Purple Frog (Forum Supporter) said:I've been looking at Ridgelines to DD instead of my 350. So this new release catches my interest. I'm trying to avoid trucks that you need a ladder to get into.
I'm thinking AWD 2.0 eco-boost will probably get close to $40K
Looks like an Ecoboost XLT AWD with tow package is about $28.5K. Add another $2.4K if you get the XLT luxury package. I suspect that'll be one of the more popular configurations.
Wanna take bets on what Ford botches on this launch?
TGMF said:Wanna take bets on what Ford botches on this launch?
Well, lets see, there's no composite roof like on the Bronco, the drivetrains should be pretty much tried and tested, and they're being built in an already established plant, so my first guess would be some sort of supplier issue that limits production further than it already will be due to chip issues. Now, being built in Hermosillo, and having a whole bunch of storage cubbies, I'd be a little worried about the cartels using them to ship product up north, like they've done with Fusions in the past.
Edit: Based on the planned dealer allocations, it looks like they already botched the proportion of hybrids vs Ecoboost models to be produced.
ProDarwin said:GCrites80s said:One thing that's important to me now that I'm driving my 1st Gen Colorado more since I'm working at the farm often these days is the damn pitch and roll associated with most trucks due to tons of travel and skinny swaybars (if they have a rear one at all). "Truck people" a lot of times don't even notice this stuff but we Motorsports sure people do. Stuff sliding all over the inside of the truck, needing to creep through minor corners, bad braking. I'm hoping with the minor payload and towing capacity on the Maverick it is minimized except maybe on some "off-road" model I won't buy.
Distance from Center of Gravity to Roll Center is a big factor here. Even with really soft springs/bars, the roll is a lot less pronounced when these are close together. Physics is just working against you in a tall vehicle. I'm sure the Maverick will not be as bad as full size trucks, but its going to be a ton worse than most cars unfortunately.
And if you lower it it also lowers the roll center meaning that your center of gravity distance to roll center still isn't helped, correct? Or isn't helped as much as you'd like.
Looks like the embargo on the first drive reviews ended today. So far, everything I've read has been pretty positive. Car and Driver did knock the FWD 2.0T model for wheel spin being too easy, but that was the worst complaint I think I saw across multiple reviews. I really hope Ford doesn't screw this up, and that other manufacturers will decide small(er) trucks might actually be worth selling.
GCrites80s said:ProDarwin said:GCrites80s said:One thing that's important to me now that I'm driving my 1st Gen Colorado more since I'm working at the farm often these days is the damn pitch and roll associated with most trucks due to tons of travel and skinny swaybars (if they have a rear one at all). "Truck people" a lot of times don't even notice this stuff but we Motorsports sure people do. Stuff sliding all over the inside of the truck, needing to creep through minor corners, bad braking. I'm hoping with the minor payload and towing capacity on the Maverick it is minimized except maybe on some "off-road" model I won't buy.
Distance from Center of Gravity to Roll Center is a big factor here. Even with really soft springs/bars, the roll is a lot less pronounced when these are close together. Physics is just working against you in a tall vehicle. I'm sure the Maverick will not be as bad as full size trucks, but its going to be a ton worse than most cars unfortunately.
And if you lower it it also lowers the roll center meaning that your center of gravity distance to roll center still isn't helped, correct? Or isn't helped as much as you'd like.
That depends on geometry and how it's lowered... Drop spindles would lower cg without lowering roll center for instance.
Been cross shopping between Maverick and Hyundai Santa Cruz.
If you don't want something with all the ADAS features and luxury stuff, the Maverick seem the way better deal. I need a tow optioned vehicle. The Ford has trailer brake control, the Hyundai doesn't. But, the Hyundai tows 5k to the Ford's 4k. You can get a stripper 2.0 tow option Maverick for $26-7k but the Hyundai sails you up to $37k. But, the Hyundai comes with a lot of the luxuries that you would greatly increase the Maverick MSRP to get.
My cheap ass is asking myself if a leather wheel and cruise control is worth almost $2k to me, so Maverick wins.
But I might wanna wait a few years and get an off lease Hyundai... That said, towing with a dual clutch... I wanna see how they do in the wild.
A lot of people are angry that the EPA hasn't certified the hybrid's mileage yet and it is not yet available for sale. It seems like the hybrid has a big take rate, based on what I've seen on the Maverick forums.
I'd totally be down for an XLT hybrid in Cyber Orange but I feel the 2k tow rating is just too low for my intended usage. If the hybrid was rated at 3k, I would jump on it but I'm going to opt for the 4k towing package, which forces me to a 2.0L Ecoboost and AWD.
I plan on ordering an XLT AWD Maverick in Cyber Orange as soon as I get payment for selling my truck. The Maverick will be replacing my Ram 1500 and Kia Forte as the Ecoboost gets nearly the same mileage as the Kia but has enough utility to replace the Ram. It will save me a lot over the long run to have the Maverick as my only vehicle. Gas, insurance, registration will be a lot less with only one vehicle.
Hopefully, the check for the Ram shows up soon and I can order a Maverick here in the next few weeks. This is the perfect vehicle for me.
AWD Hybrid would get my attention, but until that happens, nope.
