The Car Thread

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Damn. The Maverick I ordered was delayed. They are saying it could be 6 months. 

Here is my fall back:

https://www.jeep.com/hostd/windowsticker/getWindowStickerPdf.do?_ga=2.238790016.1801063266.1630343596-431636698.1630343596&vin=1C6HJTAG9ML534591

 

I think @ET80 mentioned he liked those. 

These also will retain value well fwiw

[ET80]

46 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Damn. The Maverick I ordered was delayed. They are saying it could be 6 months. 

Here is my fall back:

https://www.jeep.com/hostd/windowsticker/getWindowStickerPdf.do?_ga=2.238790016.1801063266.1630343596-431636698.1630343596&vin=1C6HJTAG9ML534591

 

I think @ET80 mentioned he liked those. 

Yup, I love the look of those - if I ever bought a truck, it would probably be this.

Speaking of Jeep, my wife is keen on the new Grand Cherokee L - she currently owns a 2019 Cherokee and wants something with 3rd row seating. Not sure why, but I'm not one to argue.

I actually like it, but waiting a bit before we buy. It's a nice SUV... 

 

[Uncle Buck]

4 hours ago, ET80 said:

Yup, I love the look of those - if I ever bought a truck, it would probably be this.

Speaking of Jeep, my wife is keen on the new Grand Cherokee L - she currently owns a 2019 Cherokee and wants something with 3rd row seating. Not sure why, but I'm not one to argue.

I actually like it, but waiting a bit before we buy. It's a nice SUV... 

 

That's a nice looking vehicle.  I've got a friend who might love that.  Are Jeeps very reliable?

[Matts4313]

42 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

That's a nice looking vehicle.  I've got a friend who might love that.  Are Jeeps very reliable?

Jeep the brand gets a horrible rep because people buy the wranglers for 75k, go crash them in the desert and then blame the company. If people would think before trying to drive through rivers and off the tops of mountains they would probably be a little bit more reliable. 

 

For non-off roaders I think they are fine. I had one ~10 years ago ( Jeep Compass I think?) and it was perfect for the few years I had it. 

 

Either way, @LETSGOBROWNIES is right, most Jeeps retain crazy value due to the cult-like following of Jeep owners. Even if your friend buys a lemon, he will get great resell haha. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Matts4313

[Tugboat]

17 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

In the truck world, it seems like all of them "run for ever" nowadays. Tacomas are just really old from a current design stand point. It feels like there hasnt been any major changes in 15 years, even though I know for sure they have tweaked things. ITs just a really dated product, imo, even if it is the most pretty of the compact vehicles. 

Do they really seem like that though?  Idk, most modern trucks just feel really "cheap" and throwaway to me, compared to the older models.  Better, more efficient, more versatile, etc.  But everything just feels cheaper, less durable, and so much more "computer/electronics-centric".

 

Like, i'd probably put my dollars on a Tacoma from the last gen (or real last gen not counting the weird facelift with revisions taking a leap backward), ultimately outlasting one rolling off the line today.  Same for like...an F-150. I'd expect rust all round abouts the body, trim pieces wearing thin and falling off all over, and the smells of automotive fluids permeating the cabin under hard use.  But...

As much as older trucks were deeply flawed creatures, and not necessarily that "reliable" in a lot of ways.  But there are those mechanical fundamentals and a certain simplicity of design and build, that feels likelier to lend itself to longevity, than all of the computer/electronics of current trucks.  Even just interior materials and finishes...clunky as heck and very "cheap" feeling back in the day.  But in a different way.  They felt bad and cheap, but not flimsy like a lot of build quality today, where pieces are better made and better fit, but have that chintzy feel to them.

 

Just a reflection of a "throwaway society" really.  Everything is meant to last for a period of time, and then be tossed into the giant garbage island or whatever.  Nobody builds anything to be "as good as it can be" anymore.  With the precision and consistency of modern manufacturing and design, it's all just...built to be "good enough".  Go kaput on command after x amount of time and use.  Time to do another round of buying, whether you like it or not.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Tugboat

[Tugboat]

4 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Jeep the brand gets a horrible rep because people buy the wranglers for 75k, go crash them in the desert and then blame the company. If people would think before trying to drive through rivers and off the tops of mountains they would probably be a little bit more reliable. 

 

For non-off roaders I think they are fine. I had one ~10 years ago ( Jeep Compass I think?) and it was perfect for the few years I had it. 

 

Either way, @LETSGOBROWNIES is right, most Jeeps retain crazy value due to the cult-like following of Jeep owners. Even if your friend buys a lemon, he will get great resell haha. 

