Just got home from Bronco event...

[Nerobergstr]

I actually think the maverick makes sense for a large portion of truck owners. It reminds me of rabbit pickups.

I know this is a wrangler forum, but a well executed unibody is a great thing. A unibody today wouldn’t be a wet noodle like an xj. They offer much more stability when driving than a flexing ladder frame. Hell my WJ could be flexed out and still open the lift gate, something that took a prybar on my well worn XJ. I just wish Jeep would bring back a solid axle unibody vehicle, but it is not something that would make any market sense. While I am not a fan of the transverse motor fwd Jeep’s, those models are why we still have a hold out in light duty vehicles with solid axles. I was thoroughly expecting the JL to be released with at least IFS.

I actually have no issues with well executed unibodies either and as much as I do like solid axles, they are on borrowed time. I agree that as long as Jeep can keep printing money with the Wrangler (and those FWD minivans that bask in its off road glory), we get the benefit of a solid axle Jeep. Now Bronco comes into the picture and can do 99% of what most people use the Wrangler for, while still looking the part and simply driving better on the highway... seems like that might shake things up a bit. I think Maverick falls into the same category. It actually looks like a truck and has the credibility of a Ford, so that someone that wants a truck but doesn't really need an F150 can now make a better choice without buying a Ridgeline. I'll be watching Bronco and Maverick closely to see how this plays out. The other car that I keep coming back to is Subaru Crosstrek...Every time I took the Jeep out in the wood somewhere, I would come across someone in a Crosstrek with a Kayak on top. The only place I didn't see them was on the trails at Drummond Island, probably because there is not much to do out there other than climbing some rocks and testing your fording depth in the tank traps...neither of which is really that appealing to me in a $60k vehicle. After owning the Wrangler for a year, I kind of realized that most of the places I wanted to go seemed perfectly accessible by an underpowered unibody Subaru that costs half as much. They also have a decent and growing aftermarket (bumpers, lifts, winches, etc..) too. A Subaru is not a Jeep, but...

Sponsored

 

[Pingbling23]

I think you would be surprised as to how close to dealer cost you got. If you financed or traded in, you may have actually gotten under.

Sold my wife’s explorer for about 2k more then trade in on Facebook marketplace. I did use the dealership to finance, it was part of the deal for another 1% under invoice (5% no strings, 1% tread lightly, and 1% their financing). They used capital one and beat my local credit union I always use by almost a half a percent.

 

[Pingbling23]

I actually have no issues with well executed unibodies either and as much as I do like solid axles, they are on borrowed time. I agree that as long as Jeep can keep printing money with the Wrangler (and those FWD minivans that bask in its off road glory), we get the benefit of a solid axle Jeep. Now Bronco comes into the picture and can do 99% of what most people use the Wrangler for, while still looking the part and simply driving better on the highway... seems like that might shake things up a bit. I think Maverick falls into the same category. It actually looks like a truck and has the credibility of a Ford, so that someone that wants a truck but doesn't really need an F150 can now make a better choice without buying a Ridgeline. I'll be watching Bronco and Maverick closely to see how this plays out. The other car that I keep coming back to is Subaru Crosstrek...Every time I took the Jeep out in the wood somewhere, I would come across someone in a Crosstrek with a Kayak on top. The only place I didn't see them was on the trails at Drummond Island, probably because there is not much to do out there other than climbing some rocks and testing your fording depth in the tank traps...neither of which is really that appealing to me in a $60k vehicle. After owning the Wrangler for a year, I kind of realized that most of the places I wanted to go seemed perfectly accessible by an underpowered unibody Subaru that costs half as much. They also have a decent and growing aftermarket (bumpers, lifts, winches, etc..) too. A Subaru is not a Jeep, but...

Steering will most likely be better but the wranglers ride is pretty comfy, especially with the mopar fox shocks. Tfl didn’t seem to impressed with the Broncos ride quality. Seemed like it had more cabin noise then wrangler too.

 

[rallydefault]

but the wranglers ride is pretty comfy

I've been in my JL for well over 3 years and I would definitely not label the on-road manners as "comfy" lol Maybe compared to older solid axle vehicles, sure, but no way compared to most other vehicles. Just my opinion. But it's something I knew I was getting into when I bought a jeep.

 

[thegame81]

My local Jeep salesman: "I'll sell you a $100 bill for $98."
Me: "How can you do that and stay in business?"
Local Jeep salesman: "volume."

This reminded me of Michael Scott lol

 

[LongTimeListener]

Jeep forum users: I got mine for $72, if you paid more, I don’t know what to say. Learn to negotiate.

Also Jeep forum users: I'm going to drive this until the wheels fall off. 250,000 miles, minimum. Who cares if I'm paying $10k a year to maintain it by then. Anyone who buys a new car more frequently than every 15 years is an idiot.

