The movie? It's all right.

>>28883474
Wedding photographer had one. He was kind of mediocre, but it got us comfortably to a spot we couldn't have reached comfortably in a sedan.

It was okay.

>>28883474
They're brilliant. I unironically think it's one of the best daily drivers of the last 20 years. Both engine options are sound and you can't go wrong with either one. My understanding is the 8 speed isn't as good as the old 6 speed but better than the 10 speed. The only thing I don't like about them is the new facelift and they took away a bunch of physical buttons which was one of the best things about the interior.

>>28883474
It's the best car on the market today

Perfect choice for gentlemen of small endowment such as yourself

>>28883474
Take a look at the engine bay then decide if that's something you want to own over the long run.

>>28883474
Santa cruz is bettter

>>28883588
why?

>>28883594
Better equipped. looks better, a lot more fun to drive

>>28883596
>Better equipped
yeah that really clears things up

>>28883596
>looks better

You like driving around in what looks like a football helmet with a mullet?

Maverick has outsold the Santa Cruz by no small measure. Doesn't seem much better.

>>28883474
Hilariously these aren't sold here in Europe, on the Ranger.

>>28883611
only the*
typoed it

>>28883474
Or you could buy a gently used Honda Ridgeline which will aid in avoiding being a real lame ass who owns a yute rather than a truck because you let the government regulators control what you drive.

>>28883588
Nobody thinks this. That is why Santa Cruz got discontinued.

>>28883542
>t. gentleman of microscopic endowment

>>28883628
I assure you I do not own an oversized automobile consisting of a bed and cab

>>28883635
I knew you were a Hummer H2 owner!

File: Jodie-Foster-in-Maverick-(...).jpg (102 KB, 550x687)

102 KB JPG

>>28883475
Peak Jodie Foster.

File: RDT_20260319_131844194691(...).jpg (108 KB, 890x714)

108 KB JPG

>>28883474
Genuinely one of the best vehicles i've owned.

Get the 2025 hybrid with awd and 4k tow.

Lower tier trims like the xlt and xl are literally worse than a rental car so keep that in mind.

>>28883474
It’s decent but I personally don’t buy Ferds. I wish there were more like it. Get off your ass Toyota, the Tacoma is the size of a full size now

im looking forward to an electric version, and there is going to be one, it probably won't be called the Maverick though.

>>28884052
>Lower tier trims like the xlt and xl are literally worse than a rental car so keep that in mind.
Are you saying that because of the cloth seats?

File: Screenshot 2025-12-12 234959.png (1.55 MB, 1241x662)

1.55 MB PNG

>>28883474
Why is Ford the only company making good trucks these days?
>(modern) Toyota
Unreliable pieces of garbage, tried to blatantly just copy paste Ford's 3.5 Ecoboost design and it backfired heavily
>Dodge
See above, except they tried a straight six instead of a V6. Flopped so hard they had to go back to offering V8s or RAM would die.
>Chevy
I mean just look up the 6.2 L87 engine. Its so bad the NHTSA had to mandate testing on 6.2 engines because they would just die in the middle of driving with no warning. And its not an isolated incident. Chevy forgot how to make a V8. They're abandoning the current platform because it cannot be fixed and they're designing a brand new V8.
>Nissan
I've actually heard decent things about the frontier and titans but not sure because they're a bit more rare.

Like what happened here. Did Ford just hire all the good engineers or something and everyone else swapped to Indians?

>>28884404
>>Chevy
>I mean just look up the 6.2 L87 engine.
Don't forget they put a 4 cylinder in the 1500 silverado too.

>>28884419
I actually don't hate the idea. Trucks are supposed to be trucks and you want big displacement torquey engines. Their 2.7 makes more torque at a lower rpm, with less weight and mechanical complexity, and with about the same mpgs as the Ford.

>>28884419
apparently the 2.7 is their most reliable half ton engine lol. I would think nobody really gets the 2.7 though considering it isn't a big charge to go to the 5.3 instead. I would still rather have a turbocharged big 4 cylinder with no cylinder deactivation bs than a v8 with a bunch of moving parts inside.

>>28883475
>watching scientologist movies

>>28884452
>I would think nobody really gets the 2.7 though
A few fleet managers are buying them as general worktrucks. They're on super discount and rarely optioned.
>I would still rather have a turbocharged big 4 cylinder with no cylinder deactivation bs than a v8 with a bunch of moving parts inside.
Okay grandpa, we'll get you to bed soon.

>>28884404
I don't know about the titan but the frontier is super based

>>28883474
There's an anon on here who really likes his hybrid maverick and I can't really argue with a 60+ mpg truck.
Should've made a single/extended cab option with a longer bed though.

File: 2025-hyundai-santa-cruz-e(...).jpg (450 KB, 2250x1500)

450 KB JPG

>>28883596
>looks better
What's it like being blind, anon?

>>28884526
Everyone who has a Maverick loves it. Its not 60mpg; best I can get is about 53mpg on 45mph speed limit roads. Flat, eco mode, and trying to keep it in electric mode.
Hilly highways at 82mph cruise control it gets 32mpg. Not bad considering the speeds over 1300 miles.

>Should've made a single/extended cab option with a longer bed though.
The single/extended is moronic because NOBODY FUCKING BUYS THEM ANYMORE. Longer bed I can understand, but the unibody construction probably prohibits the longer bed. Besides, leave the tailgate down. How often do you need 6.5' long bed carrying capacity?

>>28884550
>How often do you need 6.5' long bed carrying capacity?
Every truck owner I know personally is a contractor and is constantly using it to carry around drywall and lumber and not their kids. A longer bed is infinitely more useful than more seats.

>>28884605
i'm constantly fascinated by how prevalent /o/ thinks contractors are. you see this idea reposted so much that it has to be either a bot or a professional full time shitposter. literally every thread will have the guy who doesn't understand that there can possibly exist a person who wants a pickup but isn't a career day laborer.

>>28884626
Literally everyone I know that owns a truck is a gc and they have other cars for their family, just my personal experience

File: 20260315_124457.jpg (3.51 MB, 4000x3000)

3.51 MB JPG

I have a hybrid awd one. It's PERFECT, it's basically like driving a Civic with a bed. You can fling it, it has instant power off the line, and I feel like you get everything you need from the base XL model. The bed is big enough to throw 4 of it's tires under a tonneau. Infotainment is great, speakers are passable to the point where I won't replace them.

I feel like if you're gonna pay $30k for a vehicle this is the way to go. Truck with the operating costs, comfort and reliability of a midsize car. Just put floormats and seat covers on the "bad interior" and it looks great.

XL trim is even blacked out and has black onyx seats + dark interior as the only option.

I do not get 40mpg but I've only owned it for winter. I see it as nearly impossible to get 40mpg, because I live in a town on the side of a mountain so I'm driving up and down mountains all day. I'm at about 36mpg since taking it off the lot and last 2 tanks have been like 30mpg cuz I moved and I'm no longer using the highway.. My 4cyl accord got like 18mpg doing this.

>>28884627
your personal experience is retarded though. have you ever heard of "anecdotal evidence"?
literally everyone i know is a 30-50 year old white person who lives within an hour of me. holy shit turns out there's other people on the planet that don't fit that criteria and i shouldn't be surprised that those people live lives and having worldviews that are different from whatever is immediately around me

>>28884673
I don't know why you're so assblasted about this. You asked who would need a full sized bed and I told you. I know lots of people who would love a hybrid Maverick as a work truck except they're not even looking at it because of the bed.

>>28884675
>You asked who would need a full sized bed and I told you
1, no "i" didn't, but that's semantics. 2, that wasn't the question that was asked. learn to read.
>How often do you need 6.5' long bed carrying capacity?'
keyword: (you)
imagine if it was towing capacity and it was f150 vs f350 and someone said "how often do you need to tow 40k lbs?"
>uhm akshually i know several long haul semi truck drivers and they tow 40k lbs every day
yeah no fucking shit retard.

>>28884686
I still don't understand the assblastedness

>>28883588
Nah monterrey is better

>>28884626
>>28884673
I was going to post the same thing. Everyone with a truck that he knows basically is always hauling some 8-foot long piece of construction material. The thousands of pickup trucks I see while commuting and fewer than 10% of them have anything in the bed (including beer cans). Surely I must be wrong and in my little town of several million is not representative of trucks.

>>28885492
he doesn't personally know you so you don't exist or matter.

>>28883512
the ford turbo cuck engines are shit and designed to randomly fail after the warranty is up. Never again

>>28885541
Wrong. The 2.0 is top 3 engine Ford makes right now and one of the best turbo 4s of all time. These engines regularly last 200k miles. You would only think it's bad if you had a 2015-2018 Edge or Escape which were the first cars to use the new second generation of the engine which had a bad coolant intrusion issue. It was updated in 2019 and isn't an issue anymore.

>>28885541
The latest ecoboost failures are basically all confirmed someone overloaded a truck on a steep grade and just kept their foot down while the last oil change was 47,382 miles ago.

>>28885492
>>28885501
The maverick already appeals to you because it's already a full crew cab and a short bed. I'm saying they should have offered a longer bed single cab version as well. It would have sold well, tradesmen would love a truck that gets 40+ mpg

>>28883474
How much does Ford pay people to shill the maverick on here? I could use a few bucks

File: autotrader.jpg (8 KB, 319x188)

8 KB JPG

>>28885574
>It would have sold well
sure, as evidenced by how successful single cab trucks in general are. ford is missing out on literally hundreds of customers every year and all they need to do to secure those sales is design an entirely new unibody and retool the assembly a little. that process would probably only cost a few million

>>28885568
>The 2.0 is top 3 engine Ford makes right now and one of the best turbo 4s of all time. These engines regularly last 200k miles
If you watch Big Ben fix Focuses he's had a couple 900ks come into the shop. As much flak as the DPS6 gets, with the new TCM you're running the vehicle to 170-190k before swapping to the manual MTX75 and then still it'll last you a long time. That 2.0 is built with extremely minimal maintenance in mind. Just replace the water pump before the seals fail.

>>28885574
>>28885584
Who told you people that people want single cabs? Even fleets don't want single cabs because they're fucking retarded.

>>28885584
>>28885688
You guys are focusing on the single cab instead of the 6.5ft+ bed and hybrid parts. I'm assuming that Ford wouldn't want to make an extra long fuckhuge version of their compact truck and that a long bed maverick would therefore not have a crew cab. Anon's right though, it being unibody kinda kills the idea anyway.