Seems like the caveat with Jeep resale, is that it has to be one of the like..."Real Jeeps".  Wrangler, Gladiator, et al.  The ones boasting a lot of the legitimate Jeep offroad credentials the brand is built on.  Not the sort of Fiat in American Clothes type crossovers.

 

I do really dig the Gladiator style.  And honestly, if i were in the market for that type of truck, it'd probably be my pick too.  Though i can't say i'd be cross-shopping it with a Maverick at all.  Those seem like wildly different creatures to me.  Not sure how i'd arrive at the point of debating between those two, because they're built to do such completely different things.

[Matts4313]

11 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

Seems like the caveat with Jeep resale, is that it has to be one of the like..."Real Jeeps".  Wrangler, Gladiator, et al.  The ones boasting a lot of the legitimate Jeep offroad credentials the brand is built on.  Not the sort of Fiat in American Clothes type crossovers.

 

I do really dig the Gladiator style.  And honestly, if i were in the market for that type of truck, it'd probably be my pick too.  Though i can't say i'd be cross-shopping it with a Maverick at all.  Those seem like wildly different creatures to me.  Not sure how i'd arrive at the point of debating between those two, because they're built to do such completely different things.

First - they arent *that* different. They both can tow jet ski's, load mountain bikes, commute for day to day and have the ability to put an 'upscale' interior (awesome electronics, sound system, etc). Plus they both were going to have a rear window and an open top (moon roof on Ford). 

 

But the road to me cross shopping the two is a little more simple. My major debate has actually been a Bronco or Maverick.... thats how the Gladiator came about, lol. Its the price point and capability mixture of the two. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Matts4313

[Tugboat]

31 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

First - they arent *that* different. They both can tow jet ski's, load mountain bikes, commute for day to day and have the ability to put an 'upscale' interior (awesome electronics, sound system, etc). Plus they both were going to have a rear window and an open top (moon roof on Ford). 

 

But the road to me cross shopping the two is a little more simple. My major debate has actually been a Bronco or Maverick.... thats how the Gladiator came about, lol. Its the price point and capability mixture of the two. 

A Bronco?  Or a Bronco Sport?

 

I feel like those are also two things that really don't make much sense to cross-shop to me.  lol.

 

Seems like a Bronco cross shops with a Gladiator, or maybe a Ranger.  A Bronco Sport cross shops with a Maverick, since they're kinda sorta like different configurations of the same thing.  More so than anything else at least.

[Matts4313]

8 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

A Bronco?  Or a Bronco Sport?

Bronco

Quote

I feel like those are also two things that really don't make much sense to cross-shop to me.  lol.

 

Seems like a Bronco cross shops with a Gladiator, or maybe a Ranger.  A Bronco Sport cross shops with a Maverick, since they're kinda sorta like different configurations of the same thing.  More so than anything else at least.

The difference between a Ranger and Maverick is a few inches. You can build the two to be pretty comparable in everything (off road, tow, luxary, etc).

Edited August 31, 2021 by Matts4313

[Tugboat]

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Bronco

The difference between a Ranger and Maverick is a few inches. You can build the two to be pretty comparable in everything (off road, tow, luxary, etc).

It's not just about dimensions though.  It's about the fundamental platform.  That's the point.

 

One is a longitudinal body on frame Truck platform.  A light duty one, but a truck platform nonetheless.  The other is a car platform, extruded into a small external bed.

So no...you absolutely cannot build the two to be pretty comparable in everything (offroad, towing).

 

Luxury, is a wash i guess...but neither of them has any of that.

[Matts4313]

Just now, Tugboat said:

It's not just about dimensions though.  It's about the fundamental platform.  That's the point.

 

One is a longitudinal body on frame Truck platform.  A light duty one, but a truck platform nonetheless.  The other is a car platform, extruded into a small external bed.

So no...you absolutely cannot build the two to be pretty comparable in everything (offroad, towing).

 

Luxury, is a wash i guess...but neither of them has any of that.

You literally can though. The max tow on a maverick is 4k, the ranger towing is 3500.  The payload is the same. They both are offered with FX4 packages that have the same tires/axel/gears/off roading capabilities. They both can come with the top of the line Ford Sync, B&O sound systems with leather, moon roof, intelligent access, 12v, etc. 

I get that the chassis are different, but the end product is very similar.

[Tugboat]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

You literally can though. The max tow on a maverick is 4k, the ranger towing is 3500.  The payload is the same. They both are offered with FX4 packages that have the same tires/axel/gears/off roading capabilities. They both can come with the top of the line Ford Sync, B&O sound systems with leather, moon roof, intelligent access, 12v, etc. 

I get that the chassis are different, but the end product is very similar.

