RWD thoughts

[JsnMrd]

Could Ford have at least offered a rear wheel drive and kept the price range somewhat the same? Would that be a limiting factor? I mean they already offer awd so why not a rwd platform. Because correct me if I'm wrong but the awd is essentially front wheel natively but just tuned to give control to rear wheels as well.

This leads to my second thought. How truly capable is the awd on a unibody truck? I'm not bashing but just genuinely curious as far as what a small truck like the Maverick can do even with the FX4 package. I ordered the base XL because my usage and expectations for this truck is very different. I believe this truck has three main things that justifies its existence. The price, the mpg, and the usable bed while being a smaller frame.

I feel like beyond those three features would be defeating the purpose. It's a cheap truck with cheap interior. Even at the highest trim won't be a huge depature from the base model as it shares so many characteristics with each other. It would be like a top trim , fully loaded Corolla. I'm trying to convince myself to go for the higher trim but there's just nothing that stands out that makes them more distinct.

This potentially can be my forever truck so I wanna make sure I won't regret my options. I'm not against the AWD and/or the FX4 and might change my mind if there are compelling reasons that justify getting them on this entry level truck. At what price do you draw the line where it is still considered a bargain with the Maverick or it makes more sense to go for a ranger/tacoma which are more capable in towing and off roading.

Sponsored

 

[Wire4money]

Front wheel drive is much more compact power train than rear. AWD in my opinion is not for hardcore off roading.

 

[jwiedle24]

The difference is just the technology luxuries. If you don’t need them the basic models are of great value. If you’re coming from a feature filled vehicle like I am, then I have to pay the premium of the Lariat to maintain them.

The price, the mpg, and the usable bed while being a smaller frame.

You mention anything beyond these three features defeats the purpose. Then follow that statement up by a need for more towing capability… so you seem to be defeating your own purpose?

At what price do you draw the line where it is still considered a bargain with the Maverick or it makes more sense to go for a ranger/tacoma which are more capable in towing and off roading.

To me there is no indecisiveness between a Maverick and a Ranger. The line is drawn very clearly for me. A Ranger does not get 37mpg combined which is what attracts me with the utility of a bed. If you’re someone that plans to tow, then I guess the EcoBoost engine would come into play. But then if you don’t care about mpg’s as much, then I guess a Ranger may be better unless you need a smaller vehicle for parking purposes.

Everyone has their reasons why the Maverick appeals to them…which is why Ford finally has my attention.

 

[jimmy fitzwell]

Hey JsnMrd, I share your thoughts, mostly. Why do you want RWD? It seems like it would be inefficient with the transverse engine. Even at full payload I think there would be minimal advantage.

But yeah, I don't really view this little rig as much of an off-roader in any configuration. Not unless you go the route of the Subaru Army guys. Then you have destroyed a fine highway rig.
I'll be on gravel roads a lot and the AWD is better for me, especially when I swerve to miss the chipmunk. And up here with snow six months a year the AWD will be paramount.

I don't like fancy stuff. I'm adding 4k tow and full size spare. I don't plan to tow much but what you get for $745 just can't be passed up. The hybrid doesn't offer me much since there is no such thing as city driving up here. The turbo will be my first. At $25.6k I'm quite happy.

Keep it simple!

 

[JsnMrd]

The difference is just the technology luxuries. If you don’t need them the basic models are of great value. If you’re coming from a feature filled vehicle like I am, then I have to pay the premium of the Lariat to maintain them.



You mention anything beyond these three features defeats the purpose. Then follow that statement up by a need for more towing capability… so you seem to be defeating your own purpose?



To me there is no indecisiveness between a Maverick and a Ranger. The line is drawn very clearly for me. A Ranger does not get 37mpg combined which is what attracts me with the utility of a bed. If you’re someone that plans to tow, then I guess the EcoBoost engine would come into play. But then if you don’t care about mpg’s as much, then I guess a Ranger may be better unless you need a smaller vehicle for parking purposes.

Everyone has their reasons why the Maverick appeals to them…which is why Ford finally has my attention.

Again I'm not try to stir the pot here. I was very clear with what would be my purpose for the truck. You essentially just said what I said regarding the need for a more capable truck like the Ranger. I'm simply trying to get some insight why it would still make sense to get a the offroad packing on the Maverick that can potentially be limiting. Afterall, Ford main selling point for this is being a day to day utility truck!

I love the truck and I can't wait for it to arrive. Just wanna get educated on how are other people planning on using theirs. That's all!

 

[JsnMrd]

Hey JsnMrd, I share your thoughts, mostly. Why do you want RWD? It seems like it would be inefficient with the transverse engine. Even at full payload I think there would be minimal advantage.