>>28885750
>You guys are focusing on the single cab instead of the 6.5ft+ bed and hybrid parts.
Correct, its because consumers, by in large, do not want single cab anything. Weather its a 2.5 foot bed or a 10.5 foot bad. Single cab and extended cabs aren't desired by enough people to be worth manufacturing. Meaning the cabin is more important than bed length for the vast majority of truck buyers. Thats more evident in heavier duty trucks such as half ton and 3/4 ton trucks.

You're wanting the "good old days" of single cab rangers and an 8' bed. Or a $400 chebby 1500 single cab and a 9' bed. Truth is very few people bought them then, and even fewer people would buy them today.

People buying the Maverick, Ranger, Colorado, Ridgeline, Santa Cruz, and Tacomas aren't buying them specifically for the bed. These trucks can haul large, somewhat heavy, and as-messy-as-you-want stuff as suggested by the bed, but some people basically never haul any of that but like the capability if they ever needed it where a similarly sized SUV simply doesn't have. Then on top of that its still small enough to feel like a mid size sedan. I must be like the other 95% of truck buyers wanting a good roomy cabin with the capability of hauling 1000lbs of large and messy stuff. Just me and my wife, and the rear seat will primarily be used as storage and a trunk. Under no circumstance can I see a single cab or extended cab as an improvement to a truck.

Next you'll come up with some bullshit how having less capability is actually a good thing and how the Slate truck will sell like hotcakes despite dogshit actual sales numbers.

>>28885775
Literally all I'm saying is that I personally know several people that would be interested in something like the Maverick if it had a bigger bed, but since it doesn't it's not even on their radar.
I'm not reading all that shit because you're not even talking to me, you're arguing with a strawman shill you've invented.

>>28885781
>but since it doesn't it's not even on their radar.
Okay, what is on their radar then?

>>28885790
Base model F-150s, Silverados, Promasters, etc
Work vehicles

>>28885781
If you want a bigger bed then you want a bigger truck. The Maverick is for people that would just buy a crossover otherwise

>>28885797
I guess it would eat into the Ranger's sales, and they are coming out with a PHEV Ranger next year. It still only has a 5 foot bed though.

>>28885802
Ranger is for pretending to go off road. If you want to put big planks of wood in a truck you need an f150

>>28885791
>half ton base model work trucks
>unibody hybrid pickup with a payload rating of 1500lbs
You're clueless about trucks and work vehicles.

>>28884452
The 2.7L in the 1/2 tons have cylinder deactivation.
No joke
But I haven't heard anything bad about them yet.
I remember watching an interview with one of the engineers that designed that engine.
He said that they absolutely had to get that engine perfect. because that was one of their last gasoline engines that had to be used in multiple platforms and not have any problems.
So it sounds like they did a reasonably good job making sure it wasn't trash.
I'm sure the bean counters had a heart attack.

>>28885810
Still no PHEV version that's been announced afaik
>>28885816
Look there's a reason I'm not in the trades myself lmao
All I know is that the truck guys I know would love if their trucks got 40+ mpg

>>28885819
>Look there's a reason I'm not in the trades myself lmao
Is it because you're retarded? Please put the fries in the bag.

No work truck is getting anywhere near 40mpg with an 8 foot bed and overloaded with tools and drywall. If a contractor or any other worker in the world is buying a vehicle because it gets 40mpg, they're never using it to haul something heavy. If they need a vehicle that regularly hauls very large and/or heavy materials, they're not expecting or even wanting it to get 40mpg. They probably don't care if it gets 20mpg.

>>28885836
>they're not expecting or even wanting it to get 40mpg. They probably don't care if it gets 20mpg.
People that need a truck for their job don't want to have to waste money on gas if they don't need to because it eats into their bottom line
In order of importance the criteria are
1. can it carry everything I need
2. is it reliable so I don't have to constantly spend money fixing it
3. does it get good mileage so I don't have to constantly spend money filling it up
4. is it easy to park

>>28885844
forgot, number 4 should be is it cheap

>>28885844
wow, 1 through 4 describes any shitbox, prius, or anything else they feel like driving. If you've ever been to a construction site, commercial or residential, most of the workers don't drive pickup trucks. Those that do are foremen and they never carry sheets of plywood, stacks of 2x4's, or plywood. All the large shit gets dropped off by a flat bed with a forklift.

Again, you're arguing about incredibly niche workers needing to get that 1 or 2 pieces of material to the jobsite as a handman or short notice issue. You're trying to paint this picture of Jethro or Enrique doing handyman bullshit of needing a couple 2x4's or a couple sheets of plywood and going to some lady's house for a $1000 job. All of which the Maverick can (and does) do. Nobody acting as a day laborer is buying a brand new Maverick to do this shit. They're not even buying a used one for $15,000 to do this shit. They're 99% of the time using what they have or buying some $3000 1993 Chevy 1500 for which THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE it gets 15mpg because they can't afford something that gets 2mpg better.

You're seriously stupid and have no idea what you're talking about.

>>28885853
You're back to arguing with a fictional shill you've invented and getting supremely bootybothered about it.
I'm talking about real people that I actually know in real life who actually do what I've described and what they are actually looking for in a new vehicle.

File: 2022-ford-maverick-xlt-hy(...).jpg (513 KB, 2000x1222)

513 KB JPG

>>28883474
Pic rel
>>28884639
>XL trim is even blacked out and has black onyx seats + dark interior as the only option.
Punished ricer focused on the important things as always kek, wrenchlet

File: lw33ca3fra6lkpjr47jf.jpg (468 KB, 2133x1600)

468 KB JPG

>>28885862
glass houses my wheelgap obsessed friend

>work vehicle
>irs with "sporty" alignment specs to keep this cuckbox from rolling over
We run IRS work vans and don't carry a whole lot of weight but we still chew through a set of tires every 10k miles. Meanwhile the solid rear axle Transits and Expresses go forever on a set. Yeah van vs truck blah blah but it's the same thing. As a fleet manager or even a trade worker the IRS is an auto no go. Not to mention the number of additional parts that you're friendly local Ford dealer gets to fuck you on.

>>28885863
>another plastic engine
man shut the fuck up you dumbass newfag, this piece of shit is automatic and its not even your car. ricer

>>28885866
it took you 100 sets of tires to realize race car suspension isnt fit for truck duty kek, dumbass fucking helpless nu-male

>>28885876
It's not my company and I'm not the fleet manager. I personally would never use a IRS vehicle as a work vehicle because I suffer from common sense. Even my personal trucks use solid axles and leaf springs just as the good Lord intended.

>>28885879
ill let you slide, wagie

>>28885873
lets see your clean, neat, cable and hose free engine bay, anon

>>28885895
And brown hand.

>>28885541
That's just blatantly untrue though. Ford 3.5 ecoboost in the F150 has been pretty great, only suffering from some minor issues early on. Its leagues better than anything the other manufacturers offer. Beyond just reliability its the best towing 1/2 ton motor and frankly its not particularly close because it makes peak toque at like 3k rpm. Again, Ford just seems to be ahead of the curve pretty consistently. GM and Dodge have been playing catch up since like the early 00s after the legendary GMT800 trucks ended for GM and they started making complete garbage after that.

>>28885857
>I'm talking about real people that I actually know
No, you're not. If you're talking about real people who *need* an 8 foot bed and a single cab pickup truck, they've already bought an F150, Silverado 1500, or Ram 1500. They don't even glance at a Maverick. In reality, you know some day laborers that bought a 15 year old truck in whatever they could afford. Factually ZERO people looking to save a few dollars on gasoline are buying a brand new single cab pickup for day laborer work.
You're arguing a point that is completely irrelevant for new pickup production. And as stated before, you're fucking retarded.

>>28885964
>They don't even glance at a Maverick.
I know. That's what I said. You're still arguing with an imaginary shill in your head and refuting talking points you made up.

>>28885895
thats not how it works little ricer wrenchlet, you dont go to your boss and say P-P-P-POST CAR lol dumbass

>>28885968
>I know. That's what I said. You're still arguing with an imaginary shill in your head and refuting talking points you made up.
THEN WHY THE BLUE FUCK ARE YOU ASKING FOR AN 8 FOOT SINGLE CAB MAVERICK?

>>28885972
I think they should make an efficient hybrid truck that has more than a dinky ass 4.5 foot bed that's hardly any better than the back of a crossover.

>>28885977
>I think they should make
This is why you make hamburgers, and why others make cars. Please put the french fries into the bag.

>>28886000
I don't know why you seem to take what I've said as a personal attack. There is no need to be upset.

>>28886007
And I still don't know why you're demanding a product that has been proven to not sell. You're an idiot, you're so stupid you think I'm upset.

>>28886015
I don't recall demanding anything. All I said was I know and have talked with people who would buy a fuel efficient hybrid truck if it had a decent sized bed. This really set you off and now here we are dozens of posts later.

>>28886019
>This really set you off and now here we are dozens of posts later.
It didn't set me off: you're making up some bullshit or repeating lines from people who would NEVER buy a new vehicle for work purposes, then wonder why manufacturers make more 15 year old cars with 100k miles for $5000 for them.

You're just as dumb as your friends who claim they want a vehicle they'd never buy.

>>28885853
100% spot on.

T. Poorfag in an old truck.

>ITT: micropenis convention

>>28887299
This isn't a BMW thread

>>28885853
Dude, what?!
>1. can it carry everything I need
If a prius can carry everything you need then you have a sad "life".

>>28885853
>They're 99% of the time using what they have or buying some $3000 1993 Chevy 1500 for which THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE it gets 15mpg
Yeah pretty much me for my gopher truck. 1&2 are the only salient points for anyone who uses their truck for their job. Fuel and ease of parking is not part of the equation. You only ever need to figure out if it's rated to do the job you need done and is it not a pile of shit.

>>28887322
>If a prius can carry everything you need then you have a sad "life".
Yeah, a wife and kids is truly sad. Not doing manual labor is just shameful I guess.

>>28887906
>dur hur trucks are only used for home depot runs.
You plop your kids in front of the tv instead of parenting.
Your hobbies are limited to Xbox and TikTok.
The grill in your backyard that your brother in law gave you for Christmas is rusted out (you used it once).

Youre a failure as a human.

>>28885853
Something he forgets too is that work expenses are tax deductible. Gas and mileage are work expenses.

So a corporate outfit will not care at all about MPG since they can just pass the bill to uncle sam for a credit, even as an independent contractor/handyman you will want to track that shit down to reduce taxes on your business. Usually you can only deduct one, either mileage or gas price, and unless you're a shitty handyman /contractor, you're not gonna be on the road all that often, this obviously means that gas will be the expense they claim on their tax fillings.

