>
>>25768675
Ranger will get axed.
It no longer fills its niche.
>>
>>25766353
I agree. If the bed cap was sealed against the cab and the bed cap doesn't have a window it still would be great for dogs or short people to sleep in.
>>
>>25768675
Try to buy a Ranger and you'll very quickly understand why they're not selling. Ford dealers are fucking scum and actual sale prices on a $40k MSRP XLT FX4 have gone from $34k or less in 2020 to $44-50k after markups, ripoff accessories, etc. Even if you were willing to pay those insane prices it's hard to find models people actually want anyway, dealer lots are overflowing with 2WD work trucks and $50k sticker Lariat Tremors (that the dealer wants you to pay $55k+ for) but well-optioned midrange trucks, the ones people actually buy, are practically nonexistent.

On top of that, there's a whole new Ranger coming next year, so a lot of people are probably waiting for that as well. Ford also seems to be making moves to separate it more from the Maverick, prototypes have been spotted in crew cab long bed configurations and rumor is that it'll be the standard setup. It seems like the new order of things is really gonna be that the Mav takes the old Ranger's place, the Ranger will be the modern equivalent of a '90s F150, and the F150 is moving more toward being the luxury option and sized in between traditional 3/4 ton.
>>
>>25768518
But it got 13 mpg
>>
>>25765833
They know that most people that own trucks are just larping and want the image that owning a truck provides them. So Ford went out and reskinned an Escape to give people a cheap, small truck because they know people aren't actually working with their trucks.
>inb4 "I actually use my truck!!!!!!"
>>
>>25766411
>You sound like a fat manlet.
Like the majority of americans
>>
>>25765833
They thought people wanted a dedicated mall crawler when what they really want is a real trugg with mall crawl configuration for crawling malls and occasionally pulling a boat(or at least knowing you could if you ever wanted)
>>
>>25768770
>$4k-$10k mark up
I was at a toyatoa dealership and they had an $85k land rover listed for $127k.
Yes, the window sticker literally had a line that said "market adjustment- $42,000"
>>
>>25768675
The Ranger is supposed to be getting an update that puts it on the new Bronco frame/platform. I think the rest of the world should be getting it this fall, but the US update has to wait until next year, so there's probably fewer people looking at Rangers. And it's showing its age even compared to the Tacoma. At least, I can't think of many redeeming qualities the Ranger has compared to the other midsizes.

>>25768770
Even if dealers had the mid-optioned Rangers, Ford has so many seemingly meaningless options that the dealer would fuck it up anyway.
>crew cab long bed as standard
Better than GM's stupidity of only doing the international typical CC square bed. At least Toyota pretends you get an option, even though dealers only stock crew cab square beds.
>>
>>25768817
Yeah Toyota dealers are fucking shysters too. What makes it really bad with them is also that Toyota doesn't even do custom orders so you're completely stuck with what dealers have and what they want to charge for it.

>>25768820
It's more than "supposed to," it's already out in Australia. Lots of reviews on youtube, though they're only a partial window into what the US version will be like because the drivetrains are completely different and we'll probably get a restyled front end like the current gen as well.

As for the beds, I personally don't mind the square bed, midsize trucks are very much compromise vehicles in my eyes and the shorter wheelbase and overall length is one of the main advantages, but it's nice that a longer one will at least be an option, and Ford is one of the better companies in terms of special ordering stuff as long as you can find a dealer who won't fuck you in the process.
>>
File: aqua jew.jpg (459 KB, 1280x720)
459 KB
459 KB JPG
>>25768153
allergy med taken, what now?
>>
>>25765835
No manual
>>
>>25766857
Country girls drive jeeps though
>>
>>25766433
Manufacturer Mindset:
>everyone who buys a good thing secondhand should actually be buying a new bad thing instead
>>
>>25766857
>>25769453
Country girls drive F-150s. (Or 350+ if they have horses.) Men either drive HDs or the occasional off roaded out midsize.
>>
File: good.jpg (124 KB, 625x770)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>25769423
They are gone/going and they are not coming back because they are inferior to modern computer controlled solenoid autos with more ratios.

