Any word on Ford Performance Pack for Maverick?

[matmondro]

The 2.0 EB is easily capable of 270 hp and around 310 lb-ft of torque just from a non-paper air filter, axle-back exhaust (definitely a cat-back too), and a light tune running on 93 octane. Would be even more of a zippy truck with those numbers.

Sponsored

 

[Deerslayer1980]

The 2.0 EB is easily capable of 270 hp and around 310 lb-ft of torque just from a non-paper air filter, axle-back exhaust (definitely a cat-back too), and a light tune running on 93 octane. Would be even more of a zippy truck with those numbers.

No doubt! Guys on here already running 13.2 to 13.4 with I/E/T.

 

[matmondro]

Yes! One thing I wish this truck had is a boost gauge. Maybe make it one of the screens in the Productivity Screen that you can toggle to or something.

 

[VRausch]

You'd probably need just a light tune. If your charged air temps are lower because of the larger intercooler, then you'll have higher density air entering the intake.

Just those mods should not require any kind of tune to work properly and see some small gains. If they did, you'd need a tune every time the outside temp dropped. Cooler charge air *could* allow you to run the turbo a bit harder (and usually hotter as a result) provided everything else can support the bump in power, and the manufacturers are typically pretty conservative in the factory tune, so tweaking some timing, fuel, and boost pressures will almost always give gains on a factory boosted vehicle.

 

[matmondro]

Just those mods should not require any kind of tune to work properly and see some small gains. If they did, you'd need a tune every time the outside temp dropped. Cooler charge air *could* allow you to run the turbo a bit harder (and usually hotter as a result) provided everything else can support the bump in power, and the manufacturers are typically pretty conservative in the factory tune, so tweaking some timing, fuel, and boost pressures will almost always give gains on a factory boosted vehicle.

Yep! The vehicle would still run fine on a stock tune with those mods, but some small tweaking like you mentioned would definitely maximize the potential (although you're only getting maybe 10-ish hp). The torque is where these 2.0 EBs have more room to grow. If I did a CAI, intercooler, maybe an exhaust, and a tune, I'd probably go one step colder with my spark plugs too.

 

[fossil]

Wont see anything until a year after the ST(or whatever it is called) hits the streets. We know they developed something with dual exhaust and a body kit. Hopefully it get some extra marbles too. But it would not make sense to sell that that tune before the sell you on the whole vehicle. I really hope Ford realizes that people can an will want to tune and build these specifically because they are cheap. Out of the box they beat every Fox body made that wasnt a track car with plates. The fancy rear is bolt in, the motor is shared, suspension is partially shared, the body is highly customizable. Tunes, turbos, transmissions, axles, suspension, exhaust, intakes, all sellable performance mods.

Since the Tremor came out at the end of summer, I bet the ST will come out at the end of winter, since it was spied several months after the Tremor was spied. Also another reason why they would have shut order banks down. Dont want to sell over you annual capacity before your expensive performance trim is even available.

Makes sense?

Soooo, no Raptor til 2025?

 

[fossil]

Go for the escape engine covers, they say ecoboost on them lol. but yeah physically theyre near identical. Same measurements for ALOT. Ill post specs once i get home from work.

How about a color match RS cover, or would you prefer carbon fiber?

 

[Maverickman74]

Soooo, no Raptor til 2025?

Well they are gonna have to make a completely different engine cradle and drop it about 2", then they are gonna have to take the unibody back apart and figure out which stampings they will need to replace with that high carbon steel from the Broncos roll bars to reinforce the chassis front to rear. Then they gotta lengthen all the suspension arms and move their mounts. After that the gotta slip the Mustang 310-330 hp 2.3t in the new dropped cradle. Replace all the underbody felt panels with skid plates. Then they will go back to the dampner company my brother works at and ask them to design another shock setup and create a front strut with external resevoirs. Thow in some new fenders and quarters. Make even more of your favorite option package level tied up. Then I think they can sell the Maverick Raptor for $39,999.99, with an avg retail price of about $45k or pretty much exactly double the price of a XL AWD. 255/65r17s will be standard, and 265/70r17s will be optional with a $2000 appearance package that includes and is the only way to get the finest of fake leathers.

 

[Felixtech]

Well they are gonna have to make a completely different engine cradle and drop it about 2", then they are gonna have to take the unibody back apart and figure out which stampings they will need to replace with that high carbon steel from the Broncos roll bars to reinforce the chassis front to rear. Then they gotta lengthen all the suspension arms and move their mounts. After that the gotta slip the Mustang 310-330 hp 2.3t in the new dropped cradle. Replace all the underbody felt panels with skid plates. Then they will go back to the dampner company my brother works at and ask them to design another shock setup and create a front strut with external resevoirs. Thow in some new fenders and quarters. Make even more of your favorite option package level tied up. Then I think they can sell the Maverick Raptor for $39,999.99, with an avg retail price of about $45k or pretty much exactly double the price of a XL AWD. 255/65r17s will be standard, and 265/70r17s will be optional with a $2000 appearance package that includes and is the only way to get the finest of fake leathers.

I don’t see the reason for having to redesign the engine cradle?.. the 2.3 and 2.0 casting are nearly identical. Main differences are pretty much internal with balance shafts and weaker cylinders.. the 2.3 guys are slapping 2.0 blocks left and right now.

Unless we’re talking about reasonings outside of the physical engine itself. Might be missing it because it’s 7:15am and I still have one eye open replying

 

[Maverickman74]

I don’t see the reason for having to redesign the engine cradle?.. the 2.3 and 2.0 casting are nearly identical. Main differences are pretty much internal with balance shafts and weaker cylinders.. the 2.3 guys are slapping 2.0 blocks left and right now.

Unless we’re talking about reasonings outside of the physical engine itself. Might be missing it because it’s 7:15am and I still have one eye open replying

The engine cradle has to drop to provide room for a taller suspension with more travel. Being a FWD/transaxle based vehicle the front suspension and axle shafts are attached at the same level of the chassis as the engine. Only other way is to go crazy wide to gain wheel travel and keep the axle shafts alive. Dropping the cradle to gain travel and tire size clearance is really the only good way while maintaining the tight nimbleness of the Maverick design. For real though if it came with 31-32s stock and added about 3" of lift over an FX4 with a full +3" additional wheeltravel and had a +300hp and stayed at or under 4000lbs it would be one of the most dominant all around offroaders in its price range even at $40k to $43k or so.

Sponsored