Is this gonna save them a ton of money? not really, but it does offset the need for a hybrid vehicle to begin with since once all is set and some their work truck that only gets like 15 MPG will probably come up to mid 20s gas mileage once we factor in discounts from Uncle Sam. That is if they even use a truck to begin with since most actual independent contractors/handyman use vans instead. more room for their tool and material.

>>28887975
>So a corporate outfit will not care at all about MPG since they can just pass the bill to uncle sam for a credit
Thats not how tax credits work. Say i buy an f150 and its $100 to fill up and $10 in tax. I can claim the $10 on my taxes. Say I buy a maverick and its $50 to fill up and $5 on my taxes. I can claim $5 on my taxes. Its still $45 more expensive to fill up the f150. And even then you dont usually get 100% of the taxes spent back, its usually its just a percentage of your taxes.

The government doesnt just hand out free money to businesses unless you were on epstiens island with the other big wigs.

>>28888055
Also this still isnt how tax credits work but im simplifying here. In reality the way it works is if you earn 100k, and you spend $100 on gas, youre taxed on a theoretical $99,900 instead of 100k. If your tax rate is 30% youre only reimbursed for $30 and youre still spending $70 on gas.

>>28884016
The Lambs are Still crying Anon?

>>28887906
Literally all the blue collar truck guys I know have separate cars for getting their families around. No one with any self respect would haul their wife and kids around in their ratty ass work truck

>>28887975
anon can you not fathom the existence of a successful self employed tradesman?

>>28888055
>>28888059
Holy shit youre a fucking idiot that has zero understanding of tax law.

>>28888070
Okay so explain how I'm wrong because I literally just filed my taxes yesterday and had to declare self-expenses and thats exactly how that worked.

>>28888074

>spend $100 on gas, youre taxed on a theoretical $99,900 instead of 100k. If your tax rate is 30% youre only reimbursed for $30

You dont get reimbursed for operating costs of running a business.
Your "tax rate" isnt how much you get back.
Operating costs are non-taxable.
In your example you had to pay 30% on the $99,900 instead of $100,000.
The difference being in the end you are out of pocket $100 (gas) instead of $130 (gas + 30% tax) because that $100 isnt actual earnings.

You've never done taxes.

>>28888055
>>28888059
>Canadian commenting on US Tax code
Huge grain of salt there buddy. But IRS allows you claim ¢/mile driven as deducted fuel costs. 2026 the IRS is allowing 0.725¢/mile to elbe claimed. That's $10.875 / mile for a 15MPG company truck. Most companies do a direct deduction from company card anyways. If it wasn't advantageous to companies then they wouldn't do it.

>>28888068
I worded that badly, it's not that independent contractors are not sucessfull, I was trying to say that a good contractor is not gonna be driving around as if he was a doordash driver, so the main expense will be the price of gas since mileage will be a pittance in comparison.

>>28884404
Nigga forgets the goddly 5.3 NA V8

Have fun when your mild hybrid system fucks up

Guys you're forgetting that the Maverick is priced with the most shitbox of vehicles. It shouldn't be compared to trucks.

I bought my mav because I was shopping for a $30k hybrid, which means I was shopping against civics and corollas. I ended up getting my maverick cheaper than a civic hybrid and imo the utility SHITS on a civic completely, like you have to be STUPID FAGGOT as a family man to choose a civic instead of a maverick when they're the same price.

I don't care that my mav tows half as much as a regular truck, it tows four times as much as a civic

>>28888157
>and imo the utility SHITS on a civic
I got all drunk yesterday and told my wife I wanted to get the Eibach lowering springs for a 2&2.5" drop. She pointed out it'd just be a regular sedan and a lowered truck seems silly (she likes big pickups). I pointed out the bed is still there, the truck would rest on the bump stops with 1500lbs in the bed, but I don't like hauling that much shit so its not much of a concern for me. She then asked why I didn't just get an SUV or minivan again, I again pointed out the truck bed has so much fucking utility it stomps on every SUV and sedan out there for work, for gardening, for hobbies, etc while still being a compact vehicle. The only thing that would come close might be a van like a transit connect (not sold anymore) or a mini van.

My laments about the Maverick is I wish it had more horsepower (like 300: about 50% more power) but it wouldn't get 50mpg then. Also, wish it could haul a trailer with a car on it, even with helper springs. But again, it'd need more horsepower, less MPG, and I don't plan on towing shit like that often enough to justify an F150.

>>28885574
Nobody wants a single cab. Extended cab with the back seat for midgets, sure. That’s still handy because you “can” have people sit back there, but it’s mostly to have a lockable, weather protected area for anything. Or so the one small bag/box slide all the to the front of the bed making you climb up and get it.
>but tonneau covers
Don’t seal as well and you still get dust in. Plus if it’s a “working truck” the bed will be dirty. Or you don’t want to roll up the cover every time you put larger shit in the back. Or both.

More people want Ram mega cabs even with full length beds than single cabs.

>>28885775
>Just me and my wife, and the rear seat will primarily be used as storage and a trunk. Under no circumstance can I see a single cab or extended cab as an improvement to a truck.
This. I don’t understand how pickups became such a contentious issue. I want something that is nice to daily drive and can occasional haul shit that is dirty, shit that will get dirty, or shit that is long. Also pull the occasional trailer of toys. Having a big back seat is awesome. I can road trip 8hrs with 4 people and it’s comfortable. Or me, gf, and dog and all our stuff is in the backseat and out of the elements. The bed is for coolers, guns, and boots. Just because I don’t have a load of gravel in the bed 24/7 doesn’t mean I don’t use the truck aspects. Who cares if I only use it once a year for that. It works for me. If people want to call that wrong, go ahead. They’re retarded and I don’t care.

>>28885791
That’s a completely different market and use case. Why didn’t you mention rangers, colorados, tacomas, or frontiers?

>>28885819
>All I know is that the truck guys I know would love if their trucks got 40+ mpg
No shit. I don’t have a car but I would love if it did a 3 second 0-60 and cornered like an F1 car while having the daily driving attributes of a civic. But this is reality. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t have great MPG and great payload capacity and great towing and a long bed and a full cab AND cost less than house.

>>28885844
Number 1 excludes number 3 you hopeless retard. You remind me of when I was 10 and though putting a lift kit on a Ferrari was the perfect idea for an off road vehicle.

>>28888478
They all cost the same. When they all cost the same it's a matter of getting whatever gets you the most vehicle for your money. That's always the half ton which is why they're the best selling vehicles on the planet.

>>28885853
Hit the nail on the head anon

>>28885968
Dude, that’s literally what you asked for. You wanted a single cab long bed Maverick. Now you say no one wants one.

For anyone saying the maverick isn't big enough - there's literally a F150 Power boost that's a V6 hybrid, basically big maverick. But because it's an F150 it's 50% heavier and gets 50% less mpg.

>>28888616
The "omg it doesnt have an 8' bed!!" posters are 99% basement dwellers and that one dude that does drywall for a living and wants to close his tailgate instead of spending 4 minutes to strap down his load when he leaves home depot to drop off his shit to the spic crew he hired for the day.

Nobody wants a standard cab.
In the 90s we were jealous as fuck of anybody with an extra cab.
We (very quickly) figured out that we can put the same amount of dirt bikes and empty beer cans in a 6.5' bed as an 8'.
And the market shifted to what we wanted.

Look at history.

>>28888634
The maverick has a 4.5' bed. It can still haul a 4x8 sheet or ten.

>>28888648
Yes.
Kind of my point.
Maverick even has a tailgate that locks in multiple positions.
You can lock the tailgate in alignment with the wheel wells to have a uniform surface for 4x8 sheets.

>>28888059
>>28888074
That’s not at all how taxes work and I hope you didn’t file them yourself. Doing your own taxes is really easy unless you’re retarded.

>>28888089
>>28888926
1. The actual IRS standard mileage rate is about $0.725 per mile (72.5 cents), not 0.725 cents.
2. Where the hell did $10.875/mile come from? Even if gas is ~$4/gallon:
0.0667 × 4 = ~$0.27 per mile in fuel
3. The IRS mileage rate (72.5¢/mile) is:
A deduction per mile driven, not a reimbursement and not “fuel cost”

And again, it reduces taxable income, not taxes dollar-for-dollar.

Yes, companies use corporate cards, yes expenses get deducted. But again Deducted ≠ free.

I'm not sure why this is difficult for you guys.

File: Screenshot_20260324_08142(...).jpg (417 KB, 1079x1751)

417 KB JPG

>>28888926
You know, its extremely easy to just ask chatgpt to fact check your own posts before sounding like a fucking retard.
>inb4 muh ai
I've done my own taxes for the last 15 years, i've never had an issue or gotten an audit.

>>28888662
>Maverick even has a tailgate that locks in multiple positions.
Not exactly a new concept; I couldn't tell you the last model truck that had a simple tailgate like that but its just 2 positions. I appreciate it because it isn't a $9000 GMC tailgate hwere the middle folds down just a little bit, but its also not great unless you're carrying something like a sheet. 2x6's can still slide around, but its a little more confident than a completely flat carry.

maverick looks cool but i refuse to buy a jewnibody truck.

>>28888957
What a fucking moron
>"whats correct"
>"if you earn 100k and spend $100 on gas, youre taxed on $99,900 instead of $100k"

I hope you actually have done your taxes the way you claim because youre looking at 20 years in prison.
Youre actually claiming that a higher tax bracket means you get more money back....

>>28888975
i'm a CPA and what he said is correct. deductible expenses reduce taxable income.
>Youre actually claiming that a higher tax bracket means you get more money back....
he's not claiming this at all. also consider that deductible expenses are "below the line" and most gibs programs are based on AGI or a derivative (MAGI), which are "above the line."

>>28888983
>he's not claiming this at all.
Literally what he said.
>>28888059
> you spend $100 on gas.....your tax rate is 30% youre only reimbursed for $30 and youre still spending $70 on gas.

File: Screenshot 2026-03-24 083036.png (3.1 MB, 2641x1294)

3.1 MB PNG

>>28888971
You're now manually aware there have been unibody pickup trucks since the 50's.

>>28889019
he's using sloppy terminology. by "reimburse" he means reduction in tax due/paid.

>>28889024
Its still incorrect even with that mindset.
If you spend $100 on gas, thats removed from taxable income.
It no longer exists.

Youre a fucking liar.
You are not a CPA.
There is zero way to justify "30% tax rate means you only pay $70 for gas instead of $100" as a slip of words.
You have zero understanding of taxes and 99% chance youre the same dumbfuck. Simply because there cant be 2 people here that are this stupid.

