T-dubz
-
Posts
2,197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by T-dubz
-
-
12 minutes ago, akirby said:
Coulda woulda shoulda. Just build something already, or at least show some prototypes.
Exactly, seems like we’ve been hearing about these for years now
-
2
-
-
https://www.motor1.com/news/762876/chevy-corvette-zr1x-horsepower-price-details/
1250hp
0-60 sub 2 sec
233 mph top speed
Price yet to be announced
-
1
-
-
On 6/15/2025 at 8:50 AM, Rick73 said:
When did 400 HP become inadequate? 😀
Seriously though, I think offering standard V8 is the right call. It helps keep initial price down, gets buyers to spend more later on aftermarket upgrades, and better protects/isolates Ford from those who think that encouraging any type of street racing is irresponsible corporate behavior. I know many here disagree but I believe it turns off a small segment of population anyway. A standard V8 may also help with warranty costs.
I think it has more to do with how the package is being advertised. Ford calls it a “bad ass street machine” on their website and other websites are calling it a street or performance truck (not sure if ford has ever called it that). With those kinda words being thrown around, people expect more power, especially with ford’s sport truck history with the lightning. If everyone referred to it as an appearance package, you wouldn’t hear the same complaints about power.
The lobo package reminds me a lot of the 2003 f150 stx package. Way back before stx was a trim, you could get it added as a package to an XL. The package looked very similar to a Lightning in the front and came with some nice audio upgrades. It was all show and no go too, but it made an XL look pretty good back then.
2003 stx
vs lightning
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:
Respectfully, I disagree. The full width light bar thing is played out. It's not terrible by default, it can look good on some models. But I like seeing the unique look they went for here of having lights stretch out across the front, but with gaps in-between.
Its not a one for one comparison, but the lights in the grille also vaguely remind me of the bronco r from back in the day.
I hear ya, I don’t like light bars either, but this looks like a half-assed attempt at a light bar to me.
The STX was already supposed to be the cheaper stylish truck. And it had its own appearance packages to add even more style. If you aren’t adding performance, then what’s the point of this? If you read the comments on any ford forum or article related to this, they all say the same thing, they want more performance.
keep the ground effects, the wheels and the hood. Get rid of the 4wd. Add a supercharger. Now you have a performance truck for under 70k which would probably sell better than this lobo at 60k.
-
Man, what a swing and a miss. Grill looks like someone added aftermarket autozone lights. Would have looked better with a full light bar instead of several small ones with gaps in between. Also basing it off of the stx was a mistake. Of course it was done to keep costs down but at least put the center console shifter in there. Build and price shows this thing starts at over 60k. Removing the lobo package dropped the price down to 52k. Don’t think this is worth 8k over the regular stx. Also the lobo package shows it only costs 4695 so I’m not sure where the difference is coming from. The build and price doesn’t seem to be working properly right now. It doesn’t look bad, but without performance upgrades, this should not be almost the same price as a lariat. This should be an stx black appearance package.
-
Eh, not really a fan of those colors on the mustang or bronco. Makes the mustang look like a high school girls car imo. I think you see a lot of those colors on jeeps because they stand out. There’s probably 100 white jeeps that drove by that you didn’t even notice. Now ford could definitely benefit from some other color choices.
I’d like to see these colors make it in the rotation at some point.
-grabber blue/orange (these would add some pop you guys are looking for)
-Liquid blue (blue from the GT)
-highland green (good replacement for eruption green)
-leadfoot gray (this has been a no brainer for bronco, not sure why it hasn’t happened yet. Good replacement for carbonized gray)
-rich copper (this would look great on the wildtrak or any black appearance package bronco)
-
The wheels are horrendous. White paint doesn’t show the depth that other color wheels do. They end up looking like cheap plastic in my opinion. Surprised they went with that nostril design. Seems like that would have been saved for rtr edition. I don’t mind the white trim, but I’m not sure it fits well on this vehicle.
-
1
-
-
lol it isn’t even an suv anymore. They could have called it a bronco and it would have been as close to that as this thing is to the mach e. Does look cool though.
-
Sounds like cafe needs to be reevaluated. If it’s preventing companies from making smaller cars, then it’s doing the opposite of what it was designed to do
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, jpd80 said:
Correct,
A lot of people can see what Ford is trying to do, wanting buyers to establish a strong connection with those vehicles, something you really can’t do with an appliance/white goods…
Not necessarily performance but more like nice overall package of all the things a buyer expects plus that nice feel.
Honda did exactly that with the civic, which would be considered an appliance, but it has a strong connection with buyers.
The way I see it, ford is going in the wrong direction by trying to avoid “commodity” vehicles. Commodity vehicles are not the problem, it’s ford inability to sell them at a profit that is the problem, something several automakers have figured out to do successfully. But ford can’t seem to cut costs without sacrificing quality, and when they sacrifice quality, you get a ton of recalls. And recalls don’t help with making that strong connection with buyers. -
This is what the escape needs to look like next. Toyota made a mistake by not bringing the crown sport over here.
-
I think the truck looks good, but ford really needs to rework these grilles. The only ones that look good are the platinum and raptor. All the others look like they belong on the xl.
also, glad to see the turbo fan wheels that the maverick has didnt make the cut. They would look even more ridiculous as a 22”.
