He isn't for everyone but once you accept his nerdiness you can learn to swallow the content. I actually laugh at a lot of his stuff now just because I know how excited and odd he can be with certain things.Talking points:
- Doug DeMuro's schtick is as tired and played out as pointing out how tired his schtick is, what a hack.
- Area 51 does NOT flatter on Maverick, if ever you wanted to make a car LOOK like a cheap car, that's how you go about it. Shoot it with a paint that came from the dollar store.
Interesting points on the Santa Cruz truck capabilities is while they are similar in payload, 1,500/1700#, the Cruz can only handle about 600 in the bed while the Mav bed is rated at the full 1,500#. In other words, my 90# wife could easily fetch home 1,410# of stuff in the Maverick bed.Last I heard, the Santa Cruz was expected to start at around 30K. It's truck capabilities are a little bit better, but it's also not a hybrid.
The sub-20K start is absolutely insane to me.
2019. Next gen Ranger should go up as they have a new chassis for it, so I see Ranger topping out in the upper $40's/low $50's now and the F150 continuing to grow in size and price until it becomes a homeless camp entirely on it's own.What year is your Ranger? I'm wondering if Ford built the pricing on this with anticipation of inflation continuing to go up. I'm anxious to see where the next Gen Ranger pricing falls too. But to your point, depending on needs, I agree $100 for the size difference makes sense.
To your first point: Not everybody needs a pickup to tow 7,000lbs, but if they did, the Ranger would work just fine. This Maverick is not meant to replace the Ranger or a Super Duty. It's something new. Probably gets better mpg's than the upcoming Hyundai Santa Cruz coming next year.First off, a yuppie wouldn’t be riding around in a 15 year old Ranger. Secondly, times have changed, and most pickups have a minimum 7,000lb towing capacity these days.
People buy these smaller pickups, just so they can say they have a pickup truck. When in reality, a smaller SUV or crossover would get the same job done, more efficiently. It’s an ego thing.
The only benefit I see to the Maverick would be the starting price. But just like the Bronco, let’s see if that ends up being true.
I scanned that video like FB scans your conversations, man.Can you please confirm, where did you get an official cup holder count on the Maverick?
I'm not a truck guy and think the Ranger hits the sweet spot of "full sized truck via decade-old sizing of trucks" and thought Maverick sounded like a joke.
However, being hybrid standard this thing should sell like stink on a pig. It absolutely fulfills the needs of so many urbanites who actually want to, you know, be able to drive the thing near other humans or park it in their garage/driveway.
Anybody notice that the only actual color on that car which isn't an up-charge is velocity blue?
For complaining about something and not reading and reasons that seems about the right response.
Truly shocking that someone with “bama” in their name can’t see the reason for a smaller, hybrid pickup. /s
Mostly agreed. Like I said, the best thing about the Maverick is the price point.To your first point: Not everybody needs a pickup to tow 7,000lbs, but if they did, the Ranger would work just fine. This Maverick is not meant to replace the Ranger or a Super Duty. It's something new. Probably gets better mpg's than the upcoming Hyundai Santa Cruz coming next year.
Your second point: The cheapest Kia SUV is still $5k more and gets barely a few mpg's better mileage. Honda CR-V costs $7k more and gets worse mpg than the Maverick hybrid. I would say this "truck" is more efficient than most SUV/Crossovers.
Third point: The starting price IS Excellent.