>>28889021
Its BOF. Like a Bronco.
I owned a '64 btw.

>>28889033
Now explain why you'd never buy one and realize how dumb you sound for not liking something for its construction method.

>>28889038
I wasn't origonal anon you linked.
I dont have an issue with Maverick.

I was simply pointing out that its not a unibody chassis as that term is accepted today since its mounted to a ladder frame.
Same as the Escalade EXT pickup.

File: Capture.png (32 KB, 1413x260)

32 KB PNG

>>28889031
>If you spend $100 on gas, thats removed from taxable income.
yes, which reduces tax liability. tax due = taxable income x effective tax rate.
>You are not a CPA.
yes i am.
>There is zero way to justify "30% tax rate means you only pay $70 for gas instead of $100" as a slip of words.
i just said it was sloppy terminology. if your fuel expenses are 100% tax deductible AND you would have otherwise spent the money on fuel, then you are benefiting.

>>28889041
Fair enough, the current Ranger is probably a very similar construction with a unibody cab on a ladder frame. We'll never hear from the "I hate Mavericks" people buying a Ranger though. They'll complain its too big and too expensive, Ford should sell a Maverick sized truck that can haul 3000lbs and tow 5000 and be $25k. Basically outlining why consumers are usually wrong about what they want.

>>28883474
I quite like the idea of it. The cabin itself is designed well, it is about the size and gets the same or better fuel economy than 90's import trucks and has a similar bed/tow capacity.

However I have only ridden in the hybrid model and I am not sure if its the hybrid engagement, the transmission struggling to find the ideal gear ratio, or just the seats but I get a massive headache riding in it. It also is louder than my 30 year old sedan, especially in higher frequencies like tire noise.

>>28883588
Until the engine explodes from oil consumption.
Bamboo piston rings.

>>28889060
>I get a massive headache riding in it. It also is louder than my 30 year old sedan
You're just a bitch, but Ford definitely skimped on sound deadening and insulation on the truck. Its still the cheapest truck on the market and is otherwise very good.

Why the fuck is this thread always at the top

>>28889065
It's not really very good if I cant stand to be in the car for more than 5 minutes. I have yet to ride in a non-hybrid model to see if that is the cause, or if its some other dynamic with the car.

>>28889066
ford made too many mavericks and needs to sell them off

its a cheap shitty ford escape with a bed, the shills are paid

>>28889071
>Rides in a car once for 5 minutes
>gets headache
>car must be bad
uh huh.

>>28889075
>nooo it couldn't be possible this is a cheaply made overhyped shitbox

>>28889075
You need better reading comprehension. I said I can't stand to be in it more than about 5 minutes, not that I have only been in it for 5 minutes.
I have been on multi state all day road trips in the hybrid maverick both unladen and with the bed loaded, it's shit every time. Takes less than 5 minutes to set in, does not matter if I am driving or my friend. 40mpg round trip does not make up for feeling like garbage the entire time.

>>28889044
Its not sloppy terminology.
Its a complete misunderstanding of the tax code or even tax process.
Look at what he actually said you fucking nonce.
>spend $100 on fuel.
>30% tax rate
>get a $30 rebate
So if my company has $200k in A.R. but I spent $75k on my building lease, $100k on payroll and $25k on fuel then according to dipshit I can "write off" everything and the government will give me $60k as a "rebate".

Your pic is either AI generated or youre some thrid worlder from a diploma farm.

>>28889077
kia sportage is much more comfortable for all day road trips
t. has taken a hundred of them last year

>>28889090
Riding in a kia really hurts my neck
I try to keep my head down so nobody can see me and it really leaves it aching after a 30 minute trip

>>28889085
>So if my company has $200k in A.R. but I spent $75k on my building lease, $100k on payroll and $25k on fuel then according to dipshit I can "write off" everything and the government will give me $60k as a "rebate".

i think you're misunderstanding a lot of things here, as you intermix balance sheet accounts with income statement accounts and aren't clear on whether you're discussing a cash basis or accrual basis entity.

but to cut through all of this nonsense, businesses can deduct qualifying business expenses. entities are not taxed on sales, they're taxed on sales net of qualifying expense deductions. there is no "rebate." that is how tax due is calculated.

>>28888952
>>28888957
>If your tax rate is 30% youre only reimbursed for $30
This shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole process. Or you are god awful at explaining things.

You aren’t reimbursed for anything. You have a reduction of your taxable income by your deductible business expenses. You don’t get a check for 30% of your expenses. 2025 mileage rate was 70 cents/mile. So you’d take your income minus 0.70*miles driven for business (minus other business expenses) to arrive at your taxable income. Then apply the relevant tax brackets (or flat corporate tax rate if it’s for the business and not self-employed). That’s a gross simplification, even though doing taxes isn’t hard for the vast majority of situation.
>t CPA
I don’t do corporate or personal tax but I’m certain I’m more knowledgeable than you on this subject.

>>28889100
He means annual revenue not accounts receivable even though I’ve never heard someone call revenue “A.R.”

>>28889085
It is sloppy terminology ill admit to that.

You’re not reimbursed, you simply pay $30 less in taxes. But financially, the result is the same, so for a simplified explanation, it’s fine.

you've got me disagreeing with you, an apparant cpa disagreeing with you, you've got an ai chatbot disagreeing with you, but no its everyone else thats wrong and you know more than everyone else.

This will be my last reply because this is just a waste of my precious gooning time. Read a book nigger.

>>28889100
Verified you have no fucking.clue what youre talking about.
Your word salad is random shit thrown together that has nothing to do with the topic.

#1)
>my business earns $100k
>my tax rate is 30%
>I owe $30,000 in taxes

#2)
>my business earns $100k
>but I can write off $50k
>my tax rate is 30%
>I owe $15,000 in taxes
NOT
>I can write off $50k in fuel
>tax rate is 30%
>government pays me $15,000

You are an absolute fucking idiot.
Go back and read the posts from the start of the chain.
Quote anything I said thats incorrect.

>>28889107
remember when i repeatedly said the guy's terminology was sloppy, that's it's not a "rebate"?

>>28889104
>accounts receivable
>never heard someone call revenue “A.R."
What the fuck do you think "accounts receivable" is?!
Its literally money owed by invoice.
Youre a ahitty fucking troll.

>>28889110
cash basis clients don't have accounts receivable. revenue basis clients do have accounts receivable. AR is a balance sheet account. revenue is a P&L account. cash basis taxpayers pay tax on cash received or constructively received. accrual basis taxpayers pay tax on revenues. if you don't understand what i'm talking about, it's no wonder you're confused.

>>28888952
>Yes, companies use corporate cards, yes expenses get deducted. But again Deducted ≠ free.
You agreed with everything in my post. I'm not replying any further to this chain. Money symbol error, not the end of the world. As shown in the rest of thread you do understand this is a deduction to reduce taxable income, and getting back the reason this started, you can drive a low MPG truck and deduct fuel costs by either the xx cents per mile or actual fuel cost+actual maintenance cost. For some companies that means you can choose to drive the inefficient F150 over the efficient Maverick. Let's not lose the plot here over tax semantics. This whole chain started because (You) are consistently bothered that everyone else wants to drive a V8 truck over a 4 cyclical hybrid sedan with a bed.

>>28889108
Thats not "sloppy".
Confusing PAYING 30% vs GETTING PAID 30% shows dipshit has no clue what the fuck taxes even are. And youre a fucking idiot and a LARPer for saying its just "bad terminology".
>I paid $100 for gas so since im in a 30% tax bracket I get credit for 30% of that 100 bucks so I only pay $70 in the end
Thats NOT HOW TAXES WORK.
You're so fucking stupid that you dont even know whats going on in this conversation.
GTFO, faggot.

>>28889143
are you off your court appointed meds or something?

>>28889110
>What the fuck do you think "accounts receivable" is?!
>Its literally money owed by invoice.
Which is a completely different thing than revenue. It’s a balance sheet account vs income statement account. Any entry level accounting class tells you this. Go look up in investopedia.

You’re out of your element bud.

>>28889204
Youre not even in the same conversation.

You still havent explained how a 30% rebate on $100 in gas coincides with paying a tax rate of 30%.
Answer that or GTFO.
Fucking LARPing idiot.

>>28889218
>You still havent explained how a 30% rebate on $100 in gas coincides with paying a tax rate of 30%.
Nigger I even said that was wrong. Scroll up. Of course I wouldn’t explain why something wrong is right.

The namefag is wrong about taxes (or phrased it horribly if I’m being generous). You are also wrong about basic accounting terms and concepts. Like I said above, I’m also a CPA, but not the one who posted the screenshot.

Can we go back to talking about the Maverick and how it’s basically the Explorer Sport Trac? I come here to distract myself from work. Not talk work-adjacent terminology.

>>28889249
>how it’s basically the Explorer Sport Trac?
I had a 2 door Explorer sport, I think the same chassis as a Sport Trac. Loved that little truck, basically a Ford Blazer. Big enough rear seats, decent cargo area, 4.0L V6 making a cool 186horsepower or some shit. It was a pig and I loved it.

I wouldn't say they're the same though: the sport trac is bigger, BoF, heavier duty even for the 20 year difference in manufacture. The nu-Ranger is more similar to the Sport Trac.

>>28889218
>bro is literally nipicking the single thing I said incorrectly after being wrong about 50 other things including basic math.
Just kys.

>>28885688
Why wouldn't anyone want a truck to be a truck? It's not meant to be an SUV with an uncovered rear.

File: 1773429190198643.jpg (9 KB, 319x319)

9 KB JPG

>>28889365
>uncovered rear

>>28883474
IF I were to get a truck, it'd be a Maverick.
I'd be more interested in one if they had an extended cam with a longer bed

>>28883474
>Is it worth it

I like the concept of it as an affordable fuel efficient truck.

But would I buy one over an older used Ranger or F150? No.

>>28883474
If the Maverick could still be had new for ~25K out the door, it'd be a no brainer. But it's not. It's ~32K out the door if the dealer isn't trying to fuck you over. If you get the AWD package it's closer to 36k. That said, there's almost no market for used ones because their owners tend to keep them.

>>28889404
32k is winter beater money. Have you tried not being poor?>>28889377

>>28883474
It's fucking junk just like every other Ford

>>28883474
Just picked up a 2wd hybrid for my wife. Honestly it seems great. I like my truck better for actual driving but it's a cool little car. Conditions were a bit ideal, but she got 60 mpg on one of her recent trips and she's not good at driving carefully at all. It's got 1445 lbs of payload too, so that's pretty cool. People who hate on them are just imaginary internet people.

