Maverick Lobo / ST Performance Street Truck Prototype Spied

[Doty]

There seems to be facelift happening in these photos. The turn signal looks to be above the grill bar and right below the hood. There also looks to be a projector headlight next to it, rather than being near the bottom of the headlight housing.
I would think the natural progression of Ford trim levels would be King Ranch next. The bigger wheels, than Lariat, would fit for that. However, I think the rear ride height is lower, almost level with the front.
Goodyear's website description for that line of tires: " Territory HT provides a smooth and quiet ride with responsive handling."

Sponsored

 

[Decayed]

the Bronco 2.3 has a much more 'truckish' power delivery than the Ford RS 2.3 with more low-end torque. it (the Bronco) with the Ford performance calibration makes 330hp on 91 octane. so that, to me, is the high water mark for a Maverick ST. it probably is going to be in the range of 300-330hp.

What they could do is intriguing. However from ford's perspective, if they sell you most of the hardware to wring 350+ hp from it, then the rest is up to you and it frees them of the headaches of warranty support.

The versions wringing close to 400 hp are probably not going to be reliable since they are running at the bleeding edge of what the hardware can handle.

 

[Vtec87pr1]

I hope im wrong about my prediction. I think the whole diference its going to be just cosmetic. Sporty look and gadgets. I dont think theyr changing nothing. On engine and transmission wise. And its probably going to cost like 50k .

 

[Guv]

The 2.3 is a stud. 350 hp would be like water off a ducks back.

 

[SOStruck]

We just caught a new Ford Maverick variant, showing signs of the upcoming performance street truck trim widely expected to join the Maverick lineup.

Ford has trademarked the Maverick Lobo name, and it may point to this interesting new prototype, caught testing in Dearborn. The heavy front-end camo appears to hide a more aggressive front-fascia, with a lowered, muscled stance. The prototype is fitted with new, larger 19-inch wheels, mounted to 225/55R19 Goodyear Wrangler Territory HT tires, showing its new focus on street performance. 18-inch wheels and tires are currently the largest rollers available on the Maverick.

The prototype appears to have a single exhaust exiting from the left side of the rear bumper, and showcases the independent rear suspension setup of the AWD Maverick, which should enable proper traction if more power is on tap. It appears that there are visual signs of an intercooler in the front bumpers lower air-intake suggesting a more potent turbocharged powerplant.

Looks to be part of a tire test. That model and size isn't available anywhere yet.

 

[Bmr4mav]

If its a 2.3L I will be selling my hybrid.

 

[Montana]

lol that exhaust sums up exactly how I feel about exhaust modifications on these trucks.

What an eye sore.

I hope im wrong about my prediction. I think the whole diference its going to be just cosmetic. Sporty look and gadgets. I dont think theyr changing nothing. On engine and transmission wise. And its probably going to cost like 50k .

I think the same, but 45-47k OTD with zero mark ups.

That'll be a no for me dawg.

 

[Bmr4mav]

Looks to be part of a tire test. That model and size isn't available anywhere yet.

Pretty sure lots of things are being tested on the test vehicle.

 

[colinl]

If its a 2.3L I will be selling my hybrid.

how do you rationalize that, exactly?

already, today, the 2.0 outperforms the hybrid significantly bone stock. add a tune and it's a stark difference. the only thing the hybrid does better is get significantly better mpg.

so... you figure a 2.3 is enough fun to ignore the mpg loss when you sell the hybrid?

 

[Maverickman74]

how do you rationalize that, exactly?

already, today, the 2.0 outperforms the hybrid significantly bone stock. add a tune and it's a stark difference. the only thing the hybrid does better is get significantly better mpg.

so... you figure a 2.3 is enough fun to ignore the mpg loss when you sell the hybrid?

I had the same issue back in 72. I was gonna get either a big block Torino or a Pinto, I just couldnt decide. I just couldnt decide if I wanted the benefit of replacing rear tires every 2 months on the Torino at 9mpg or should I save money go with the Pinto and get 18mpg and get to replace the paint every 2 years.

Sorry Im kidding I was born in 84. But as the former owner of a 74 Maverick car and a current 23 Maverick truck, I do believe in reincarnation.

