Search results

i mean i do agree BUT, being honest, cant remember the last time I actually used a spare tire. Not in the 8 years I've owned my Canyon that I remember...

dang so it's really like 34 for the hybrid 26 for the 2.0... (not 40 vs 20) the hybrid with a lot less power and potential reliability...no awd and 4k tow package option, and getting scheduled late etc, ouch

Not sure what can really go wrong though. I guess the hybrid is not tested but the 2.0 has been used before. The rest of the truck looks a lot like the Bronco Sport to me which is also built cheaply, not like a "real Bronco". Now as long as we arent heavy duty offroading with these hopefully...

these trim levels confuse me. could you get the fx4 package with the xl trim level? also, which package contains skid plates?

like others have already covered it should be more than good. the 255hp motor is also very torquey which is the more important stat. 275 lb ft iirc. That's as much torque as the 6 (biggest motor offered) in the chevy Colorado. More actually IIRC that one is 269 lb ft. I also figured out that...

Yeah, main reason I'm looking at Mav is because for these Four things: New (not used) 4 (real) doors, sporty/upsell engine (2.0 in this case), and AWD/4WD, I can get the Mav for ~25k. To get a Ranger or Colorado with those 4 things, it's 30 if not 35k currently. In order to get a Ranger or...

how so?

It's weird I measured my 08 Canyon (very small truck) regular cab at from the ground to the frame at the door and it was about 15 inches. Again this is a very small and low riding truck compared to todays monsters if you dont know what a last gen canyon/colorado looks like. I remember looking...

From the side view no question the Ranger looks massively better, BUT it is the trickout out FX4 vs base. The front end of the Maverick looks so dated. That Ranger probably costs 2X as much too be fair. Might be pushing 50k vs 25 for the Mav (given 2.0, etc) That said of course the Mav looks...