You really can't though.  The max tow on a Maverick is 4k lbs, payload at 1500lbs.  The Ranger is more like 7500lbs towing, and 1650 payload.  Those are pretty substantial differences.

And it only gets more substantial, when you start talking about the offroad stuff.  Between a 4WD vehicle, and a FWD vehicle, with part time AWD optional.

 

There's absolutely nothing common, between a longitudinally mounted engine and transmission "gears" and a transverse mounted system.  They are altogether different transmissions, axles, and gears.  The entire driveline is different.  The Maverick is borrowing from the Ford Focus (and platform sharing SUVs) stable.  The Ranger is borrowing from the overseas Ranger portfolio.  The Ranger is a bona fide 4WD truck, with H and L range mechanical 4wd system.  The Maverick is a Front Wheel Drive vehicle, with an AWD addendum.  The engine itself, is oriented 90 degrees different from one another, and that informs everything else from there back.

 

Having an "FX4 Package" means less than diddly squat.  That's like suggesting the Maverick is basically the same as an F-350 in that regard, because they both have an FX4 package.  Which is obviously blatantly false.  It's just a random sticker they slap on the back fender, and an exercise in "branding".  That's what Ford call their "offroad package" for any given vehicle.  Nothing more in common.

 

You say you get that the chassis is different, but when you say the end product is similar...i don't think that you really do "get it".

 

There's a reason the Ranger and Maverick both coexist in the Ford model lineup.  And it's not because they're "basically the same" or "very similar".  They're fundamentally different vehicles, designed from the ground up in altogether different ways, and meant to do entirely different tasks.

 

 

***And i don't mean this to disparage the Maverick, whatsoever.  It seems like way more than enough truck to just haul around some seadoos or bikes or furniture or whatever.  It's as much truck or more, than most consumer truck buyers will ever actually need.  But it's just fundamentally not in the same category as something like a Jeep Gladiator, which is designed to a very different purpose and set of capabilities.  A lot worse in the things that matter to 90% of truck buyers 90% of the time...but if you legitimately need that offroad credibility, you can't just spec a Maverick up to meet it.  That's not possible.  Just as you can't spec a Gladiator down to really contend with a Maverick on efficiency as just, a car with a bed driving around town most of the time.

Edited August 31, 2021 by Tugboat

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

9 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

That's a nice looking vehicle.  I've got a friend who might love that.  Are Jeeps very reliable?

Depends on the model and such but FCA has gotten a lot better over the last decade.

For example, 10-12 years ago I’d have laughed at anyone buying a Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep as they were turds tbh.  6 years ago I ended up shopping all the half tons and settled on a Ram.  I was shocked that it ended up that way, but that’s what happened.

Jeep uses a few powertrains, a 3.6L V6, a 5.7 Hemi and a 3.0L diesel to name a few.

The 3.6 and 5.7 are used in TON of vehicles all across the FCA lineup, aren’t new and have had their issues sorted out for a while now.  They’re rock solid. The 3.0L is on its 3rd generation and a lot of issues have been ironed out, but it’s still a modern diesel with all of the emissions stuff on, so you can have some issues if you’re not running it hard/letting it get to temp consistently.  It’s a good option for long commutes/high mileage drivers. I’d personally stick with the gas options.

The transmission that’s used across most of the lineup is an 8 speed from ZF and generally regarded as one of the better transmissions on the market.  This was always the Achilles heel for Dodge trucks, their crap in house transmission.  So instead of reinventing the wheel they had ZF tweak their 8 speed for their applications and it’s been a huge success.

So long story short, the powertrains are as good as anyone. As far as the electronics/tech, all manufacturers are in a similar spot.  If you want the most and best tech, you’re going to have to be ok with potential teething issues. All offer options that are sorted and reliable if that’s what you want.

[Matts4313]

6 hours ago, Tugboat said:

You really can't though.  The max tow on a Maverick is 4k lbs, payload at 1500lbs.  The Ranger is more like 7500lbs towing, and 1650 payload.  Those are pretty substantial differences.

And it only gets more substantial, when you start talking about the offroad stuff.  Between a 4WD vehicle, and a FWD vehicle, with part time AWD optional.

 

There's absolutely nothing common, between a longitudinally mounted engine and transmission "gears" and a transverse mounted system.  They are altogether different transmissions, axles, and gears.  The entire driveline is different.  The Maverick is borrowing from the Ford Focus (and platform sharing SUVs) stable.  The Ranger is borrowing from the overseas Ranger portfolio.  The Ranger is a bona fide 4WD truck, with H and L range mechanical 4wd system.  The Maverick is a Front Wheel Drive vehicle, with an AWD addendum.  The engine itself, is oriented 90 degrees different from one another, and that informs everything else from there back.

