2023 Maverick Tremor

[LSchicago]

32 minutes ago, akirby said:

They aren’t anywhere close to vinyl.  Go check them out in person.

 

 

 

 

 

Ford themselves calls them vinyl. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by LSchicago
Add image

[silvrsvt]

43 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

Ford themselves calls them vinyl. 

 

They aren't the cheap shit from the 1970s or 80s either.

 

Not to mention almost all leather in cars isn't really real leather either...its a vinyl material. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by silvrsvt

[akirby]

43 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

Ford themselves called them vinyl. 

Now you’re just making up stuff.

 

Quote

What Is Ford ActiveX™?

ActiveX is a high-end synthetic seating material designed to fit your active lifestyle. It is easier to clean, resistant to staining, and more durable than leather while maintaining a premium look and feel over time. ActiveX does not include any animal-based material.

 

[LSchicago]

19 minutes ago, akirby said:

Now you’re just making up stuff.

 

 

LOL, OK. Look at the screenshot a couple posts up. That is Ford's website. Don't believe me? Go to the Mav page on Ford.com and select Lariat. 

[LSchicago]

[rperez817]

44 minutes ago, akirby said:

They aren’t anywhere close to vinyl.  Go check them out in person.

 

What Ford calls "ActiveX" is a vinyl material as LSchicago mentioned, a synthetic material that contains polyvinyl chloride and/or polyurethanes. Since it is not animal derived, ActiveX doesn't have the feel or smell of natural leather.

 

My wife's Mustang Mach-E uses this material for the seating surfaces, and it's exactly what we expected from vinyl. Easy to clean, durable, and comfortable.

[akirby]

29 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

LOL, OK. Look at the screenshot a couple posts up. That is Ford's website. Don't believe me? Go to the Mav page on Ford.com and select Lariat. 

Ok you got me there but they’re still nothing like older vinyl seats.  At least try them out before deciding you don’t like them.

[LSchicago]

22 minutes ago, akirby said:

Ok you got me there but they’re still nothing like older vinyl seats.  At least try them out before deciding you don’t like them.

I still haven't even found any trim on a lot. I'm going to end up ordering one before I see one up close. I waited last year hoping to check out one at a dealer, but no luck. I'm sure the quality is much better than the 70's seats which lasted about 60-70K miles. 

[HotRunrGuy]

26 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

I still haven't even found any trim on a lot. I'm going to end up ordering one before I see one up close. I waited last year hoping to check out one at a dealer, but no luck. I'm sure the quality is much better than the 70's seats which lasted about 60-70K miles. 

 

I've got Active-X seats in both my 2018 Escape and 2019 Edge, and would get them on my up-coming Maverick XLT 4K if available.  I'll probably get Katzkin XT's to replace the cloth covers some time in the future. There are a lot of Ford models that offer them, if you want to touchy-feely in person.

 

HRG

[j2sys]

1 hour ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

I've got Active-X seats in both my 2018 Escape and 2019 Edge, and would get them on my up-coming Maverick XLT 4K if available.  I'll probably get Katzkin XT's to replace the cloth covers some time in the future. There are a lot of Ford models that offer them, if you want to touchy-feely in person.

 

HRG

 

Had them for about a month in a 2020 Escape rental and have no concerns with them on my Escape I'm due to pick up any day.  That's coming from the leather in a Focus.  It's not old dated industrial or fleet truck grade stuff, it's a decent synthetic leather alternative.  Doesn't mean it's for everyone.

[bzcat]

If the fake leather is good enough on a $70k Mercedes (MBTex) it's going to be fine in the Maverick. Most car companies are actually moving towards using the fake leather because it has much lower carbon footprint - it helps with their ESG reporting. Cows emit a huge amount of methane and uses a crazy amount of water so leather interior is on the automotive endangered list with diesel engine and manual transmission. Pretty sure in 10~15 years time, only the boutique car companies with very low volumes will still offer real cow interior.  

[j2sys]

21 minutes ago, bzcat said:

If the fake leather is good enough on a $70k Mercedes (MBTex) it's going to be fine in the Maverick. Most car companies are actually moving towards using the fake leather because it has much lower carbon footprint - it helps with their ESG reporting. Cows emit a huge amount of methane and uses a crazy amount of water so leather interior is on the automotive endangered list with diesel engine and manual transmission. Pretty sure in 10~15 years time, only the boutique car companies with very low volumes will still offer real cow interior.  

 

It's also a selling point for many people to have that premium interior without using animal skins.

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, j2sys said:

It's also a selling point for many people to have that premium interior without using animal skins.