 

[Guv]

I had the same issue back in 72. I was gonna get either a big block Torino or a Pinto, I just couldnt decide. I just couldnt decide if I wanted the benefit of replacing rear tires every 2 months on the Torino at 9mpg or should I save money go with the Pinto and get 18mpg and get to replace the paint every 2 years.

Sorry Im kidding I was born in 84. But as the former owner of a 74 Maverick car and a current 23 Maverick truck, I do believe in reincarnation.

If I had a hybrid Maverick I would trade it for a 2.3 Ecoboost Maverick in a heartbeat!

 

[Bmr4mav]

how do you rationalize that, exactly?

already, today, the 2.0 outperforms the hybrid significantly bone stock. add a tune and it's a stark difference. the only thing the hybrid does better is get significantly better mpg.

so... you figure a 2.3 is enough fun to ignore the mpg loss when you sell the hybrid?

The 2.0 isn't enough of a performance gain over the hybrid to justify the MPG loss. I owned a 2.0 for 8 months. The 2.3L would also have higher performance gain potential than the 2.0 when it comes to mods. My goal would be a Mav that runs 11s.

 

[GadgetDad]

Sorry for dragging up a dead thread - yet I am really interested in the towing capacity this may bring. Is it fair to assume that a larger intercooler, engine, and turbo would give more torque and ultimately a larger tow capacity? Potentially 5k? Or, is the body weight and footprint a constraint against any tow limit increases? I tried to look and see if other “ST” model variants had a better tow rating yet it seemed they stayed the same. Edge ST as an example Vs Standard Edge.

Quicker get up and go vs my AWD 4k FX4 is welcome, but 4-5k tow is key. There are a lot of small campers with a slide out that are just out of our reach today that this may solve.

 

[colinl]

Sorry for dragging up a dead thread - yet I am really interested in the towing capacity this may bring. Is it fair to assume that a larger intercooler, engine, and turbo would give more torque and ultimately a larger tow capacity? Potentially 5k? Or, is the body weight and footprint a constraint against any tow limit increases? I tried to look and see if other “ST” model variants had a better tow rating yet it seemed they stayed the same. Edge ST as an example Vs Standard Edge.

Quicker get up and go vs my AWD 4k FX4 is welcome, but 4-5k tow is key. There are a lot of small campers with a slide out that are just out of our reach today that this may solve.

I have a 4k tow Maverick, and furthermore, I specifically sold my first Maverick just to get 4k tow.

But routinely towing 4k with a Maverick is just not going to be that fun, and you won't get any better gas mileage than towing it with a Ranger or even F150 instead. It'll be very common to get 12-15 mpg.

I would highly encourage you to get a Ranger with pro trailer backup assist instead. Here's a build with adaptive cruise, pro trailer, and 4x4. The one caution I have in this - besides the fact that 2024 Ranger production is almost zero while they sort out tooling, labor, and other issues, and build Broncos instead - is that the 2.7 isn't yet available. A 2.7 would be very welcome when towing, it has a significant low-end torque advantage over the 2.3.

Why is pro trailer backup assist worth having? That's right here:

 

[GadgetDad]

I have a 4k tow Maverick, and furthermore, I specifically sold my first Maverick just to get 4k tow.

But routinely towing 4k with a Maverick is just not going to be that fun, and you won't get any better gas mileage than towing it with a Ranger or even F150 instead. It'll be very common to get 12-15 mpg.

I would highly encourage you to get a Ranger with pro trailer backup assist instead. Here's a build with adaptive cruise, pro trailer, and 4x4. The one caution I have in this - besides the fact that 2024 Ranger production is almost zero while they sort out tooling, labor, and other issues, and build Broncos instead - is that the 2.7 isn't yet available. A 2.7 would be very welcome when towing, it has a significant low-end torque advantage over the 2.3.

Why is pro trailer backup assist worth having? That's right here:

A lot of pro’s / con’s go into this. The footprint of the Maverick is desirable for me living in the city and needing to get out of tight spots. On the half a dozen times that I have had to tow it has done amazing. Including 700 miles through the TN mountains hauling a uhual at capacity (roughly 3500 pounds.) I have still been able to get close to 20mpg while towing and nearly 30 on regular driving. I can’t imagine I would hold those stats “upgrading” to a ranger platform.

Long story short - if the maverick can gain tow capacity for those of us that want it, I can see that as a great win. YET if towing every day is a priority than I can concede your points that it may not be the right daily Vehicle.

Sponsored