Cope and seethe.
>>
File: 1594262354203.gif (2.53 MB, 368x349)
2.53 MB
2.53 MB GIF
>>25768663
>They’ve sold 45k Mavericks year to date, they sold less than 7,000 in July.
that's literally 100% of current production capacity you mouth breathing retard. there are tens of thousands of orders that couldn't be made in 2022 and are being pushed to the 2023 model year. 100% of all hybrid production was customer orders. demand was so high ford couldn't even give dealers direct allotments for the hybrid.

>>25768675
the ranger is selling like shit because everyone knows it's getting a massive update for the 2023 model year. every vehicle the year before a major update sells like shit. does it hurt to be as dumb as you are?
>>
>>25766249
>Mav Tremor
I didn’t know this was a thing, looks like it has a “twin clutch rear differential unit” which must mean it has the GKN twinster, which is actually pretty cool, I’ve been saying that they should have offered it as an option, considering the maverick should be one of the more offroad capable unibody front wheel biased awd cars. For reference it is available on the Focus RS, Lincoln continental and MKS, Land Rover evoque, and a couple of GMs. They were also tested on the jeep renegade and I think its a shame that it wasn’t offered, that would have been a great model for the twinster.
>>
>>25769813
they need to make an AWD hybrid if they want to print money. maverick tremor buyers will be an extremely niche market.
>>
>>25769813
I think it's probably the heavier duty unit from the Bronco Sport, since they are both based on the Escape. I think it's likely a Dana AdvanTEK.
>>
>>25768518
that's a big load of wood
>>
>>25765861
pretty much this, fk cosmopolitans
>>
>>25769933
uuuu
>>
>>25769842
I literally do not care, that is irrelevant to my post.
>>
Id buy a base model for 20K, unfortunate they are marked up to point where it makes no sense to buy.
>>
>>25768836
Markups.org . Its easy to find a toyota dealer who will sell you an allotment with the markup being their 2K nitro/diamond coating/window tint package but no markup adjustment. Might have to go a bit further if you want 0 markup/dealer options but there are some who sell at MSRP. They will try to fuck you over in the finance department though (hold firm decline all warranties and if you finance through dealer go refinance a month later to shave off a few percent)
>>
>>25765864
>plenty of stock available
Lemme know when I can buy one with a blown motor for like $5k. I unironically like the look of them, and would totally drop a small block in it and daily that bitch
>>
>>25765835
It's too small and weak for most of the people in the market for trucks. I'd grab one, but I found a fleet Honda CR-V for less $.
>>
I’m looking at ordering one in September when 2023 orders open up. No it’s not a truck. I have an f350 and the maverick is not an f250. I also have a subcompact hatchback that gets 35mpg. The maverick is replacing that and for the same price I’d rather have a 4.5’ bed than a tiny hatch back and still get the same fuel economy.
For people that need to tow and haul it’s not a good pick, but don’t we complain all the time about mall crawlers that never use their truck as a truck? The maverick is a great truck if you don’t use it as a truck.
>>
>>25768817
Oh, forgot to add-
The fucking lead salesman was giddy with joy when I asked him about the price.
He said that "we bought the last 3 available so if anybody wants one they have to come to us".
I wanted to punch that douchebag in the face. This was in Macon GA btw so if anybody knocks his ass out I'll chip in for your bail.
I was actually buying a car that day and not just fucking around on a Saturday looking at new cars and i drove an hour and a half to that dealer. After that encounter I just left and wound up buying an accord for the wife.
>>
>>25766319
You are aware that panel replacement is just as involved on a BOF car right? The same amount of cutting welding and filling goes into a BOF car as a unibody one
>>
File: 5c55a202.gif (1.75 MB, 350x185)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB GIF
>>25770072
>No it’s not a truck.
>The maverick is a great truck
>>
>>25768288
that's why a 6' trailer and some SUV with a hitch makes so much sense
>>
>>25765833
You know, I've actually owned several "real trucks". They get shit mileage, can be inconvenient to park and handle like ass. What I'd really like is a car with some ground clearance, AWD for winter and a bed that I can use for bikes, kayaks or the occasional large purchase. You know would be perfect for that? A Maverick.
>>
>>25769933
Maverick enthusiast here. God I would love to choke on her female dick, especially if she just finished a workout and was all sweaty and stinky. I would play with her balls until I felt them tense up and she grabbed my head and dumped a load down my throat.
>>
>>25770531
Maverick detractor here. It's not a real truck. if you want a real truck you get a RAM. When ever I have to get a new one, which is every few years when the engine or front end shits itself, I go on down to the RAM RANCH and pick me up a new one. When I want a new ride nothing beats the RAM RANCH, no pussy Maverick for me.
>>
File: phevmav.jpg (317 KB, 1111x625)
317 KB
317 KB JPG
>>25769813
>>25769849
It's the Bronco Sport one, yeah. I think it'll be a pretty interesting option for the Mav, the Bronco Sport is pretty impressive off road for a crossover and the open rear diff seems to be the Mav's biggest limitation off road so it could actually be pretty good.