 

Definitely. The organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is pushing "all car companies [to] use only 100% leather-free and vegan interiors". Leather-Free Car Interiors Are Here, Thanks to PETA | PETA

 

[silvrsvt]

Not to mention actual leather isn't the best material for seats anyways

[akirby]

10 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Not to mention actual leather isn't the best material for seats anyways

I love leather for both car and home.  They can deteriorate over time and people say they’re hot in summer and cold in winter but I find that it very quickly adjusts to your body temp.

 

That said I have cloth seats in my F150 and they’re perfectly fine.

[LSchicago]

13 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Definitely. The organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is pushing "all car companies [to] use only 100% leather-free and vegan interiors". Leather-Free Car Interiors Are Here, Thanks to PETA | PETA

 

 

 

Peta, People Eating Tasty Animals. LOL. 

[silvrsvt]

On 8/13/2022 at 9:46 AM, akirby said:

I love leather for both car and home.  They can deteriorate over time and people say they’re hot in summer and cold in winter but I find that it very quickly adjusts to your body temp.

 

 

The big issue is if your woman and have shorter shorts on-your legs stick to the leather/vinyl whatever...at least that is what my wife bitches about. 

[tbone]

14 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The big issue is if your woman and have shorter shorts on-your legs stick to the leather/vinyl whatever...at least that is what my wife bitches about. 

Are you sure it isn’t you wearing those shorty shorts?

[silvrsvt]

24 minutes ago, tbone said:

Are you sure it isn’t you wearing those shorty shorts?

 

LOL Nah I'm 6'2 and the wife is a bout a foot shorter so shes screwed either way short of wearing pants. 

[maginty]

On 8/10/2022 at 6:54 PM, 2005Explorer said:

So much is wrong with this post. First things first. The Maverick does not compete with the Ridgeline. Not in size or in price. It is a compact inexpensive pickup. As far as the Ranger goes you are comparing the current model to the next gen Frontier and Colorado. The Colorado is not even available yet and by the time it is the 2024 Ranger will almost be here. The so-called dramatic sales decline of the Ranger has a lot more to do with MAP trying to build as many Broncos to catch up then it being a bad truck. Of course it isn't going to be as fancy as the next gen midsized trucks, but it is solid and reliable. Consumer Reports just picked the 2022 Ranger over the class leader 2022 Toyota Tacoma.

 

Have you even driven a 2022 Ranger or 2022 Maverick? I have a 2022 Ranger Tremor and my family also has a 2022 Maverick 2.0 FX4. Both have plenty of power and do exactly what they were designed to do. You are trying to compare the Maverick to a pickup that is in a completely different class and are comparing a current gen Ranger to the next gen from the other manufacturers. The current gen Ranger is simple and tough especially in Tremor trim and I appreciate that. Just go get a Pantyline or Colorado and be happy. It is pretty apparent that you don't want a Ford product anyhow.

What is Wrong? The Maverick not competing with the Ridgeline is your opinion. I am downsizing from an '18 F150 Lariat and went to the Maverick as it is one of the shortest trucks available. I then cross shopped with the midsize. The Maverick and midsize trucks have close to the same size cabs with the Maverick having more rear seat room as I previously noted. Bed lengths are no different than comparing a 5.5'-6.5' in the full size. For towing the Mavericks 4K towing is comparable, as the GM twins and Ranger have 3.5K towing standard. A loaded Maverick is close to $40,000, not exactly inexpensive.

I was comparing Ranger to current Colorado and Frontier. GM has had the 3.6-308hp/275 lbft since 2017. Ford brought the Ranger to market spotting GM the 38hp advantage. Nissan offered the 3.8- 310hp/281 lbft in the 2020 Frontier (old model).

Consumer Reports, are the opinions of a few journalists and hold no more weight than yours or mine. I would not purchase a Tacoma because I don't like the styling or powertrain, and a lot of people would disagree, but as you said Tacoma is the class leader.

I did not say the Ranger was a bad truck, just did not like the dated styling, and styling is subjective, not everyone sees things the same. The Ranger also has a lack of features, hell you can't even get a heated steering wheel which I have had in my Fords since 2011.

I have not driven the Ranger because I would not buy the current one. I looked at the Santa Cruz in person and did not like the exterior styling and did not drive it either. There was never a Maverick at my dealers available for a test drive, either no stock or pre sold units.

Your opinion of the Ranger and Maverick having plenty of power, tells me you're easily pleased and/or have never experienced the driving excitement of a powerful vehicle. Since I sold my '18 F150. I  have only one daily driver, a MKZ Reserve ll AWD 3.0-400 hp/400 lbft, and my summer only Charger SRT 392- 485 hp/475 lbft and I can say they both do what they were designed for, transportation and driving excitement. And with the Charger when I turn it on it returns the favour.