>>28889252
>heavier duty even for the 20 year difference
I had to look up the old specs and yeah, I was way underestimating it.

>>28889461
its not a bad idea, its a horrible execution
ford never does more than it has to
if it were a new platform, new engines, nice interior, etc.

but no, its crap and people glaze it cuz it looks macho and they are trugg-obsessed

>>28889459
Post your winter beater. Also, you can get a Frontier for 35-36k. Why get a Maverick when they’re so close in price? Hell the XLT with the offroad package and 4000lb towing package pushes it to 35k.

>>28889472
> people glaze it cuz it looks macho
No one with more than 3 brain cells thinks it looks macho.

>>28889482
I saw one in dark green today, it doesn't look horrible, it just is horrible in every other way.

The Ford Escape platform was a shitty rental car interior when it came out in 2017 and it still is. They desperately need to replace it, but the new ones just gonna be more of the same but with bigger screens and any buttons totally gone.

>>28889486
Yeah in some colors they look solid. I think they look fine and don’t hate them. But no one is buying a Maverick for
>muh macho truck
That’s pants on head retarded

>>28889698
nobody makes a GOOD rich metallic forest green anymore
all there is is that gross bmw green and various gray-green cars that look like mud (I have one and I hate it but it was the only way to into gray seats instead of black)
I also enjoy teal.
>But no one is buying a Maverick for
that's literally why they buy it to look tough
imagine this much hype over a Ford Escape
It is a Ford Escape with a bed. To be very clear.

just get a ranger

>>28884639
>I have a hybrid awd one. It's PERFECT

Based, I watched a video by Engineering Explained on YouTube and he basically said that the Hybrid AWD is the perfect Maverick. He compared it to his, which is a 2.5L Turbo AWD version, and basically the Hybrid AWD was barely 1 second shorter 0-60. It has very similar performance to the Ecoboost but with better fuel economy. Seems like the obvious choice if you get a maverick

File: 20251221_121506.jpg (1.18 MB, 4000x1848)

1.18 MB JPG

>>28884187
Yes but it's also the crappy sound system, manual seat, no 360 cam etc. I test drove an xl and xlt and its like, if im paying 30 grand usd for a brand new vehicle and the interior is worse than a rental Mazda thats pretty bleak.

Lariat isnt perfect by any means but at least you get an acoustic laminated windshield which makes it as quiet as my mach e when im cruising around town in electric mode, wisper quiet on the highway, b&o sound system, power seats, 360 cam, sliding bed rails, bed liner standard, adaptive cruise etc.

Its funny being on the forums and these boomers will seethe about turning a 30k truck into a 40k truck and then go spend 10k in "upgrades" on their xl/xlt. Speaker upgrades, pleather seat covers, aftermarket bed liner, and after all that it still doesn't get as much as the lariat. I just couldn't justify buying a brand new vehicle and it feeling like a 2015 rental car.

>>28889486
>but the new ones just gonna be more of the same but with bigger screens and any buttons totally gone.
Car execs are retarded and all they know how to do is make things worse.

I just want to say that only women complain about interiors. Maverick interior is pretty great. If it doesn't feel luxurious enough for you, that's because you a girl with a vagina and you have dumb opinions.

>>28889794
>highway, b&o sound system, power seats, 360 cam, sliding bed rails, bed liner standard, adaptive cruise etc
Only homos like these sorts of features. They add weight to the truck and steal your payload.

>>28889794
Reminder that these are the people who will champion Transportation Pods.

They just want self driving and a big comfy lounge chair so they can watch TikTok on the way to work.

>>28889901
Yeah? Commuting fucking sucks theres nothing enjoyable about it. Its constant rock chips, broken windshields, wear on your clutch, wear on your *fun* tires, wear on your fun brakepads, engine is getting hot sitting in traffic, putting unnecessary kms on your fun car doing a non-fun activity with it.

I have a fun car for weekends and a boring disconnected npc box for commuting in. I'm at the point of not wanting to driver where I'm going to get a comma ai and just let my car drive itself to my work.

>>28889874
>maverick
>caring about payload
A hundred pounds here and there isnt gonna hurt anything.

>>28883474
It's an eco pickup that Ford is trying to make into more than it is.

I'll have a good laugh when I see the Raptor version in the wild.

>>28889945
How is ford making it something its not? Its advertised as the homeowners truck. You can throw dirt/mulch in the bed, 2x4s, you can tow a trailer around with it if you need bigger stuff, its still easy to park. Where in fords marketing are they lying about the capabilities of it?

>>28889794
>360 cameras
Are gay. If you need these you shouldn’t be driving.
>power seats
Nice to have but who cares. I set it once and never change my seat
>sound system
Yeah I’ll admit having a nice one is very nice but if the speakers are your deciding factor in a vehicle your retarded
>sliding bed rails
Who fucking cares
>bed liner
Can do it yourself on a single Saturday for a fraction of the cost. Or buy a rubber mat. It’s not like your hauling shit all the time with a Maverick

Spending $40k or more defeats the point of getting a Maverick. You can get a light duty truck at that price with comparable interiors. You can get a 1-2 year old half ton that’s nicer.

>>28889404
>If the Maverick could still be had new for ~25K out the door, it'd be a no brainer. But it's not.
You're almost aware of how stupid you are: complaining they cost too much and if they'd only lower the price by 25% then they'd sell more, but new ones are selling before the get to the dealership and few people are selling them second hand.

But they're too expensive huh?

>>28889974
actual irl gay guy here
360 cameras are GREAT and I would never buy a car again that didn't have one, makes it way easier to park and get in and out of tight areas, it even turns on automatically at low speeds if it detects an obstacle or a tight squeeze

I love my power seats. Even as a passenger I don't have to fiddle with knobs. I have a Tiguan with a manual power seat - much harder to use, much less adjustable.

You wouldn't care about "Maverick" if it were just a Ford Escape. The fact that it has a bed seems to make people go insane and defend it blindly.
It's cheap cuz it's poorly made and terrible.

>>28889977
>360 cameras are GREAT and I would never buy a car again that didn't have one
Have you driven a Maverick? They're a compact car, a 360 camera on a Maverick is like demanding a 360 cam on a Honda Civic.

>>28889982
I have a compact SUV. It's still incredibly useful for tight parking spaces and when there's people getting in and out and the cameras also function as other things like beeping at you if you signal a lane change and there's someone in the next lane and activating a camera in my driver's display when I signal a lane change etc.
yeah a civic should have a 360 cam too its a basic safety feature and should be on all cars like a backup camera is

if your cars only appeal is "muh truck" and "muh cheap", its an awful shitbox that doesn't deserve to live

>>28889977
>>28889989
You don't understand. You can't understand. It's cheap and it has a bed. That's what's great about it. It's the perfect vehicle.

>>28889995
if those are the only qualifiers then my D21 is a far superior vehicle. Longer tray (6ft), and was like 800 bucks. Any old ford/nissan/toyota/dodge/chevy truck on craigslist is better.

>>28890000
No because those didn't have 4 doors.

>>28889989
I get it man, I drove my mom's Mercedes that would turn it on automatically. I know exactly what you're talking about when I was sitting in the back seat. I also flat out didn't look at it when I was driving the car because I'm not an incompetent retard unable to drive or park a car without a camera system.

You're also missing the cost of these nice to have systems. Its a $32k truck. You're demanding all this shit be added and you'd also be the exact same guy crying about it costing $45k and how you'll never buy one.

I know this is true because they have a version with all that shit. It doesn't make any fucking sense either because its so deep into well-equipped ranger territory and lower end F150. There aren't that many of these models sold because of obvious reasons.

>if your cars only appeal is "muh truck" and "muh cheap", its an awful shitbox that doesn't deserve to live
If your only cars appeal is useless tech for women, its not a living thing.

>>28889977
The Escape is great too. I had an Escape S because it was one of the last cars you could buy with both a naturally aspirated 4 cylinder and a no cvt. That with a bed would be perfect, even if it does have a mild hybrid component.

>>28889977
>sucks cocks like a woman
>needs cameras to part
Checks out

>>28890008
>nooooo adding 30ft of tiny gauge copper wire and $100 of cameras is going to bankrupt le heckin' baserino corporation! they'll have to add $8888 to the price!
begone, tiny hat

>>28890026
Hey now, I suck cock just fine and don't need a camera to park.

>>28889794
I don't disagree with decking out the Maverick. Some of those are a little excessive and extra, but since you're pulling a track car once in awhile the 360 camera is worth it, the tongue weight display is also a good upgrade on other trucks. Zero reason for everyone to be bitching about safer and more precise operation of your vehicle. I still maintain that you might have been better suited with a Ranger when pulling a car on trailer as shared by your pictures. Maverick is very light duty and I don't think intended to pull a full car on a trailer.

>>28890041
>any car under $45k is for poor people
>tries calling someone jewish for female-only tech
How many fenders have you crumpled before your 360 cameras were invented?

File: 1235461262036203.jpg (86 KB, 1024x555)

86 KB JPG

>>28883474
nissian frontier beats it in every way. Why the fuck would anyone pay $30k for a truck with a 4 1 /2' bed? What are you hauling, groceries?

>>28890041
Just because it costs them relatively little doesn’t mean they don’t charge many times that. But you’re a faggot and struggle with reality, so I get your confusion.

>>28890132
>nissian frontier beats it in every way
I disagree. I'm car shopping right now, and I need a cheap and cheerful appliance with all-weather capability for a two-person household in the PNW (think greater Seattle area, near to Redmond)

The Maverick is on my short list because in the hybrid models it gets excellent fuel economy, much better than the Nissan could ever do. AWD is perfect for the climate here. The short bed of the Maverick is enough to haul small batches of gardening supplies a couple of times a year and can be setup to hold a couple of muddy mountain bikes. I don't need a full size or even a midsize truck, I had an F150 for years but my needs no longer include having it's capabilities.

The number of times I use my Grand Caravan to haul bulky stuff each year can be counted on one hand and the GC is a thirsty bastard where I live in the PNW, it hates mountain roads. I'm able to keep the GC for people hauling when the grandkids come to visit and have the Maverick too, as well as having my wifes Golf (not a GTI).

The GC has been my daily driver and it sucks for that when it's winter here (it rains for months at a time).

If Subaru still sold a Baja and it had a hybrid powertrain I'd shortlist that (maybe, have owned Subarus and they are great until they start to break out of warranty).