>>25769842
They're apparently working on this too, and it looks like it's gonna be a plug in hybrid at that. A mule set up that way was spotted a few weeks ago.
>>
File: 573531.jpg (161 KB, 1600x1067)
161 KB
161 KB JPG
>>25768518
This, and there was even an Cadillac version
>>
>>25770628
>looks like it's gonna be a plug in hybrid at that
Clickbait bullshit put out by shitty autoblogs. The box they were saying was marked PHEV is clearly FHEV which is something to do with emissions. There may be a PHEV at some point but it won’t be any time soon. Ford is going to electrify their more profitable vehicles first. Lightning got it first, second will be the ranger then likely the bronco. I doubt we see a PHEV maverick until the second gen.
>>
>>25770650
>>25768518
Was just thinking how absolute shit these must've been. They're only like not even 20 years old but you never see them on the road anymore


>>25765833
I've finally seen a few of these on the road in person, and I think they look great. I even think I might buy one in the next few years. I would rather drive this than the Ford Escape or Bronco Sport, even though they're all on the same platform. They just look dope, they have the seating of a sedan, but the practicality of a small pickup truck. I don't have anything I need to tow, but it would be nice to pick up mulch and stuff from the hardware store without worrying about it getting my interior dirty.

At the same time, I hope they build some kind of SUV version, like a mini expedition or it would in essence be like a mini ford flex or wagon of some kind.

As cool as it is though...I really just wish it was body on frame rwd
>>
friend ordered one in october. It still isn't in production or the factory or whatever.
>>
File: 1640712268168.png (48 KB, 158x183)
48 KB
48 KB PNG
>>25770628
>hybrid
>off road vehicle
>>
>>25770753
>I hope they build some kind of SUV version, like a mini expedition or it would in essence be like a mini ford flex or wagon of some kind.
Yeah, that'd be an interesting prospect. People will probably say that's just the Bronco Sport but I think I know what you mean, an SUV with the Mav's longer wheelbase and more truck-like setup and styling. It could sort of be a spiritual successor to the small '90s Explorers in the same way that the Mav is to the '90s Ranger.
Speaking of that, I've said this a bunch recently, but I really wish we got an SUV version of the Ranger, i.e. the Everest. The Bronco is the closest thing we get in the US but it's a totally different sort of vehicle, way too many compromises for the retro styling and to accommodate the removable top and doors.
>>
>>25770856
The Tremor isn't a hybrid, it's only going to be available with the Ecoboost.
>>
>>25768836
>it's already out in Australia
Still looks unnecessarily tall.
I need to find a video about the manual, nothing is more boring than hearing someone play with switches and screen menus to activate 4x4 terrain modes on the tablet. Probably no chance Ford bothers keeping the stick when it comes to the states.
>>
>>25766822
dial8
>>
>>25770948
I actually kinda wonder about that, they've got manual Broncos with the same engine being built in the same factory so I guess it's not entirely off the table. Probably not likely though.
>>
>>25770857
>but I think I know what you mean, an SUV with the Mav's longer wheelbase and more truck-like setup and styling. It could sort of be a spiritual successor to the small '90s Explorers in the same way that the Mav is to the '90s Ranger.

