- First Name
- Devin
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2021
- Threads
- 24
- Messages
- 366
- Reaction score
- 505
- Location
- Toledo Ohio
- Vehicle(s)
- 2000 Mercury Grand Marquis LS
- Thread starter
- #1
I did a little guestimation on prices.
Sponsored
I think you're bang on, welp no 2.0 for me, XLT AWD or fwd Lariat if it's worth losing the awd
I did a little guestimation on prices.
yea, I have a bad feeling the 2.0 will be only available on the top trim or two, and AWD only, meaning pricy.I think you're bang on, welp no 2.0 for me, XLT AWD or fwd Lariat if it's worth losing the awd
XLT, (SE on Escape or Big Bend on BS) you getI wonder what kind of options will be available that would allow you to check boxes until you're almost $10K over base price? That seems nuts.
Anyway, XLT AWD for me, please!
so you’ll buy a stripped out base model RWD midsized truck for the same price as the 2.0 AWD compact Maverick well equipped?If I can’t get a 4 cylinder in lower trims I’ll buy the base 2022 Nissan Frontier.
Wow, guess I didn't even think about that. Carmakers do so love to charge $1-2K for simple stuff. I'd pretty much only want a nice paint and maybe heated seats if thats not locked to a trim level.$600 Premium paint
$1500 cold and convinces package (power seats, dual climate, leather wheel, LED lights, key pad, power gate, remote start)
Many of us here want an entry level TRUCK with as few options and tech features as possible. You know, like what the original Ranger did so well. We don't want or need a lifestyle vehicle crammed with pricey upgrades, room for 5 and a basically unusable bed for most TRUCK duties we need it for on a regular basis. Absolutely NOTHING about a unibody FWD I-3 transverse mounted motor (cylinder de-activated-yuk!) with tiny bed says TRUCK to me- it says compact ute with the space behind second seat row open air instead of enclosed like the CUV. Then of course, they'll mention you can put a topper on there - and you're back to an economy CUV that's not suitable as a real compact truck or replacement for original Ranger and not a daily driver serving multiple truck duties.so you’ll buy a stripped out base model RWD midsized truck for the same price as the 2.0 AWD compact Maverick well equipped?
just Confused on that logic
I can respect that. It’s just I look at it as. If your already spending the money get mor for it. But if you are actually going to be using the bed and don’t need the frills. Yea base Ranger or Frontier is right up your ally.Many of us here want an entry level TRUCK with as few options and tech features as possible. You know, like what the original Ranger did so well. We don't want or need a lifestyle vehicle crammed with pricey upgrades, room for 5 and a basically unusable bed for most TRUCK duties we need it for on a regular basis. Absolutely NOTHING about a unibody FWD I-3 transverse mounted motor (cylinder de-activated-yuk!) with tiny bed says TRUCK to me- it says compact ute with the space behind second seat row open air instead of enclosed like the CUV. Then of course, they'll mention you can put a topper on there - and you're back to an economy CUV that's not suitable as a real compact truck or replacement for original Ranger and not a daily driver serving multiple truck duties.
For it to check my boxes it needs to sit lower to the ground (no big wheel upgrades here), no pricey option groups with safety tech or creature comforts I don't need and a decent drivetrain at a fair price point below the entry level mid size TRUCKS. So that means the 2.0 AWD as cheap as I can get it. The mileage is not even that much worse than I-3 equipped. At that point I get a better ride than a body on frame truck suitable for year round driving and most truck like functions, but still give up a really useful bed as a trade off. If that comes in starting at $39k it moves into new Ranger territory with better drivetrain even in 2WD versions and can actually be used as a truck 1st and foremost. Not confusing at all.
The nice paint is either forWow, guess I didn't even think about that. Carmakers do so love to charge $1-2K for simple stuff. I'd pretty much only want a nice paint and maybe heated seats if thats not locked to a trim level.
https://www.carscoops.com/2021/06/f...te-special-single-cab-version-of-2023-ranger/Many of us here want an entry level TRUCK with as few options and tech features as possible. You know, like what the original Ranger did so well. We don't want or need a lifestyle vehicle crammed with pricey upgrades, room for 5 and a basically unusable bed for most TRUCK duties we need it for on a regular basis. Absolutely NOTHING about a unibody FWD I-3 transverse mounted motor (cylinder de-activated-yuk!) with tiny bed says TRUCK to me- it says compact ute with the space behind second seat row open air instead of enclosed like the CUV. Then of course, they'll mention you can put a topper on there - and you're back to an economy CUV that's not suitable as a real compact truck or replacement for original Ranger and not a daily driver serving multiple truck duties.
For it to check my boxes it needs to sit lower to the ground (no big wheel upgrades here), no pricey option groups with safety tech or creature comforts I don't need and a decent drivetrain at a fair price point below the entry level mid size TRUCKS. So that means the 2.0 AWD as cheap as I can get it. The mileage is not even that much worse than I-3 equipped. At that point I get a better ride than a body on frame truck suitable for year round driving and most truck like functions, but still give up a really useful bed as a trade off. If that comes in starting at $39k it moves into new Ranger territory with better drivetrain even in 2WD versions and can actually be used as a truck 1st and foremost. Not confusing at all.
ooooooooo.https://www.carscoops.com/2021/06/f...te-special-single-cab-version-of-2023-ranger/
Fear not, ford has you covered