 

[Nerobergstr]

Steering will most likely be better but the wranglers ride is pretty comfy, especially with the mopar fox shocks. Tfl didn’t seem to impressed with the Broncos ride quality. Seemed like it had more cabin noise then wrangler too.

I like the JL Rubicon seats, they were really comfortable, my wife agreed and she is pretty picky. Cabin noise on the JL was fine for me and expected (I had the premium soft top). My biggest gripe was highway handling...it just never felt under control above about 65 mph. We drive 300 miles up to our cabin and 290 of it on the highway. In that area speed limits are 75 mph, so unless you're keeping up at 80, you are in the way. Add in any gusty wind or surface defects and you'll be busy. The other thing I noticed, it actually rides better with just the driver. Add a couple passengers and some gear, you will not only be close to the GVWR, but make the vehicle noticeably less stable in my opinion. Maybe it's just me or all the extra weight in the front with the diesel. Bottom line, as much as I liked the JLURD, it was just not the right vehicle for what I needed and that's on me, so I'm going to really pay attention to these things going forward.

 

[viper88]

I actually have no issues with well executed unibodies either and as much as I do like solid axles, they are on borrowed time. I agree that as long as Jeep can keep printing money with the Wrangler (and those FWD minivans that bask in its off road glory), we get the benefit of a solid axle Jeep. Now Bronco comes into the picture and can do 99% of what most people use the Wrangler for, while still looking the part and simply driving better on the highway... seems like that might shake things up a bit. I think Maverick falls into the same category. It actually looks like a truck and has the credibility of a Ford, so that someone that wants a truck but doesn't really need an F150 can now make a better choice without buying a Ridgeline. I'll be watching Bronco and Maverick closely to see how this plays out. The other car that I keep coming back to is Subaru Crosstrek...Every time I took the Jeep out in the wood somewhere, I would come across someone in a Crosstrek with a Kayak on top. The only place I didn't see them was on the trails at Drummond Island, probably because there is not much to do out there other than climbing some rocks and testing your fording depth in the tank traps...neither of which is really that appealing to me in a $60k vehicle. After owning the Wrangler for a year, I kind of realized that most of the places I wanted to go seemed perfectly accessible by an underpowered unibody Subaru that costs half as much. They also have a decent and growing aftermarket (bumpers, lifts, winches, etc..) too. A Subaru is not a Jeep, but...

Subaru makes excellent vehicles but the roof and doors don't come off. That's probably pretty important for most Wrangler buyers.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie. The new Outback Wilderness is being marketed as a go anywhere vehicle. The Outback Wilderness has 9.5" of ground clearance, the bumpers are redesigned for better approach and departure angles, etc. It's probably around $40K.

I don't have anything against Subaru. I have owned 4 of them. The naked driving experience is something Subaru does not have. For that $40K I would buy a Wrangler or a Bronco. It's great there is finally some competition for a 4x4 with removable roof and doors. Something for everyone and their personal needs.

 

[Nerobergstr]

Subaru makes excellent vehicles but the roof and doors don't come off. That's probably pretty important for most Wrangler buyers.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie. The new Outback Wilderness is being marketed as a go anywhere vehicle. The Outback Wilderness has 9.5" of ground clearance, the bumpers are redesigned for better approach and departure angles, etc. It's probably around $40K.

I don't have anything against Subaru. I have owned 4 of them. The naked driving experience is something Subaru does not have. For that $40K I would buy a Wrangler or a Bronco. It's great there is finally some competition for a 4x4 with removable roof and doors. Something for everyone and their personal needs.

Open driving experience was what sold me on the Wrangler. I didn't want (or have room) to own both a convertible and a go-anywhere vehicle. Buying the jeep motivated me to sell the convertible, but now I have neither...so back to thinking about the Bronco.

 

[aldo98229]

Except the Subaru Baja was actually 4 wheel drive and light enough that it could still drag itself through sand and mud....but yeah like a Baja in that it is not a truck. I'm kind of torn on the Maverick, I love/hate the name because I had a '71 Maverick in high school. I am also afraid that a lot people will buy it because it looks like a truck and says Ford. Many of those folks will say what a great truck it is because it does the things they actually need it to do very well (drop off the kids at school, pick up 6 bags of mulch at Home Depot, commute to office, pick up grocery order...) while costing less and using half as much gas. How do you convince those folks to buy a F150 after that? Ford make a lot of money on convincing folks that don't need an F150, that they need an F150. Jeep has been creeping down the same road for years. Look at how many things branded Jeep are on transverse mounted front wheel drive platforms. Imagine if they did a Wrangler Lite that from 10 feet away looked like a Sahara but was unibody based, front wheel drive, gets better gas mileage and costs less. That trick would probably work for a while, but what do you do after you wreck that "go anywhere - even though I never will" image?