-
14 hours ago, akirby said:
Not an excuse but that would seem to be a pretty rare occurrence.As to how it happened it could be simple lack of testing/due diligence but more often it’s a late change somewhere that seems harmless but causes a domino effect.
I agree, however ford should have known that an off road van would be popular for overlanding and “van life” which usually means lots of extra weight in the van. Testing this type of vehicle fully loaded would seem to be common sense. Can you imagine the uproar if the same thing happened on the bronco and all of those sasquatches with 35” tires were replaced with 33” tires?
-
1 hour ago, rmc523 said:
Meh, the design doesn't do much for me, but I'm sure they'll sell a billion of them.
Toyota is managing to make sporty and rugged versions of their compact model to make them more appealing...
I wish ford would take this approach. Each trim has a different front end, not just a different color or style of grille like ford does.
-
https://www.motor1.com/news/760192/ford-transit-trail-lawsuit-smaller-tires/
How can ford not even make sure tires fit properly?
-
On 5/15/2025 at 7:03 AM, fordmantpw said:
Agree. We saw one over the weekend and I remarked how nice it looked. My wife about fell over in shock! Then we walked around to the front and it was completely covered in black plastic instead of a painted grille/front fascia. Made a great looking truck look homely.
That’s just the trail boss trim which is their cheaper off roader version. The ZR2 is much better and one of the best looking trucks IMO.
-
1
-
-
I didn’t care for this design when it was first debuted but it’s slowly growing on me.
-
2 hours ago, Rick73 said:
Yeah, not only the initial investment to relocate, but as Farley made clear in CNBC interview, Ford would expect the price of Maverick to go up if built in USA. He specifically mentioned Maverick and Bronco Sport as affordable vehicles Ford needs so that every Ford doesn’t start at $50k.A few months back there was discussion of a Maverick-based mid-size van to be built in Mexico, but now with all the uncertainty who could blame Ford if they changed their mind, or at least delayed the project until there is tariffs clarity. I had been looking forward to seeing a smaller new van soon from Ford but won’t hold my breath now.
This is what I don’t understand. Many automakers have compact SUVs that are built in the USA that start at the same price as the maverick and bronco sport. Ford even has the escape. Why does ford think they can’t meet that price point on those two vehicles when building in the USA when it’s not a problem for everyone else? It sounds like to me they don’t want to meet that price point, not that they can’t.
-
It will be interesting to see the sales figures on these vehicles after that $2k price bump goes into effect. Mach E was pretty dependent on incentives, and maverick is starting to lose its value proposition. Maverick is 30k and Bronco Sport is 33k after destination on ford’s website now. If the price bump isn’t reflected in those prices yet, then add another 2k. That’s getting expensive for the lowest trims.
-
1 hour ago, akirby said:
They didn’t say they couldn’t sell them or buyers didn’t want them. They said mainstream 2 row crossovers have become commodities keeping prices low and margins even lower. Bronco and Bronco Sport are the exception because they’re in a unique market segment with passionate buyers.
Let’s say you’re a painter and you have the choice of two jobs. Both take 2 days same work but one pays $1500 and the other pays $2500. Which one are you taking?
Bigger vehicles explorer sized and up make complete sense. It’s when you get to smaller compact vehicles with 3 rows that I don’t get. No one with a large family buys a compact. I would never try to fit 7 people into a longer bronco sport. Hell I didn’t buy a current bronco sport because my kids were complaining about 2nd row leg room. That 3rd row would be useless and only adds cost to the vehicle and takes up storage space.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, ANTAUS said:
Didn't we hear from Ford, that they were wanting to do less 2 row crossovers, and focus more on 3 rows?
I don’t understand this. Families continue to shrink. The average family size is 3.15 and the average household size is 2.51. Do vehicles really need to carry 2-3x the amount of people in your family/household? Having a few vehicles with 3 rows makes sense, but two rows should be your bread and butter. I’m not trying to be a bus driver over here 😂.
-
Eh, I’d rather they not put it on those vehicles. Nothing like adding features that most people won’t use but will still have to pay for with higher base prices on already over priced vehicles. I’d rather not have anything related to subscriptions put in my vehicles.
-
8 hours ago, sullynd said:
While it went on sale in December of 20 it was very limited availability. Mine was the first Mach-E my dealer sold, and it was June of 21. The Bronco (T6) has had fewer updates than the Mach-E and is a similar vintage.I think the bronco is a different beast though. It will probably be more like the wrangler which stays looking relatively the same forever. Mach-e on the other hand needs to stay fresh to compete with all the competition out there.
-
1
-
-
Mach E was first shown in Nov 2019 and went on sale Dec 2020. It needs at least an exterior refresh. Ford always seems to do this with their vehicles.
11k expeditions is really good. Have they been selling in that volume regularly or is that a new trend? Bronco at 14k is good too, especially with how high the prices are. Wish they did a break out by trim. I see them all the time on the road now.
-
2
-
Ford's Low Cost EV Platform To Support up to 8 Body Styles
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
Don’t forget when they actually do go on sale, they will no longer be low cost. Then they won’t update it for years which will eventually lead to its cancellation anyway.