What the fuck do you all need such massive cars for

I fucking hate the modern car industry

>>28890228
>What the fuck do you all need such massive cars for
In my case, my enormous penis has caused me to procreate to the extent that I need to carry at minimum 7 passengers and their luggage on a regular basis, thus the Grand Caravan.

Having a big dick is a curse.

>>28890228
Because I need to haul all my tools for my real job, and on my days off want truck space for my dogs and hiking gear
Just because you sit around jacking off all day and only need a ford focus to go to walmart once a week doesn't mean big cars shouldn't exist

>>28890243
>tools
>real job
How's that mcwage working out for you. You gonna post a screenshot of your 60 hour wagie week?

>>28890228
I've got a small wiener

>>28890203
F150 hybrid?

>>28890203
>the GC is a thirsty bastard where I live in the PNW, it hates mountain roads
I've never been to PNW but do you really need AWD there? Regular hybrid is FWD, and unless you're regularly seeing snow, ice, or mud it probably isn't? Again, I don't know the weather there.

As far as mountain roads, the 2.5L also hates them. I drove from my house up 7000 feet of elevation at highway speeds of 82mph cruise control, I got 32mpg. A lot of that was the speed and headwind, however uphill it was getting a cool 22mpg. Downhill and decel in eco mode it wasn't getting 50mpg like it does in town.

File: images (100).jpg (33 KB, 387x516)

33 KB JPG

>>28890132
Let me guess, you "need" more (?)

>>28890228
Blame government emission standards and classifications that don’t understand diminishing returns

>>28890321
>F150 hybrid?
No. I just do not need another vehicle that size. My old 2003 F150 XL V6 (hand crank windows for the win!) was a workhorse when I needed it, once I got done with the major house remodel (never again) it got put out to pasture so I sold it after a while.

I don't expect the Maverick to be much easier to park then the Grand Caravan, actually, as the GC is pretty compact for it's interior volume,

>>28890336
>I've never been to PNW but do you really need AWD there?
Could I get by with FWD? Sure. Can I afford the superior traction of AWD? Yes. Really "need" is not my justification for it. I have owned multiple Subaru Foresters and a pair of Escapes (a 2002 "4x4" and 2013 AWD), and I miss the sure-footedness of AWD in all conditions. The 2013 Escape was a Titanium trim, was an excellent drive, and the Maverick is based on the same platform so I would expect it to be similar.

Where I live is in a valley nestled amongst the mountains so it rains a lot in the winter, local roads flood and get slick, when it does snow my road does not get plowed until all the main roads are done, and of course if we head anywhere outside the valley in winter there is the possibility of snow within minutes of us even when it's not snowing in our immediate area.

File: Maverick_movie.jpg (55 KB, 259x386)

55 KB JPG

>>28884454
Uh, wrong Maverick, my guy.

>>28890338
lol it doesn't even fit what a ripoff
humanity's collective IQ would go up 2 points if everyone who bought this junk was yeeted from breathing

>>28890397
>and I miss the sure-footedness of AWD in all conditions.
Thats probably my misunderstanding: when I drove a Subaru Outback (work vehicle) I never really noticed that it was AWD aside from the 2 or 3 times I was in slick/wet mud. Even then it wasn't a "glad I had it" thing on the car.
I assumed PNW never has snow west of Idaho I think is the viewpoint I have. Just rain in WA/OR and colder weather, but never really poor weather. As I said, I've never been there and don't know much about it.
>local roads flood and get slick
AWD isn't helping with these, but its your car so not my problem.

File: 4AFF91BA-E2D8-4C07-A96F-F(...).jpg (989 KB, 2560x1920)

989 KB JPG

>>28890405
I couldnt help but post that pic.
But seriously, the maverick can pretty much do everything my Big Block F100 short bed step side can do (as far as loading the bed).
Its not going to be happy with a trailer but as far as "omg tiny bed" is not an issue. Because we figured out how to use the tailgate as a bed extender about 115 years ago.

File: Quark.gif (1.39 MB, 500x382)

1.39 MB GIF

>>28889459
>32k is winter beater money.

I have $200,000 in my stock account, a house and no debts. That doesn't mean I'm going to throw my money into depreciating assets like a moron.

>>28890413
>>local roads flood and get slick
>AWD isn't helping with these

Agree on the flooding part but it does help a lot when the roads get slick - think of how roadways have a film on them when it rains a little bit and the oils on the road get slippery. In my GC when at a stop and turning onto a roadway it's very likely that I have to pedal it a bit to keep the traction control from kicking in when one tire loses traction, it happens a lot (much more and worse than our Golf, for example) because the GC is a fat FWD bastard. This makes it more challenging to get onto a busy 55mph road without being that annoying dick that makes everyone behind me slow down. Likewise it's not uncommon to have to move from a dead stop on a 5% or more grade around here - when roads are damp, the GC always wants to spin the right front tire even when I drive like the granpa I am.

In the 2013 Escape and the Foresters I had (each "Premium" with an LSD in the rear) this was a non-issue, hence the sure-footedness part.

I can always tell when it's going to snow as the uphill neighbors park at the street end of their driveways. It's hill country, after all.

>>28890454
Errrr... where do you put the ramps you used to get the bikes onto the truck?

>>28883588
mexican detected
>>28883474
its fairly popular heard its like 2000 fords (runs like shit and needs repairs) but in terms of 2016-2026 cars its fairly decent for the price

>>28883474
Why does it sit so low, why didn't they make suspension idk 4-5" taller from factory?
This is a low as regular car.

>>28884404
hey dumb dumb didnt you hear the news about fords ceo being paid differently, they publicly announced that his paid will be based on performance, less returns=bigger check they had the tech before but once money is on the line things get different

>>28890459
Rule #69 of acquisition

>>28890467
to sell it to mexicans who want to look macho, this is targeted at middle class spics

>>28883474
It's all the truck mall crawling suburbanites will ever need, but it makes macho-men seethe because it reminds them they spent $60k+ for their full sized air hauling token of masculinity and still can't get totally hard without a cock ring.

File: 1650670807222.gif (2.18 MB, 338x610)

2.18 MB GIF

>>28890492
>poorfag cope
You drive an econobox

>>28890467
That's wrong though. It's a bit over 8 inches of ground clearance. That's more than any car. It's slightly more than a 2wd explorer and a half inch less than an expedition. How high is it supposed to be?

I'm pricing out a Maverick, pretty much no options just the 4K package. Are there any add ons that are actually worth getting from the factory? I know I'll get a bed cover and extender, maybe a liner but probably not. It's probably cheaper to just buy those aftermarket?

>>28890505
I'm not sure I would call the wonderful Kia Sportage an "econobox". It's pretty nice inside for the money.

>>28890508
>It's a bit over 8 inches of ground clearance
At the pinch welds... That doesn't matter when your exhaust and control arms sit 4'' off the ground. A grown man should be able to fit underneath the vehicle and move from one end to the other and be able to do an oil change on the ground. That's the right amount of ground clearance for anything claiming to be "off road ready".

>>28890512
Probably spring for the acoustic glass if they still let you spec that out without paying out the ass for the lariat trim.

File: 1531559775297.jpg (5 KB, 275x246)

5 KB JPG

>>28890513
>the wonderful Kia Sportage

>>28890517
>At the pinch welds... That doesn't matter when your exhaust and control arms sit 4'' off the ground.
Ground clearance is measured by the lowest hanging part Anon.

File: ag4a2038_1.jpg (78 KB, 800x533)

78 KB JPG

>>28890543
Maybe back in the day but definitely not now. See how this doesn't have 8'' even though it's lifted on bigger tires?

>>28890544
Regardless of how they measure it, if they're all measured the same way then it's consistent. The point wasn't how much it had, but how much it had compared to other cars.
>This is a low as regular car (sic)
It's not. It's still higher than any sedan and most crossovers. 4-5 inches taller would give it as much ground clearance as a Raptor. That's completely unrealistic as a compact fwd car.

>>28890573
It has the same real world clearance as a Huracan Sterrato. That's not great for a "truck".

>>28890544
my kia has full length skid plates so i don't have to worry about that

>>28890575
>It has the same real world clearance as a Huracan Sterrato.
No it doesn't. The Sterrato is nowhere close.

>>28890513
This has to be bait

>>28890575
Look up any modern "off roader".
Nearly all of them are in the 9" range for ground clearance.

>>28890674
no?

>>28890891
braptor has 13inches

>>28890897
Do you really think it's reasonable for a stock, base model compact-ish size fwd crossover based pickup to have the same ground clearance as the highest end, most off-road parts equipped level full size half ton?

>>28890460
I had a similar problem on fresh rain (and oily roads like the boomers say) in the Chrysler minivan. Pentastar V6, turning, or stomping on it to beat some dork off the light it might spin for a bit. That also had almost 50% more horsepower and a bit more torque. Plus, its often shitass tires on a cheap transport like that too.
Thats true for just about any FWD vehicle and reasonable power (any modern vehicle) because of physics. Driving slightly slower in wet weather isn't a bad thing, and who cares if you're going a little slow in bad weather with some traffic behind you on an onramp. Fuck em.

Sounds like you mostly like the idea of AWD, nothing wrong with that since a lot of people in the south do that too. Snows 2 weeks a year here and people always brag about their 4wd or AWD they haven't used in the last 51 weeks. Meanwhile someone in a 16 year old shitbox is driving 300 miles a day for doordash in the same weather.

>>28890897
In what world is a Kia not an econobox?

File: Screenshot_20260326_11483(...).jpg (344 KB, 1080x1605)

344 KB JPG

>>28890897
A pinto with the Raptor's 37" tires will have the same ground clearance.
Actually more because smaller diff.

>>28883474
Efficient daily driver and hauler. You can't do anything fun, but it's probably most pickup owners need most days out of the year.
Not to dismiss fun factor... I'm guilty of it.

>>28885971
Just post your fucking engine bay Jose Guitierrez Deshawn Quantain-Hernandez

File: 20260304_132426.jpg (3.53 MB, 3884x2618)

3.53 MB JPG

>>28890512
I bought mine with XL, hybrid, AWD, 4k tow, and bedliner sprayin as the only options.

4k tow package upgrades the hybrid ecvt cooling capacity and forces an upgrade from manual mirrors to power mirrors with copilot 360 1.0.

AWD package upgrades rear suspension from torsion bar to MacPherson strut and gives you a full size spare tire

Bedliner spray isn't really cheaper aftermarket and it's a unibody, you can't replace the bed so I consider it a REQUIREMENT. Don't want holes in my car.