yeah, it would be kino af. I'd like a Maverick that was big enough that I could put all the seats down and sleep in an air mattress in the back. Would be the perfect camping vehicle. Ideally they could make a tall version and have it even be a camper van type setup. Especially with the 35-40mpg, it would rape the competition.
>>
>>25765833
/o/ bitching about car prices
>>
>>25770948
>Still looks unnecessarily tall.
Never really thought about it before but I think the tall look is actually part of why I like the Ranger, I've always thought it had kind of a Baja truck look to it and I think looking tall is part of why.
>>
>>25770977
Considering Ford's history with truck manuals, I'm not optimistic. Hopeful, but not optimistic.
I guess I'm also sick of everyone doing the same thing and copying each other and just aiming for manufacturing volume cost reductions without reducing the final price at all.

>>25771035
I hate the high-chair requirements of modern trucks is all. I could just be a chollo and lower it but it doesn't fix the seating position and kills ground clearance instead.

Holy fuck I hate these so-called "reviewers"
I never want to hear bi-turbo again.
>>
>>25770999
Maverick is the cheapest new Ford you can buy in U.S. Ecosport has literally nothing on it except being easier to park in cities.
>>
>>25770837
>october
He was late as fuck getting his order in.
>>
>>25765833
test
>>
>>25765937
Ranger is older, how is it better?
>>
>it’s a less gay prius

This is why I bought one. And I’m gay.
>>
>>25771512
BOF, rwd based with proper 4x4, removable bed. It's made for truck shit, the mav caters more towards commuters. Different vehicles with different design considerations though.
>>
>>25771808
>the mav caters more towards commuters
And the ranger doesn’t? What utility does a mod size truck offer these days exactly? Even half tons are desperately incapable of doing real “truck” things. I love crushing half ton truck owners egos when I refuse to load a 2,000 pallet into their bed which would flatten their leaf springs. Mid size trucks are far less capable than those half tons and that makes them the most retarded product on the market and only serve to cater to the suburbanite who wants to have the “truck guy” image. The maverick on the other hand knows exactly what it is and what it’s for, light duty hauling of things that are either too dirty to put inside the cabin of a crossover or too big to fit inside the hatch of a crossover and best of all, it does that while being cheap. Truck fags hate the maverick because it exposes them for the posers and weekend warriors they are.
>>
>>25769804
>that's literally 100% of current production capacity you mouth breathing retard.
You stated Ford sold 45k in May alone, get your story straight retard.
>>
>>25770753
>Was just thinking how absolute shit these must've been. They're only like not even 20 years old but you never see them on the road anymore
I see them everywhere, even the awful 2002 ones. The drivetrain is damn near bullet proof.
>>
>>25770860
Turbos, hybrids - damn near the same thing - cuck technology for imbeciles that need to off themselves.
>>
>>25770857
>an SUV with the Mav's longer wheelbase
>SUV