As for your Pantyline comment, I see it has out sold the Ranger in July and August this year. At end of Q2 The Frontier, Colorado,Gladiator, Tacoma have each out sold Ranger dramatically. As I have said, Ford just is not putting the same effort into the Maverick and Ranger as they do with the F150 and SuperDuty.

Also, check out the Truck King youtube channel, to date they have tested 8 trucks 0-60 towing a tandem trailer, you might be surprised where the Pantyline ranks. With all the extra features available, if Honda offered their 3.0T-355 hp/354 lbft 10 spd in the Ridgeline I know where my dollars would go, unfortunately that is not happening for 2023. I am not thrilled with GM having the 2" lift standard on the 2023 twins, however performance is highest on my list. I do like the next gen Ranger but to date Ford has not mentioned any optional powertrains coming, and the 2.3, even at the global rating of 298hp/333 lbft won't sway me. If Ford offered the 3.0 in the standard Ranger as GM is offering their HO 2.7 in lesser trims, things would be different. 

But hey, enjoy your 2022 Ranger Tremor that you like.

[akirby]

35 minutes ago, maginty said:

Your opinion of the Ranger and Maverick having plenty of power, tells me you're easily pleased and/or have never experienced the driving excitement of a powerful vehicle.

 

I do like the next gen Ranger but to date Ford has not mentioned any optional powertrains coming, and the 2.3, even at the global rating of 298hp/333 lbft won't sway me. If Ford offered the 3.0 in the standard Ranger as GM is offering their HO 2.7 in lesser trims, things would be different. 

You people have a distorted view of vehicle power.  Just because you like more power doesn’t mean that less power is inadequate.  My F150 has 375 hp-470 lb/ft.  I’ve owned multiple vehicles (edge, escape, fusion, MKZ, nautilus) with 275-ish hp from the NA 3.5/3.7 and 2.0Leb and they do have plenty of power for normal driving.  Even spirited driving.  People seem to have forgotten those 120-160 hp 4 cylinder engines.  Those were underpowered.

[AGR]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

You people have a distorted view of vehicle power.  Just because you like more power doesn’t mean that less power is inadequate.  My F150 has 375 hp-470 lb/ft.  I’ve owned multiple vehicles (edge, escape, fusion, MKZ, nautilus) with 275-ish hp from the NA 3.5/3.7 and 2.0Leb and they do have plenty of power for normal driving.  Even spirited driving.  People seem to have forgotten those 120-160 hp 4 cylinder engines.  Those were underpowered.

 

I had a 1994 Escort with the 1.9L. It had 88 horsepower.

[ehaase]

31 minutes ago, AGR said:

 

I had a 1994 Escort with the 1.9L. It had 88 horsepower.

 My 1985 1/2 Escort with the 1.9L had 85 hp.  My father's 1981 Escort with the 1.6L had 69 hp.  Life wasn't so terrible. 

[silvrsvt]

12 hours ago, akirby said:

You people have a distorted view of vehicle power.  Just because you like more power doesn’t mean that less power is inadequate.  My F150 has 375 hp-470 lb/ft.  I’ve owned multiple vehicles (edge, escape, fusion, MKZ, nautilus) with 275-ish hp from the NA 3.5/3.7 and 2.0Leb and they do have plenty of power for normal driving.  Even spirited driving.  People seem to have forgotten those 120-160 hp 4 cylinder engines.  Those were underpowered.

 

The big issue people forget about is that newer cars control "power" so the users don't kill themselves as easy.

I'll use this as an example-Parents had a mid 1990s T-bird with the V8 in it, the ass end used to slide around all the time in the rain taking a turn-my 1998 Mustang GT wasn't much better, so you had to be mindful of that. Fast forward almost 40 years later and my Bronco that has 150 more HP then them, its a complete non-issue-if the back end starts to slip, ESC kicks in and the engine pulls timing to stop the slipping and I barely notice it and don't have to think twice about it. 

That is why older cars from the 1970s feel like your driving a go-kart-I had a Cobra Kit car drive I got for a present about 10 years ago and it felt like I was driving a big go kart-which is good in its own ways, but terrible as a daily driver. 

[LSchicago]

15 hours ago, AGR said:

 

I had a 1994 Escort with the 1.9L. It had 88 horsepower.

I had a 87 Escort wagon once with a 4 speed and sunroof. That thing would easily get the speedo past the straight down position. Got 35mpg on trips too. I picked it up as a junk for $50. it was clean, with 218K miles. Just needed a fuel pump. I drove it for a year and a half, sold to my sister, then it went to a friend. he sold it to someone in Colorado. All it ever needed was brakes, tires, and clutches.