Maverick ST | Thoughts???

[SID297]

Manual trans, more from the 2.0 EB or add a 2.3 EB, AWD, suspension, interior, and a little styling. I think it would have potential.

 

[me32]

Give me the 2.3 AWD with bigger brakes and better suspension.

 

[biminiLX]

Great trim idea.
Important to have some lower cost options that people still want.
-J

 

[Lambeau]

Manual, AWD, n/a 4 or 6 cylinder, dash full of control buttons, tiny or no screen.

I will not purchase another EB Ford if I can help it. Not a fan at all, I see no benefit.
The n/a 2.5L in my '12 Escape has been great. Simple, dependable, great mileage.

 

[SID297]

Manual, AWD, n/a 4 or 6 cylinder, dash full of control buttons, tiny or no screen.

I will not purchase another EB Ford if I can help it. Not a fan at all, I see no benefit.
The n/a 2.5L in my '12 Escape has been great. Simple, dependable, great mileage.

Isn't that 2.5 still a DI engine? I'm not sure what year Escape you're talking about.

 

[mariusvt]

Manual trans, more from the 2.0 EB or add a 2.3 EB, AWD, suspension, interior, and a little styling. I think it would have potential.

Hi po version of the 2.3 from the mustang and awd would be a winner. Bonus points for a manual option from the focus rs but I don't think Ford has the cajones for that.

 

[SID297]

Hi po version of the 2.3 from the mustang and awd would be a winner. Bonus points for a manual option from the focus rs but I don't think Ford has the cajones for that.

I was thinking basically a tamed down version of the Focus RS drivetrain.

 

[TORQUERULES]

I was thinking basically a tamed down version of the Focus RS drivetrain.

This.

 

[Russo]

@SID297 you know something we don't?

 

[SID297]

@SID297 you know something we don't?

Lots of things.

 

[Lambeau]

Isn't that 2.5 still a DI engine? I'm not sure what year Escape you're talking about.

Years in the post.

 

[Russo]

Lots of things.

Then towing needs to be 5500-6000 lbs..

 

[Ramairgt1]

Put the 3.0TT in it or save that for a Mav R

 

[SID297]

Years in the post.

Those numbers successfully evaded me.

Then towing needs to be 5500-6000 lbs..

You're asking too much.

 

[gimmie11s]

Then towing needs to be 5500-6000 lbs..

lol not gonna happen

 

[Russo]

the regular one tows 4k lbs.. my wife's old 2015 Santa Fe could tow 5000.. the explorer Timberlane can tow 5500 lbs.. no reason it couldn't tow 5500-6k if they use to 2.3 ecoboost..

 

[gimmie11s]

the regular one tows 4k lbs.. my wife's old 2015 Santa Fe could tow 5000.. the explorer Timberlane can tow 5500 lbs.. no reason it couldn't tow 5500-6k if they use to 2.3 ecoboost..

It has much less to do with the power of the engine than the power of the brakes/chassis and suspension.

The Maverick is not (not even close) the same size nor as capable (chassis and brakes) as the Explorer.

 

[SID297]

It has much less to do with the power of the engine than the power of the brakes/chassis and suspension.

The Maverick is not (not even close) the same size nor as capable (chassis and brakes) as the Explorer.

Bingo. From my experience 4,000 pounds wouldn't be super comfortable behind a Maverick.

 

[derklug]

I honestly think the Ranger is a better platform to go performance on. While I am going to get a Maverick, I'm going for the cheap not the performance.

 

[Russo]

It has much less to do with the power of the engine than the power of the brakes/chassis and suspension.

The Maverick is not (not even close) the same size nor as capable (chassis and brakes) as the Explorer.

are you saying Ford couldn't upgrade those components and market it as.... an ST?

There is a 600 lb weight difference between the Maverick and Explorer Timberline.. the Ranger 2wd weighs 200 lbs less than the explorer and can tow 7500 lbs.. i get the curb weight comes into play, but Ford definitely has room to bump the towing capacity