I do not think you know the meaning of that abbreviation.
>>
>>25772055
You're mad. That washer/dryer combo needs at least a 3/4 ton. That Maverick is going to roll over the first corner it takes.
>>
>>25772055
>that load securement
The flatbedder in me cringes.
>>
>>25772055
The things I just mentioned, I don't even hate the mav you just sound butthurt.
>>
File: kilurselfufool.jpg (60 KB, 640x640)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>25772099
My 2.3 EB mogs my 2v 4.6 V8 across the powerband
Cope and Seethe.
>>
>>25772055
I like the Maverick, but I think there's stuff that a regular person would realistically do with a truck that a midsize is capable of and a Mav isn't - hauling bikes longer than a dirtbike (or maybe a single dirtbike with the tailgate up), pulling a decent-sized car or a big SxS on a trailer, even shit like hauling a whole bunch of flat packed furniture. (IKEA stuff tends to cap out just under 5' so it'll fit perfectly in a midsize crew cab bed but is a bit too long for a closed Mav bed.) They're also vastly more capable off road.
>>
>>25772105
I do, but at this point the term is so diluted that it hardly matters, and there isn't really a better term for the body style in question. The point is that it'd be a boxy vehicle that maximizes space rather than a lifted compact hatchback like most crossovers these days.
>>
>>25765968
not everybody needs a big truck. so what?

>>25767042
>crossover with a bed
what's wrong with that?

>>25769455
more like
>we see what people want, lets build it for them
>>
>>25767082
My 09 Tacoma is really low to the ground, my 16 must be a foot higher. For work trucks it's a pain in the ass
>>
>>25772121
>Muh 20 year newer engine (that cokes itself up and requires maintenance not last seen since the 1950s has better power than my 4.6l that was outdated when it was introduced.

Shit cope, compare modern vs modern.
>>
>>25770619
Maverick-curious here. I'm not sure I can handle a real RAM trucking straight from the RAM RANCH but I'm also not really into feminine penis.... Is there a truck out there for me?
>>
>>25772203
They switched frames somewhere in the middle of second gen but I haven't figured out when. Early ones are similar to the first gen. Maybe around the frame recall?
I want a single cab first or second gen but assholes are practically asking release year prices for stuff with absurd miles on it. What motor do you have in the 09? Been eyeing the L4 as I pare down my aspirations but I imagine it's slow.
>>
>>25772239
Modern V8s have tons of problems of their own, a lot rely on cylinder deactivation systems that can fail and destroy the motor, start/stop bullshit, tons of plastic parts, tuned lean as fuck so they run hot as fuck (hence the giant radiators and huge grilles on modern trucks) and now they're all starting to go DI so they'll have the same issues with carbon buildup as the Ecoboosts. (Which, by the way, are totally overblown; coking was really only a significant issue with early VAG DI engines and there are plenty of 200k+ mile Ecoboosts running around fine at this point without any special maintenance.)
Personally I'd rather have the turbo, it's 40 year old tech in cars and 80 in airplanes, and a hell of a lot better figured out than a lot of the crazy shit they're doing with V8s to try and get marketable MPG numbers these days.
>>
File: 1397317060206.gif (992 KB, 250x250)
992 KB
992 KB GIF
>>25772239
Doesn't exist because they're being replaced by Turbo 4 and EVs. The ones that are out there are DOD / cylinder deactivation cucked.

Chevy sells a 1/2 ton 4 cylinder with DOD now. They don't say their 2.7 is a 4 banger, they just hope you know that Ford's 2.7 is a V6 and assume theirs is as well.

Quick check of the Ford lot shows 8 F150s in stock, only 1 is a V8. Why is that.

