Any other 2.0 orders hoping the power is enough?

[Nw_adventure]

Was trying to compare power specs to our 2011 V6 highlander with 270 hp/248 tq - It stomps pretty good when the transmission actually decides to follow your advice- Heavy car @ 4400 lbs so Im thinking Mav should hopefully be similar in passing situations/uphills at elevation with Utah Autobahn speeds of 85..

Sponsored

 

[Old Ranchero]

after 1st hearing rumors of this truck, I hoped it would have a better base engine than the I-3 dragon and I could get it with AWD to counter bad habits of transverse mounting and get the rear IRS and maximize grip in all weird weather situations we get here in CO. Also wanted that to come in well below the $30k I expected to have in my budget for a smaller truck daily driver. When specs were confirmed and I was able to B&P my 2.0, AWD, 4K tow and a few more useful options on the XL and come in under $27k, I knew that was the best option out there for me. Now I just need to actually drive 1 and make sure no show stoppers found in real world reviews to confirm that last 1% of confidence in it before I place my order. Based on everything I've read on the 2.0./2.3 turbos I'm expecting it will be plenty powerful enough for my needs. I've never had a 4 cyl with more than about 140hp anyways so won't have any lingering doubts wishing it was as good as what I had before

 

[Timsvtgen1]

I have a Bronco Sport Badlands w/ the 2.0 and can assure anyone , its plenty. I came out of a 2018 Focus ST with the same engine and don't miss the power.. handling, that's another story but that's to be expected.

 

[Old Ranchero]

I thought this truck was designed and marketed to transition young people with no money who drive a Honda w/250K miles into an economical compact truck that doesn’t get 10mpg. Now we’re talking about +300hp being barely adequate, road race suspension, Brembo brakes and even aero modifications to reduce rear end lift at high speeds. Am I missing something here?

that's why there is XL, XLT, Lariat and lots of trims and options. Something for everyone depending on your situation...

 

[vap0rtranz]

What the heck of folks doing that needs so much power?

The Rangers & S-10s from the 80s served our Grandpas fine with 4bangers that were <150hp.

Now I'm hearing: "low power = safety risk". Evidently the theory is lower speed is the problem.

Nope. Data indicates high speed = safety risk. Power makes higher speeds. Nice try.

If almost 300lb-ft isn't enough in the EB, go buy a F150 LIghtening. It's got 1,000lb-ft torque.

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

What the heck of folks doing that needs so much power?

The Rangers & S-10s from the 80s served our Grandpas fine with 4bangers that were <150hp.

Now I'm hearing: "low power = safety risk". Evidently the theory is lower speed is the problem.

Nope. Data indicates high speed = safety risk. Power makes higher speeds. Nice try.

If almost 300lb-ft isn't enough in the EB, go buy a F150 LIghtening. It's got 1,000lb-ft torque.

Sometimes that stump just has to move.

I had someone tell me it was all about power to weight and nothing else mattered. Next time he got stuck in a ditch I went out on my sportster to help get him out (he lived on the next farm down) I laughed, then back and got the AC (Allis Chalmer)

 

[ColoradoShooter]

after 1st hearing rumors of this truck, I hoped it would have a better base engine than the I-3 dragon and I could get it with AWD to counter bad habits of transverse mounting and get the rear IRS and maximize grip in all weird weather situations we get here in CO. Also wanted that to come in well below the $30k I expected to have in my budget for a smaller truck daily driver. When specs were confirmed and I was able to B&P my 2.0, AWD, 4K tow and a few more useful options on the XL and come in under $27k, I knew that was the best option out there for me. Now I just need to actually drive 1 and make sure no show stoppers found in real world reviews to confirm that last 1% of confidence in it before I place my order. Based on everything I've read on the 2.0./2.3 turbos I'm expecting it will be plenty powerful enough for my needs. I've never had a 4 cyl with more than about 140hp anyways so won't have any lingering doubts wishing it was as good as what I had before

I’m in CO too, and that little 2.0EB under boost has no problems on 7% grades in the mountains at 7,000ft+. I don’t think I could go back to a naturally aspirated, small displacement engine at altitude without being boosted.

 

[Mav]

"Hope its will be enough? Yes.
Worried if it will be enough? No

For the intended market and intended use at this price point, if your are needing more power, you' are clearly in the wrong place.