Uncle David (Forum Supporter) said:AWD Hybrid would get my attention, but until that happens, nope.
I gotta admit I'm much the same way.
It would be the first hybrid I own but they extra MPG is great to me, a review I saw said they saw 43.8mpg at one point. That's amazing.
If I could get a hybrid, AWD, and tow 4k I'd be set
Since the Maverick is based off of the Global C2 platform, which the Bronco Sport and Escape are both based on, I would expect a hybrid AWD version is in the works.
Like Antihero, if I could get an AWD hybrid with the 4k tow, I'd jump on it.
Until it's all electric Diesel hybrid with a stick shift, I'm not buying it.
Yeah I was reading the review on Car and Driver and thinking Ford is missing a BIG demographic by not offering the AWD with the hybrid system. I'd bet they could get my parents out of their AWD Hybrid RAV4. A lot of people want AWD, Hybrid MPGs, the ability to carry four adults, and the utility of a truck.
Right now, my dad still has a truck for doing truck things, the RAV4 Hybrid for trips and carrying people. An AWD Maverick Hybrid would combine those two vehicles in one.
I'm with you guys, the AWD, hybrid, 4K tow model would be a no-brainer if they offered it with pricing in-line with the currently available models.
The biggest problem I would have is fighting my wife over who got to drive it.
I think it was edmunds that said the Maverick rode more trucklike than the Santa Cruz and that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. It seems like the Santa Cruz went more upscale and smoother vs. the Maverick being more utilitarian and familiar to truck people.
Straight Pipes reviews:
Santa Cruz:
Maverick:
I like the Straight Pipes although they sometimes seem to opine overly much about infotainment.
In reply to TGMF :
Probably the fuel economy ratings. I recall Ford getting in trouble for rating the Fusion and C-Max hybrids a bit too high compared to what they were actually obtaining in the real world.
stanger_mussle said:A lot of people are angry that the EPA hasn't certified the hybrid's mileage yet and it is not yet available for sale. It seems like the hybrid has a big take rate, based on what I've seen on the Maverick forums.
FWIW, the cert process for Ford has very little to do with the EPA- we do self cert, so all of the data is generated at a Ford facility, and any delay is due to the problem that the vehicle is not living up to the targets. I don't know the specifics of what is going on, BTW- just want to be clear about that.
The lawsuits over the past decade or so (Honda and Hyundai) have established a kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for manufacturers :(
My understanding is the published number (window sticker) is not the CAFE number, nor is it the output of an EPA test. Its a combination of those, other testing, and balancing it against what happens when people don't achieve that mileage.
CyberEric said:Yeah I was reading the review on Car and Driver and thinking Ford is missing a BIG demographic by not offering the AWD with the hybrid system.
I agree. I think this was the first reaction of a LOT of people online from what I've seen. Hybrid, 4 seat, does truck things, and AWD pretty much makes it the ultimate homeowner hobbyist vehicle.
ProDarwin said:The lawsuits over the past decade or so (Honda and Hyundai) have established a kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for manufacturers :(
My understanding is the published number (window sticker) is not the CAFE number, nor is it the output of an EPA test. Its a combination of those, other testing, and balancing it against what happens when people don't achieve that mileage.
You are correct that the window sticker number is not the CAFE number, but the number is derived/calculated based on the FTP75 + the Highway OR that plus three other tests which are also required for certification (the US06, the SC03, and the FTP75 @ 50F). Basically, the fuel economy data is generated on the emissions test- and they are all EPA tests.
The lawsuits are when enough customers don't reach the window sticker number.
All this interest in the hybrid version of the Maverick makes me wonder why they don't offer a hybrid Transit Connect? My cousin has three of them as delivery vans for his bakeries. Not a lot of weight. He'd be ecstatic to be seeing high 30s MPG on those suckers.
I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that if overall demand and the take rate on the hybrid stays high, they'll offer an AWD hybrid, unless there is a technical reason not to (would it take up bed space?). Unless it is a price issue - maybe it'd cost enough more that they don't think there'd be enough demand.
I went on the Ford site and optioned one as realistically as I could balancing what I need and what I consider a "nice to have". Came in at $22,428. Base model FWD hybrid, spray-in bed liner, tow hitch, floor liners, and vehicles security system (includes remote start).
All things considered, a damn good value. I'm flat broke and can't buy it, but if I had money I'd rock one.
alfadriver said:ProDarwin said:The lawsuits over the past decade or so (Honda and Hyundai) have established a kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for manufacturers :(
My understanding is the published number (window sticker) is not the CAFE number, nor is it the output of an EPA test. Its a combination of those, other testing, and balancing it against what happens when people don't achieve that mileage.
You are correct that the window sticker number is not the CAFE number, but the number is derived/calculated based on the FTP75 + the Highway OR that plus three other tests which are also required for certification (the US06, the SC03, and the FTP75 @ 50F). Basically, the fuel economy data is generated on the emissions test- and they are all EPA tests.
Yeah I get that they use all those tests, but I thought right now manufacturers are walking the line between that calculation and a number they think enough customers will reach that they dont get sued. IIRC Hyundai and Honda both used the calculated value and got sued for it, and now they are looking at using an artificially reduced number to protect themselves from lawsuits?
You'll need to log in to post.