Excellent points.

Ford has struggled with this very issue for decades.

Ranger and Maverick

Ford pulled the plug on Ranger in 2012 because it was cheaper and more profitable for Ford to make and sell a decontented F150 than a Ford Ranger.

When you looked at the manufacturing cost, retail price and fuel economy differences between a compact and entry-level full-size truck, there just wasn’t a gap wide enough to justify making a separate, smaller truck.

Ford’s economies of scale on F-Series allowed it to slap a big rebate onto the larger truck and still make money; something that was harder to do with Ranger. And given the choice, most buyers rather be in the larger truck.

But pickup trucks have grown so large and become so expensive, that Ford saw an opening at the low-end of the segment that didn’t exist before. As the pickup market leader, Ford had no choice but to respond rather than wait for someone else to do it. Maverick was the correct business decision, IMO.

Wrangler and Bronco

With regards to Jeep offering a watered-down Wrangler look-alike: the temptation has been there for awhile. Sergio Marchionne wanted JL to have IFS, all-aluminum body, a fixed windshield, and I forget what else. The idea was to force buyers to step into a Rubicon in order to get front and rear solid axles, skid plates, etc.

It was only Jeep owners’ pushback that got him to give in. But I’m sure those internal pressures are still there.

This is the reason I keep saying that not all competition is necessarily good. Bronco could give the bean counters and other factions inside FCA the ammunition they need to “modernize” and make Wrangler “more competitive” —in their eyes at least.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming evidence is that competition makes products more similar, not less.

As the saying goes: be careful what you wish for.

 

[bigbaozi]

I've been in my JL for well over 3 years and I would definitely not label the on-road manners as "comfy" lol Maybe compared to older solid axle vehicles, sure, but no way compared to most other vehicles. Just my opinion. But it's something I knew I was getting into when I bought a jeep.

I've seen quite a few describe it similarly and I always wonder what the hell they were driving before they bought it. Tolerable would probably be a better term. It's a tiring vehicle to take on long road trips.

 

[bigbaozi]

Subaru makes excellent vehicles but the roof and doors don't come off. That's probably pretty important for most Wrangler buyers.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie. The new Outback Wilderness is being marketed as a go anywhere vehicle. The Outback Wilderness has 9.5" of ground clearance, the bumpers are redesigned for better approach and departure angles, etc. It's probably around $40K.

I don't have anything against Subaru. I have owned 4 of them. The naked driving experience is something Subaru does not have. For that $40K I would buy a Wrangler or a Bronco. It's great there is finally some competition for a 4x4 with removable roof and doors. Something for everyone and their personal needs.

Subaru isn't making the Wilderness to compete with the Wrangler or even Jeep. They are having to protect their turf from Toyota/Honda/Nissan that have all decided to start making outdoorsy AWD vehicles. Honda is marketing the Passport as a adventure vehicle. Toyota is doing off-roady Rav4's. Nissan is going after the same space with the Pathfinder. Unless something goes really wrong with the Outback launch, the Forester/Crosstrek/Ascent will all get Wilderness editions soon.

I expect the number of people asking Subaru to make an Outback with removable doors and a folding windshield is pretty close to zero.

 

[Speed331]

I've seen quite a few describe it similarly and I always wonder what the hell they were driving before they bought it. Tolerable would probably be a better term. It's a tiring vehicle to take on long road trips.

I wonder if it depends on the road quality in different parts of the country. I've taken my 2 door SS on several 700+ mile trips without feeling excessively worn out - I actually love the seats and seating position - and I'm 6'4" 225. But, as noted before, the roads in the southwest are pretty darn good.
I was concerned before I got it about it being 'skitish' because of it's short wheelbase, but, while not a go cart, I have yet to go fast enough (90+) to feel anything but stuck to the road....

 

[deserteagle56]

Subaru makes excellent vehicles but the roof and doors don't come off. That's probably pretty important for most Wrangler buyers.

Don't know where you live but here in northern Nevada Wranglers are extremely popular vehicles. They are everywhere and being a Wrangler owner and having to do the "Jeep" wave I notice every one. I also notice that maybe only 1 out of 100 has the top or doors off.
Could be because most roads here are dirt. Very dusty dirt.

 

[bigbaozi]

I actually think the maverick makes sense for a large portion of truck owners. It reminds me of rabbit pickups.

If I were just getting a first car again, the Maverick would be very high on my list. I can't think of much at the $20-25k range that is more interesting. Ford is going to have to get that adjustable tailgate into the Ranger soon. It won't do for the smallest truck to be able to so easily haul sheet goods when the bigger one can't. I expect they are going to sell a lot of them, but not to truck buyers. Doesn't tick enough of the I live in a suburb but want to pretend I own a ranch boxes to get the truck guys.

Sponsored