Nobody asked you for your opinion on who should buy what. Stay in your lane.

 

[Coachman]

This is easy. 250 herspers. A 1998 Ford F150 with a 5.4 only had 220. The chevy with the 5.7 350 had exactly 250. Power is not an issue with this truck.

I agree with enough power, some years ago I had a 1995 Sedan Deville that was rated @ 200 HP. And that heavy monster was actually pretty quick.

 

[Nw_adventure]

At the end of the day in Utah it's like a scene from mad Max when trying to merge into freeway traffic. Your ride better be able to go from 30-75 very quickly --They allow double tractor trailers here and combine that
with every other giant raised turbo diesel monster truck its always an exhilarating experience.

 

[shark978]

Curious if anyone else ordered the 2.0/AWD that has their fingers crossed for decent power. Hoping that this thing won’t be a dog. The 2.0 turbo and AWD combo could be a decent road performer. But the Maverick is pretty long and might be a little underpowered for the curb weight. I’m sure a tune would wake it up a little. But the small engine and even smaller turbo have their limitations

like others have already covered it should be more than good. the 255hp motor is also very torquey which is the more important stat. 275 lb ft iirc. That's as much torque as the 6 (biggest motor offered) in the chevy Colorado. More actually IIRC that one is 269 lb ft.

I also figured out that because it's lighter, the MAV has more horsepower per pound than the Ranger with it's 275 HP 2.3L, since that truck is heavier.

It may have a little turbo lag people say, but noone complains about this on the Rangers turbo motor so I suspect I wont even notice at all.

Now, it's not a big throaty V8 if thats what you want, but those are essentially banned by the EPA now anyway, maybe unless you get a giant truck if even then. So you cant blame Ford, blame your politicians. besides as noted this motor will probably run circles around many older V8's let alone 6's.

For myself I drive a 08 Canyon Regular cab, with the 4 cylinder IIRC, 180 HP it only weighs 3300? It feels decently zippy in traffic. especially for me coming from a Isuzu regular cab with 96 HP before that. Now that thing was such a dog any other car will feel great for me forever LOL. Everything walked away from it at lights. My Dad has a ~2016? Tacoma 4DR/4wdr lifted a little, big tires and such, and I think it has a V6 with only 236 HP. Honestly I didnt drive it much but I dont think it felt any zippier than my Canyon due to the weight/tires etc

 

[Wanted33]

It has a better power to weight than the ranger which is nice. Im not too worried as the 2.0t has been around for ages and people (focus ST community specifically) have modded these to death. So we have such a good documentation of what goes wrong, what it can handle, etc. For people who arent modifying, we can hope for a ford performance tune. But even then, as others said, the power to weight is more than enough in my opinion.

Past cars are:
2021 WRX STI
2010 ISF
NB and NA miatas
2019 BRZ

But then I got the Model Y and it ruined all ICE for me. The instant torque is incredible

I was going to say you'll be fine, and this just solidified that. The 2.3L in my Ranger has more than enough power, so a better power to weight ratio will make the Maverick a quick little trucklette.

 

[Anturok]

I am not worried about the power. It has the same engine as my 2018 fusion, is only slightly heavier, and my fusion is quite peppy.

 

[vap0rtranz]

especially for me coming from a Isuzu regular cab with 96 HP before that.

My 1st car, the original '86 Ford Taurus w/ 5-speed manual, had about that many horses. If I turned on the A/C, you couldn't pass cars on the highway. But it had power windows! LOL.

 

[JamesHenry]

I thought this truck was designed and marketed to transition young people with no money who drive a Honda w/250K miles into an economical compact truck that doesn’t get 10mpg. Now we’re talking about +300hp being barely adequate, road race suspension, Brembo brakes and even aero modifications to reduce rear end lift at high speeds. Am I missing something here?

Why buy a $80K+ sports car hat can do 160+ if you're only going to drive it 2,000 miles a year and never break 100mph?

Why buy a $100K+ TRX that has 700hp but less payload capacity than the Maverick?

Why buy a Subaru when you only get snow 4 days a year and never leave the asphalt?

Different strokes for different folks. People spend their money in different ways. I personally enjoy having a vehicle and modifying it to meet my needs and expectations. With the Maverick, you already have a very practical and functional truck as a foundation

Sponsored