V8 is dead, manual is dead, dashbord switches are dead. I don't hate any of them but I laugh at people that think they are sticking around.
>>
>>25768643
God, you're still bitching about this? Just put a lift on the Focus already and shut the fuck up.
>>
>>25772321
i think you misunderstood something, the 4-cylinder does not have DoD, that's only on the v8
think about it for a second even. what would a turbo 4 with cylinder deactivation even shut off? it wouldn't fucking run.
before you go writing an entire novel about how everything is shit and you're gonna go buy a squarebody and an sks and move into the woods actually check your facts first.
>>
>>25772316
>Personally I'd rather have the turbo, it's 40 year old tech in cars and 80 in airplanes, and a hell of a lot better figured out than
oh no no no no no no no no....
>>
>>25772338
>engine bay on turbos so bad it’s easier to remove cab

Cuck gonna get cuck prizes
>>
>>25772348
how does that even fucking operate? it's literally a bike motor.
>>
File: mary.jpg (30 KB, 333x373)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>25772336
>i think you misunderstood something, the 4-cylinder does not have DoD
Incorrect, the 4-cylinder does have cylinder deactivation. It deactivates down to 2-cylinders. Please do not post lies about GM to make them look better.

https://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2018/may/0518--silverado-turbo.html
>Chevrolet’s first use of Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation) on a four-cylinder engine.
https://jalopnik.com/the-chevrolet-colorado-trail-boss-and-z71-can-make-zr2-1849349232
>all three engine variants feature two-cylinder deactivation.
>>
>>25772336
>the 4-cylinder does not have DoD
>before you go writing an entire novel about how everything is shit and you're gonna go buy a squarebody and an sks and move into the woods actually check your facts first.
the fucking irony that you post this smug shit, and you got the facts 100% wrong.
>>
>>25772358
>you deleted your post to apply a smug image and make this little addendum
4 cylinder mds turbofaggot detected

just don't buy a gm then you fucking stupid nigger. ford and ram don't do that shit. crying to uncle ted because they put out a truck you'll never ever drive that somehow manages to run on two cylinders out of four is cuck shit. i still don't believe the 4-banger dod actually operates in normal driving, it's just a cafe-standard-complying trick and in real world use it never fucking works because the truck needs full power all the time.
also you know you can just disable it
>>
>>25772380
mad wall of text

>check the facts before you post!!!!
>his post is 100% wrong
lmfao. keep defending GM
>>
>>25772338
That's not the fault of turbo, it's the fault of Toyota being the modern equivalent of '90s GM, a garbage company coasting on decades-old brand loyalty while churning out garbage.
>>
>>25772336
>before you go writing an entire novel about how everything is shit and you're gonna go buy a squarebody

Lol. I have a NuRanger I might trade in for a Maverick. But I can't lie, I'd take an early 6th gen F150 if one popped up at the right price near me,
>>
>>25772316
My boss has a 3.5 eb f-150 that just hit 300k miles on stock turbos and everything. It’s only needed some coolant line work.
>>
>>25772387
>defending gm
but that's what you're doing by going to find articles (on gm's own website no less) that prove me wrong? i just did a cursory google search for 4-cylinder dod/mds, came up with a lot of 5.0s and hemis and no proof that what you describe actually exists. those 4-cylinder trucks aren't old enough to actually have any information on the net except from the manufacturer. are they even in production?

as you said gm is extremely coy about even saying how many pistons their engine has, so they don't even talk about it outside of their own press releases.

>implying that was a wall of text
illiterate and a very underpaid gm shill wow
>>
>>25772394
Turbos are universally shit when they’re used to compensate for undersized engines.

No one takes turbos seriously anymore. certainly not on these tiny 3L engines.
>>
>>25772416
>another wall of text
>"actually it doesn't have cylinder deactivation! i'm doubling down on my lie!"

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2023-chevrolet-colorado-first-look-review/
>It also includes standard cylinder deactivation, which can shut down two cylinders
lol. kek. lol.
>>
>>25772380
Ram does it on the Hemi, and it's been the source of a ton of issues. Cylinder deactivation is a disaster of a technology that, like you say, is just a compliance trick, it performs way worse in real life than on paper, and pretty much every engine that uses it, regardless of cylinder count or induction, has had major issues as a result, in many cases requiring full engine replacement. IMO it's probably the single worst modern automotive tech.
>>
>>25772445
Cylinder deactivation is an extremely simple tech, with the exception of the no longer produced LS V8s and Honda’s much worse V6 cylinder deactivation there really aren’t any more problems with the technology than there is with stop/start. The positive is they consistently do well with MPG vs turbo engines that only do good when you drive like a granny.