 

Having an "FX4 Package" means less than diddly squat.  That's like suggesting the Maverick is basically the same as an F-350 in that regard, because they both have an FX4 package.  Which is obviously blatantly false.  It's just a random sticker they slap on the back fender, and an exercise in "branding".  That's what Ford call their "offroad package" for any given vehicle.  Nothing more in common.

 

You say you get that the chassis is different, but when you say the end product is similar...i don't think that you really do "get it".

 

There's a reason the Ranger and Maverick both coexist in the Ford model lineup.  And it's not because they're "basically the same" or "very similar".  They're fundamentally different vehicles, designed from the ground up in altogether different ways, and meant to do entirely different tasks.

 

 

***And i don't mean this to disparage the Maverick, whatsoever.  It seems like way more than enough truck to just haul around some seadoos or bikes or furniture or whatever.  It's as much truck or more, than most consumer truck buyers will ever actually need.  But it's just fundamentally not in the same category as something like a Jeep Gladiator, which is designed to a very different purpose and set of capabilities.  A lot worse in the things that matter to 90% of truck buyers 90% of the time...but if you legitimately need that offroad credibility, you can't just spec a Maverick up to meet it.  That's not possible.  Just as you can't spec a Gladiator down to really contend with a Maverick on efficiency as just, a car with a bed driving around town most of the time.

I think you are missing my point. *Functionally* you can spec the two vehicles that they can easily be crossed shopped. You can argue differently, but as a consumer, I can yell you that you are wrong. Almost every single forum out there has people in the same boat as me - They want a comfortable ride that has a bed and very mild towing/off road capabilities. 

 

Can you push the trucks to the extremes and make them different? Sure, you can make the Maverick mostly 'car' and the Ranger mostly 'truck'; but the most common configurations of both are going to be a sub 4000 lb towing, 1500 payload, seats 5, truck that has the same body style and options (type of seats, electronics, etc). 

 

Also - the FX4 on the Maverick: 

*AWD

*Beefier cooling/radiator/skid plates

*Beefier Tires/tow hooks/trailer brakes

*Styling

*Auto/8spd/Etc

 

You know what it does on the Ranger, or hell, even the F150 (I own one....); upgrades the cooling/tires/electronics/etc.

 

Obviously the bigger vehicles add increased capability. But if all you are going to do it tow jetskis or hiking off the beaten path, functionally the only difference is a few inches in the cabin space. Thats why they are cross shopped. 

 

You make the comment that "thats why they are both on the platform"; because they are so different. But if you read the reviewers and consumers - most people look at the two and just say "The ranger is very slightly bigger version of the Maverick that cost $10k more and gets worse gas mileage".  I dont think the two will both survive as they appeal to the same person. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Matts4313

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

53 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

I think you are missing my point. *Functionally* you can spec the two vehicles that they can easily be crossed shopped. You can argue differently, but as a consumer, I can yell you that you are wrong. Almost every single forum out there has people in the same boat as me - They want a comfortable ride that has a bed and very mild towing/off road capabilities. 

 

Can you push the trucks to the extremes and make them different? Sure, you can make the Maverick mostly 'car' and the Ranger mostly 'truck'; but the most common configurations of both are going to be a sub 4000 lb towing, 1500 payload, seats 5, truck that has the same body style and options (type of seats, electronics, etc). 

 

Also - the FX4 on the Maverick: 

*AWD

*Beefier cooling/radiator/skid plates

*Beefier Tires/tow hooks/trailer brakes

*Styling

*Auto/8spd/Etc

 

You know what it does on the Ranger, or hell, even the F150 (I own one....); upgrades the cooling/tires/electronics/etc.

 

Obviously the bigger vehicles add increased capability. But if all you are going to do it tow jetskis or hiking off the beaten path, functionally the only difference is a few inches in the cabin space. Thats why they are cross shopped. 

 

You make the comment that "thats why they are both on the platform"; because they are so different. But if you read the reviewers and consumers - most people look at the two and just say "The ranger is very slightly bigger version of the Maverick that cost $10k more and gets worse gas mileage".  I dont think the two will both survive as they appeal to the same person. 

Good points all around.

To add to this, many truck buyers really overestimate what they need as far as towing.  If you have a bass boat, jet skis, small trailer, etc., you don’t need a damned 3/4 ton truck like I see everywhere here.  
 

If you’re never going to push the limits of the towing max, no reason to pay for more capability just because.

I could easily see someone with those needs cross shopping those vehicles. Or even a Ridgeline as well.