Ford apparently offers cheap PPF for front end like ~$400. Probably worth doing because the paint isn't strong. This would be the only thing I miss as a factory option.

XL package literally has everything you need. Bronco Sport owners are often ditching their OEM alloy wheels which fit the Maverick perfectly for $500, so it makes no sense to get XLT for alloys. The ones I got are the same as FX4 wheels but they aren't black.

The saved money is better spent on adding luxury to the interior yourself from chinkshit on Amazon (seat covers). I got the common soft tonneau cover for $299 because everything on the vehicle is LIGHT, so it follows the trend.

>>28891256
>I got the common soft tonneau cover
Have you done any fuel efficiency tests rolled up versus covered?

File: 1578989830573.png (7 KB, 160x120)

7 KB PNG

>>28883474
no 4 by 4 .. no V8.... built like jap crap.. it aint no truck son :laughing:
-dale

File: Screenshot_20260326_19344(...).jpg (256 KB, 936x664)

256 KB JPG

Should I buy either one of these and which one?
What I really want is a hybrid xl in blue but I can't find a single one anywhere near me so it's either order it or pay 2k+ in shipping assuming I can find one anywhere in the country. These are both my25s with fat truck month discounts which is why I'm interested. These are both 2.0s and even though I prefer a hybrid I'm not dissuaded by turbos and mpgs are not an issue because I only drive 5k a year and my current daily gets about 15 anyway.
What I like about the lobo is it has a better interior and some upgrades from the 4k tow package, so it would presumably be nicer to just be in and drive, but I don't like the idea if "sporty" trims that aren't faster than the base model.
The XLT has the luxury package and FX4 package which I do like even if it's mostly cosmetics, but I feel like it I'm already comprising on not getting the engine or the color I want, I might as well get the more expensive one with the bigger discount, maybe it'll be worth a better trade in

>>28883474
>>28891436
Get the hybrid or don't bother. The entire point is that its a hybrid pickup truck.

>>28890891
Yeah 9'' from the actual lowest point like the diff pumpkin.

>>28890910
It still sits much lower than a $25k half ton.

File: 20260326_221540.jpg (3.37 MB, 4000x3000)

3.37 MB JPG

>>28891504
And thats why "ground clearance" is a worthless metric.
Nobody is aiming for a boulder with the centerline of their truck.
A 1956 chevy and a 1996 ram and a 2026 jeep have the same "ground clearance" if they're on the same sized tires.
Meanwhile the rocker panel (the part of the truck that matters) on a 2026 land rover is at 8.5" and a bone stock 2wd 1968 F100 is pic related.

File: Rover-info-angles.jpg (264 KB, 1400x847)

264 KB JPG

Europoor

>>28883474
they make /o/ seethe uncontrollably so you know they're based

File: Bronco_Angles_58B.jpg (404 KB, 1500x711)

404 KB JPG

'Merican

File: 200921-bronco-geometry-Labeled.jpg (434 KB, 1500x716)

434 KB JPG

Average redneck

File: how-are-approach-and-depa(...).jpg (66 KB, 780x438)

66 KB JPG

Soccer mom

File: jeep-off-road-angles-info(...).jpg (197 KB, 959x1514)

197 KB JPG

Rubɓer ducky crowd.

>>28891579
Do the LC Prado

File: images - 2026-03-26T231724.074.jpg (5 KB, 238x96)

5 KB JPG

>>28891601
Wtf is an LC Prado?
Sounds like a 2020 rendition of a samurai.

>>28891577
Why did you post a photo of a toy car?

>>28891606
Toyota on purposes sells 6 million variants of body on frame trucks and suvs, some that are slightly bigger or wider than others, some are the same size and just have marginally different interiors. They just want to make it as confusing as possible. Absolutely nobody here knows what Toyota/Lexus sells anymore.

>>28891607
I've dropped my transmission and transfer case in my Bronco and slid them out while it was on its wheels- no need for a jack.

Rebuttal (?)

>>28891611
the bronco is too small and they should make a bronxpedition that's in between the size of the expedition and the bronco
also EVERY REVIEW has complained that the convertible top makes it unusable and loud

File: 20260326_234818.jpg (1.08 MB, 2138x3428)

1.08 MB JPG

>>28891614
>basement dweĺler thinks that "Bronco" means a 2025 model...
Gtfo faggot.
Im sick of your ass.
Your mother dropped you off at school today in a camry from 2009.
This "current year" trash has been over played and youre:
>#1) probably legally, medically, retarded
>#2) dont know the difference between a spanner, a lubich, a wrench or a socket.
Now we have to wait for 5 minutes while he googled each of those.

This board is painful.

>>28891620
it is ok to be gay
im more into car interiors and interested in feature content than wrenching

doesn't a spanner have two sides of latchy grippy thingy?
>lubich
no good goddamn idea
>wrench
I mean this one's pretty straightforward long metal thingy with like a claw at the end that grips bolts
>socket
uhhh kinda the same except it has like a ratcheting twisting action to tighten or loosen?

I have never driven a Toyota Camry. I rented a Prius once and it was god fucking awful. Actually twice, both were awful. Slow, hard to see out of, cheap interior.

>>28891629
Thats either hilarious or im questioning why we havent been nuked yet for survival of the species

>>28891611
My rebuttal is why did you post pictures of toy RC cars. Why not use photos of real cars that are accurate, instead of children's toys?

>>28891578
If you want to be fair, the soccer moms get the 4 door version

>>28891662
Because that pic had angles pre-drawn for the ADD 4chan crowd.
I can post actual pics of my Bronco tomorrow if you want to compare and see how accurate it is...

>>28891620
wtf is a lubich? spanner is a bong wrench and wrench is a burger spanner but i've never heard of lubich. is that a kraut spanner?

>>28891436
You won't find XL AWD hybrid 4k on a lot. Dealers won't order that because it eats the sales of higher trims. If you want that you have to order it, and if you order there's less room for haggling. I haggled $1200 off mine, but it was like pulling teeth.

Chances are if you want to get this vehicle cheap with haggle room, you can find XL AWD hybrids without the 4k tow pkg in white on dealership lots everywhere, this is basically the fleet spec.

>>28891504
If you offroad often and bought a mav it's literally buying the wrong vehicle (get a ranger instead). But a mav has better clearance than most unibody vehicles. It's about the same as a subaru crosstrek or Jeep compass trailhawk, and it will handle the same kind of trails just fine. The default tire spec of 225/65-r17 gives you more sidewall than most other vehicles, and 235/65 can be set in the computer to get just shy of 9in clearance.

Maverick should be looked at like a subaru suv in capability and not like a body on frame with actual meaningful suspension articulation. I offroad with my mav all the time to go fishing, the same type of shit you can do in any suv or even sedan (though sedan has to go slow to not pop a tire or smash the underbody). I'm not some fag that takes his daily driver up a mountain and straight into mud piles, I have a destination outdoors and it's always shit other vehicles can get to as well.

Only diff is while my vehicle is merely "above average" doing that offroad shit compared to what others have, I can toss it like a civic and get 35mpg all day, if I want to I can autism my driving and get 45mpg. And everything it takes are way cheaper. Brakes, tires, etc are all car shit. Even my oil changes only use one 5L jug and don't have to buy 2x like a truck. It's just a great DD.

>>28891692
>xl cuz its basic and shitty and awful
its retarded
the bed is too short to be useful, they could have made it longer but it would be a two seater, the rear seats are unusably tight, so it's doubly compromised
it's 100% a poser car for people who want to look macho but not spend much money
ford and toyota are predatory

>>28891693
XLT is a waste of money, it's an extra $2k for alloy wheels, power inverter, some extra tie downs in the bed, and the bed rails with adjustable tiedowns. You can buy the bed rails on AliExpress if you want them later, the extra tie down points are already tapped and ready to be installed.

Fact of the Maverick is even if you buy the Lariat trim you do not get a power passenger seat, you do not get any rear floormats, and the audio system is the exact same 6 speakers with 2 more added. Nothing in particular changes going up in trim level on this truck. You get the same dash, infotainment, etc on all trims.

The only thing you get of significance is the acoustic windshield on the Lariat, you get single ply glass otherwise. I think if I ever get my windshield replaced I'll see if I can get the Lariat one installed.

It's better to buy the XL and then spruce it up yourself. Otherwise you're just increasing the cost of the vehicle 25% for virtually nothing.

>>28891705
lariat gets adaptive cruise and 360 cam, having cruise control that can apply the friction brakes is pretty fucking basic and shouldn't be saved just for the top trip its standard on a toyota corolla
ford is even more predatory than toyota, congrats, ford

I have a windshield with heater wires embedded that I have used once (to its credit it is wonderful at clearing all snow or ice off in a few minutes) and I dread ever having to replace it

>>28891693
Also you talk about the rear seats... You do know the maverick actually has more interior room than the Frontier, Ranger, Canyon/Colorado, and the Tacoma? It has every single midsize truck beat for space, besides the Ridgeline which is also unibody.

It has similar foot room to a civic but headroom is much better. It has more space than a Prius in the back seat. 4 adults fit in it FINE, not as nice as a midsize but I'm perfectly comfortable sitting behind myself and I'm 6'2".

>>28891713
um no ive seen them in person there's no way adults are fitting in those rear seats, they are vestigial and the ford escape has more rear legroom

why do people glaze this shitty ford escape?
can you imagine people shilling this hard for an escape?
but you put a bed in it, and people lose their minds
>omg its so heckin practical I could LOAD MULCH
people like you are why predatory companies thrive, people expect so little

from what i've read, ranger is most spacious in the rear

>>28891709
On a hybrid you shouldn't even be using cruise control on the highway if you want the best mileage. You need to play the accelerate and glide in elec game, accelerate down hill and accelerate before going up hills, and also prevent regen when you need the momentum for upcoming shit.

People get better gas mileage on the highway commonly in slippery mode because it reduces automatic regeneration the most. The idea is that regen braking with elec re-accel will produce less distance than simply coasting it all on the highway without regen.

File: 20260326_230522.jpg (3.05 MB, 4000x3000)

3.05 MB JPG

>>28891715
Ranger is SMALLER inside than the Maverick. Unibody lets it have more interior space.