All 3 big truck manufacturers now use cylinder deactivation.
>>
>>25772055
>love crushing half ton truck owners egos when I refuse to load a 2,000 pallet into their bed which would flatten their leaf springs
what happens when you flatten leaf springs? I load my 3rd gen ranger until the leaf springs are flat... anything after that and i just make a second trip.

as my shocks get older, the leaf springs flatten out soooner... can i just get 'stronger' shocks when i finally replace them?
>>
>>25772472
It's kinda the same shit as turbo, only gets good MPG in 4cyl mode, which you won't be in often unless you're using it as a solo commuter on flat terrain and baby it. Being N/A it also gets worse and worse as you gain altitude, unlike turbo. Maybe I'm overblowing it a bit but people also overblow the fuck out of turbo issues, personally I think they're about the same and would probably go V8 if I lived in the midwest or East Texas but turbo anywhere over about 3-4000ft.
>>
>>25772136
mav bed is the same size as most CC midsized and fullsized trucks... 5foot
>>
File: ayee.jpg (67 KB, 600x400)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>25772425
>Turbos are universally shit when they’re used to compensate for undersized engines.

I bought a Thunderbird TurboCoupe at an abandoned vehicle auction for $120 in 2005. That fucker ran like a dream until I sold it last year. I replaced the VAM and it puffed some turbo seal smoke when I got it but it cleared up after a few years of driving it. If that 40 year-old turbo was anything like we're going to see in the new turbo age than I welcome our new turbo overlords.
>>
>>25772509
That's incorrect. The maverick bed is 4.5 feet long, and midsizes trucks can get 6 foot beds.
>>
>>25765833
Pretty fucking popular and will likely make the ranger phase out again. Ford in general is smashing it.

t. UAW-Ford worker
>>
>>25772533
>The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation of 2021 model year Ford Bronco SUVs that are powered by the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6. The investigation centers around the engine’s valvetrain, which can cause the engine to fail and render the turbocharged off-roader inoperable.

>Ford Motor Co. has issued a second fire-related recall within two months, this time for an engine cooling problem with the Ford Escape, Lincoln Corsair and Ford Maverick pickup — affecting 100,689 hybrid vehicle customers.
>>
>>25772536
Everyone knew the 2.7l was shit from the beginning.

If you were in the Bronco forum before they released engine specs everyone was talking about the 5.0l. Then when the engine specs dropped about half the forum disappeared over night and the other half went into ultra-copium saying it was better for ‘muh reasons’.

But the greatest day was when Ford dropped the MPG numbers where the 4 cylinder returned worse fuel economy than the 5.0 in the F150.

Zero enthusiasts are left on the Bronco forum it’s entirely Tesla tier status seekers.
>>
>>25772526
>and midsizes trucks can get 6 foot beds
but they never do
>>
>>25772604
>but they never do
6 foot beds are everywhere on the road. Both the short cabs and the four door versions. Just from gardeners alone, you will see them all the time.
>>
>>25772665
Not the guy you were replying to but,
The electrical company I work for uses tacos, they have like 200. It's perfect for their actual needs. Haul tools and some materials because the big stuff is coming in on a flatbed twice a week.
>>
>>25772509
Ranger crew cab has about 9" more. Doesn't seem like a lot but it can be a pretty big difference. Couple of inches wider too, if you're trying to get something in there diagonally you can probably get almost an extra foot into the Ranger. If you're filling it with mulch or something the Ranger's got quite a bit more volume too, 44 cubic feet vs. 33 on the Mav. Obviously the extended cab 6' bed is a whole world of difference.