Pic is me 6'2" sitting in the back seat of my maverick, and my driver seat is very generously set for myself

>>28891716
>On a hybrid you shouldn't even be using cruise control on the highway if you want the best mileage.
does ford pay you?
this is insane
why would you defend such a cheap predatory company that hates its customers and knows they can fleece them AND the customers will defend them?
I will say the brakes on my adaptive crooz are kinda flawless like I don't really feel it braking unless the car ahead comes to a red light and I was going 50 mph +

its almost smoother than me braking, and weirdly it comes to a stop RIGHT behind the car in front of it like its stop and go but I can't adjust it to stop less far from the car ahead, I have it set to the furthest away following distance for the cruise control

>>28891720
otists all have such hyper skinny legs it makes me not trust any of you every photo of someone sitting in a car they look malnourished

also JESUS THAT INTERIOR IS BAD
they really hate their customers and you fell for it but you are probably like 20 so whatever

>>28891722
I'm 40 you faggot.

You do NOT want cruise control using friction brakes on a hybrid, at any point you use friction brakes you are throwing out energy preventing it from getting in the battery for reuse.

Ford doesn't pay me shit, ALL hybrids are like that and regen braking is something like 40% return on efficiency. You do NOT want regen kicking in on the highway, instead it's best to coast off in mild accel to reduce speed, and using regen only to come to a stop. The engine still recharges the battery on the highway when you're mostly idling to maintain speed and will use elec mode in minor accelerations.

I've autism'd the SHIT out of hybrids and this vehicle in general, meanwhile you seem to think the Ranger has more rear space than the Maverick (ur gay and retarded in comparison)

>>28891725
>those hands
>40
doubt

>You do NOT want cruise control using friction brakes on a hybrid, at any point you use friction brakes you are throwing out energy preventing it from getting in the battery for reuse.
anon you can have adaptive cruise in a hybrid lol

you bought a ford escape with a useless back seat and have to defend it
my kia is way nicer and could probably fit just as much shit with the seats folded down if not more and be otherwise nicer and more usable and comfortable AND I have a power passenger seat and a 360 camera and ventilated seats for toasty global warming spring days

File: 20251026_125728.jpg (1.88 MB, 2416x3070)

1.88 MB JPG

>>28891728
And you ignored my whole posting that adaptive cruise control in a hybrid is stupid inefficient NPC bullshit. You want the best mileage in a hybrid you fucking speed downhill and stop being a pussy.

Yes I am young looking for 40 (I'm actually 39.9), I avoided cigarettes and alcohol most of the time growing up.

Yes I bought an Escape with a bed and it's fucking SICK. It's better than the civic and corollas I was cross shopping it against and it was CHEAPER. The engine has reliability on par with K24 (it's the decades old duratec) and the transmission is made by AISIN. The hybrid technology is licensed from Toyota and uses Toshiba motors.

Also the color alone on my mini truck makes it win in coolness alone. It only got this green for 2025 and that was the year they also introduced hybrid AWD. I'm one of two people in town with it. Nobody would notice your Kia.

>>28891733
anon, they aren't denying adaptive cruise to improve mileage, they are doing it to save money and fuck over consumers
you can have adaptive cruise that uses both regen and friction, its called blended braking

ford escape is a terrible, outdated car and you got willingly fleeced
>it was cheaper
you get what you pay for

>reliable
code for old and shitty

>nobody would notice your kia
sadly I get compliments on my shitty green-gray paint but really I just don't care about the exterior design or color much and it did net me gray seats that are cooler in summer
i like bright metallic colors

>>28891737
>green-gray paint
I like my cactus grey Ranger.
>>28891733
This green is cool though. Never seen it.

>>28891737
What in particular are you referring to as out of date?

XL has a key. I love that. Engine has port injection NO DIRECT. Engine has basic vvt and NO BELTs just lazy ass timing chain Atkinson capped at 5600rpm. Old engine with a long history of being reliable.

The interior in my mind is perfect. I spill shit all over it and you can basically hose it down. I just wet sponge that shit without thinking about it and it's no problem. No worrying about using something else to clean the interior, it's literally the same sponge for every surface.

Everything else is very adequate. The infotainment is lagfree unlike a lot of the competitions.

It's a SIMPLE vehicle that's LIGHT and CHEAP and doesn't have FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS of bullshit tacked on it. I don't WANT motors under my driver's seat that I get perfect and never set again. Have you seen underneath an XL Maverick seats? There's NOTHING there, you can practically use it as a pass through to the back seat without any thought and store shit under the seat, there's so much room under there.

Also some of the higher trims of the maverick DETRACT from the vehicle. The lariat rear glass sliding window is GAY and STUPID. It's not power operated and you have to slide it with your hand, yet you cannot rear the rear window while you're driving. So you never use it... Instead of having just a clear rectangle of glass you now have a stupid rectangle of glass with a bunch of framing in it obstructing your view and a window you never open.

>>28883474
Maybe if you get the base model. They're built insanely cheap and people overpaid for them so now ford is over charging for them. They are the definition of disposable.

>>28891742
I never understood that window, they all do it. I have to assume gayota must have patented the full sliding window because otherwise there's no reason everyone doesn't do that.

You faggots convinced me to buy a '26 Lariat Hybrid AWD with the 4k tow package yesterday.

It's worlds better than the minivan as far as the driving experience goes.

I was just looking at Mavericks online and it looks like they moved AC controls to a touchscreen. Gay.

>>28892157
Its inevitable.
Everything MUST be controlled by a computer.
Easier to lockout behind a paywall in the future.

File: Ford maverick.png (870 KB, 1001x765)

870 KB PNG

>>28883474
I'm looking at hybrids, and this thing keeps popping up about the same price as used 2017 priuses. Is this shit any good for gas savings? I don't really care about the bed, I don't have people to carry so the backseats are gonna be more for storage than people, I just drive a bit extra than the average amerilard (nothing curayzee, just between 17K and 20K yearly) and if I have to buy a car, then I might as well save on gas. If you own one of these please share both the good and the bad.

>>28892174
no the maverick is awful cheap and shitty only buy it if you are insecure about your masculinity

>>28892174
The Mav hybrids only get 30mpg highway. Doing your miles in a little buzzbox sounds like a nightmare but whatever. Also have fun keeping an old Ford hybrid on the road.

>>28892181
That's not much compared to cars, but to a hauler that's good. Assuming the mileage remains similar when you're actually hauling.

>>28892158
It’s a big reason I like the frontiers. I’m not in the market for anything, but if I was I’d give them a strong look. Analog controls, a NA V6, and they’re cheaper than the competition.

>>28892194
That's not good when you can get 25mpg from a 5.0 F-150. It gets 14mpg when towing which is again on par with a V8 half ton.

307

>>28892181
I get 28 mpg highway in my non hybrid sportage, that's pathetic

>>28891722
>otists all have such hyper skinny legs it makes me not trust any of you
are you really that surprised that this place is twink central?

>>28892158
you can use knobs to control a computer though
its just cheaper to buy a bunch of touchscreens than to injection mold a bunch of different knobs and buttons

310

>>28892181
>The Mav hybrids only get 30mpg highway
This is the most meaningless statement anyone has said on this thread, All the hybrids get shit mileage on the highway, hybrid drivetrains work their best in stop and go traffic at slow speeds, every single hybrid is burning fuel like an ICE engine at highway speeds cause it's fucking highway speeds.

>>28892175
Because we all know how luxurious the interior of a Toyota Prius is in comparison right?

>>28892181
And I currently get 20 highway from my 17 year old 200K shitbox. Your point?

>>28892228
When somebody say they're doing a lot of miles it's safe to assume it's going to be mostly highly miles. Thus getting a hybrid would be pointless. Go lie down.

>>28892232
You're going to spend $20k on a mechanical nightmare to save 10mpg?

>>28891606
Land Cruiser 250 series “Prado”

I'm 18k into my Maverick and my lifetime average mpg is 37. I got 36-38mpg on the highway at all times in winter, but I keep it to 70mph.

I am doubtful when people say they get 40-50mpg all the time, maybe if you're somewhere very warm. But during Canadian winter I've had to TRY to get 38mpg.

>>28892242
No, I'm going to spend around 20K on a car because mine is falling apart and to restore it to factory specs it would require around 9K. The actual price quoted is $9112 dollaroos, so if I'm gonna spend that amount of money on a can that is worth around $1250 for a clean example according to KBB values, I'm just gonna toss that heap of garbage where it belongs and I'm gonna get myself a new one.

And unlike most of you coping losers, I have two things going for me: number one is a have an 800+ beacon of credit and absolutely no debt at all. Number two I'm not allergic to screens and bluetooth like most of you seem to be.

>>28892252
>800+ credit score
>absolutely no debt
Well I know youre a liar right off the bat.

My sister has been working for Experian for 40 years. Im quite familiar with how credit scores work.
You can not have an 800 score with zero debt.
Having zero debt is worse than being in the hole $250k as far as credit rating is concerned.

Next time you try to LARP, do more research first.

>>28892174
If you don't need the bed then it's really not worth it. There's a lot of much better cars for that money. And I like the maverick. I have this pinned because I'm planning on buying a FX4 this weekend. But if I didn't need the bed I wouldn't ever consider it

>>28892262
Uhh... I'm not him, but I have a credit score of 844 with 0 balance on 6 credit cards, 2 line of credits at $0 and I have about $90k of credit available to me.

Every time I've used my credit to any significant degree my score dropped massively and then recovered when I cleared it. I use my cards for rewards and pay them off every 2 weeks.

>>28892262
Ah yes. The "My dad works at Nintendo" defense. And you have the fucking gall of accusing me of larping.

Here's a little fact that might, just might, change your equations: So long as you're using credit, you're incuring debt, which means it gets tracked by Experian and Transunion and Equifax. You can put something tiny like a netflix subscription on a credit card, set up autopayments for the full amount from your bank account on the due date, and guess the fuck what boyo? I'm in debt according to the credit tracking companies. And I still owe 0% in interest because it's all getting paid in full, on time. Fucking mouthbreather.

>>28892262
>Next time you try to LARP, do more research first.
I'm another anon that when I paid off my mortgage it dropped like 50 points, but a few months later it was back between 780 and 820... Or an approximate average of 800.

I'll let your sister know to educate you more on how credit scores after I bang her (with my score)

>>28892174
I >>28892051 would worry most about why it got traded in and if it can be had with a Ford-backed extended warranty.

Really you need to drive it to know if it suits you.

XLT cloth seats did not feel good to me, they are the same inside as the Lariat but the cloth used felt like a cheap WalMart bath mat.

Whoever detailed the interior of that thing should be flogged. https://www.cioccaautomotive.com/used/Ford/2023-Ford-Maverick-fc18377fac1833327e7ab92e10caee10.htm

Plus it's in fucking New Jersey, the dangling dingleberry of New York.

>>28892207
What's wrong with twink legs? Asking for a friend of course.