>>25772604
I pretty much never see new Tacos in anything but CCSB, especially if you want 4x4 and decent options, but Rangers and Colorados are decently common.
>>
I just replaced my '98 Ranger with a Maverick XLT AWD. It does everything I've used my Ranger for in the last 20 years. Bed can carry my bike, can carry my snowblower to mom's house, big enough to carry away debris from my living room remodel, can carry bags of landscaping shit from Home Depot for my <0.5 acre yard. Got the AWD and it does 0-60 in ~6.0 seconds. I'm expecting it'll be much better than my RWD Ranger in the winter which was always slipping all over the place even with sandbags in the bed. Only complaints so far are that the sound system on the XLT is not very good and my Android Auto audio periodically stops working. Otherwise Love my Mav.
>>
>>25773323
>and my Android Auto audio periodically stops working
Have you checked to see if you can update the firmware? Looks like they've put a few updates out and with all the crazy supply line shit lately it wouldn't surprise me if a new one off the lot was still behind.
>>
>>25773340
No haven't checked for any updates yet. Thanks I will look for it.
>>
>>25765835
Nothing.

It’s a major success story for Ford. Bus riders upset Ford isnt selling a Ranger Tremor for $20K and they would still be too poor to the Ranger. Internet “automotive engineers” talking shit about car designs are just coping for their lack of income, credit, and capital.
>>
>>25765833
Most people want a truck but hate how big and expensive trucks are to drive. This truck isn't a real truck so it's perfect. To me I'm just happy people are willingly driving smaller cars
>>
It's spam at this point
>>
>>25773399
>Most people want a truck but hate how big and expensive trucks are to drive
Got any real world data on this statement? If that's true why do half tons out-sell small trucks in the thousands to 1? If that's true why are 3/4 ton trucks flying off the shelves?
>>
>>25773399
How are trucks expensive to to drive? One of the biggest appeals is the affordability.
>>
>>25772111
What's the issue here? Looks perfectly fine for the 20m drive home from Lowe's on city roads.
>>
>>25765833
>What the fuck were they thinking?
Honda Ridgeline.
There's a market for an urban pickup/ranchero.
>>
>>25770650
>>25770753
>>25772093
The drivetrain is 1/2 ton LS rwd, so among the most vanilla and fixable available, even the reliability is bland, not great not terrible, but always easily fixable for cheaper than al most any other vehicle.

I've wanted the Caddy version and would eagerly buy one, otherwise I'm left flat by LS it's bland and reliable. Souped up in a Caddy it's cool.
>>
>>25773560
Historically it was fuel mileage and cost of tire replacement.
Some states forced you to register pickups as commercial.

But with the current trend of added features most cars are pigfat so the fuel mileage gap is minimal and manufacturers love big rims so tires are expensive across the board.
>>
>>25772507
>vastly overestimating the effects of altitutde.
They do make less power but large populations drive identical cars above 5000' and have for a century. Altitude is also mitigated by large displacement, large port, low-revving engines, say like an LS V8. 4-cyl with smaller ports that rev very high but are renowned for 'throttle response', like a Honda, do particularly worse in lower ambient pressure.

There were actually only a few American V8s made with ports so wheezy that altitude affects them, mostly in the 70s and 80s.

As always, the argument is, in the usable band of power, and a big displacement V8 has a larger band of power and so is affected by other factors less. If you have a smaller engine, you have to fight harder to get that power band, and it is always always always compromised by forced induction of any type, which always comes with major compromises requiring major extra systems to function perfectly or else.
>>
>>25772055
This looks like Michigan.
>>
>>25765968
>Honda Ridgeline
Why should people pay more for less capable vehicle with the same or lower MPG?
>>
File: chevy.jpg (800 KB, 2048x1536)
800 KB
800 KB JPG
Would you?
>>
>>25770857
Ford Flex?
>>
>>25771121
That's still too expensive for the average /o/tist



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.