But yeah, I don't really view this little rig as much of an off-roader in any configuration. Not unless you go the route of the Subaru Army guys. Then you have destroyed a fine highway rig.
I'll be on gravel roads a lot and the AWD is better for me, especially when I swerve to miss the chipmunk. And up here with snow six months a year the AWD will be paramount.

I don't like fancy stuff. I'm adding 4k tow and full size spare. I don't plan to tow much but what you get for $745 just can't be passed up. The hybrid doesn't offer me much since there is no such thing as city driving up here. The turbo will be my first. At $25.6k I'm quite happy.

Keep it simple!

Not wanting an RWD at all! Just really clueless why it wasn't offered in the first place. Just wanna have random discussion while we wait. I'm glad I'm learning different potential applications for the Maverick and this is exactly the point of this thread. Not to bash, not to hate, and not to judge.

 

[oljackfrost]

Could Ford have at least offered a rear wheel drive and kept the price range somewhat the same? Would that be a limiting factor? I mean they already offer awd so why not a rwd platform. Because correct me if I'm wrong but the awd is essentially front wheel natively but just tuned to give control to rear wheels as well.

This leads to my second thought. How truly capable is the awd on a unibody truck? I'm not bashing but just genuinely curious as far as what a small truck like the Maverick can do even with the FX4 package. I ordered the base XL because my usage and expectations for this truck is very different. I believe this truck has three main things that justifies its existence. The price, the mpg, and the usable bed while being a smaller frame.

I feel like beyond those three features would be defeating the purpose. It's a cheap truck with cheap interior. Even at the highest trim won't be a huge depature from the base model as it shares so many characteristics with each other. It would be like a top trim , fully loaded Corolla. I'm trying to convince myself to go for the higher trim but there's just nothing that stands out that makes them more distinct.

This potentially can be my forever truck so I wanna make sure I won't regret my options. I'm not against the AWD and/or the FX4 and might change my mind if there are compelling reasons that justify getting them on this entry level truck. At what price do you draw the line where it is still considered a bargain with the Maverick or it makes more sense to go for a ranger/tacoma which are more capable in towing and off roading.

If you truly want RWD then you should be looking at Ranger.

 

[DavidS]

The problem with RWD is the battery. They REALLY want to offer this as a hybrid (and possibly a BEV in the future). A rear drive shaft would have to go right down the middle where the battery goes. That's why AWD is only available in the 2.0 EcoBoost. I'm sure they're trying to figure out a way around of that for later iterations, but for now FWD has to be the standard.

 

[ThisWas]

The problem with RWD is the battery. They REALLY want to offer this as a hybrid (and possibly a BEV in the future). A rear drive shaft would have to go right down the middle where the battery goes. That's why AWD is only available in the 2.0 EcoBoost. I'm sure they're trying to figure out a way around of that for later iterations, but for now FWD has to be the standard.

I just looked underneath my AWD RAV4 Hybrid and the front-to-rear driveshaft is completely missing! Must have been built on a Monday or a Friday.

 

[Darnon]

The hybrid's battery is already offset to the side of the exhaust which runs near the centerline.

 

[Ron Neal]

If you buy the Maverick as a forever truck then my next comment is moot. Resale values go up as the trim levels go up so you will recoup some of that money you spent upfront for a trim upgrade when you sell or trade. If you look at all the orders this forum the XL is a distant third so I think those extras are important to most buyers.
As to Maverick and RWD I don't have your answer but doubt its any better than FWD which as noted earlier is more compact, weights less and fewer moving parts. If you off-road, deal with snow and ice or live in the mountains then the AWD is probably a good option.
Just my 2 cents

 

[JsnMrd]

The Maverick will be my forever, everyday, utility, commuter, truck.

The Cybertruck will be my heavy hitter truck!

Hopefully no more cool cars comes out. Lol!

 

[notfast]

It seems like it would be inefficient with the transverse engine.

It would. If it was RWD, it would need a longitudinal engine mounting.

They REALLY want to offer this as a hybrid (and possibly a BEV in the future). A rear drive shaft would have to go right down the middle where the battery goes. That's why AWD is only available in the 2.0 EcoBoost.

The hybrid battery is offset to one side. Also, the Escape Hybrid offers AWD. My guess is that the engineers determined that transplanting the Escape Hybrid's AWD system would require so many compromises or re-engineering for the Maverick that they couldn't meet the launch deadline, and shelved it for a later release.

I just looked underneath my AWD RAV4 Hybrid and the front-to-rear driveshaft is completely missing! Must have been built on a Monday or a Friday.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but for others not as aware, the RAV4 Hybrid uses AWD-e, which uses a separate electric traction motor to power the rear wheels only. There is no driveshaft connecting the front and rear axles.

Could Ford have at least offered a rear wheel drive and kept the price range somewhat the same?

Probably not, but it's hard to determine with limited information. But generally, unibody FWD vehicles are faster and less expensive to manufacture than RWD vehicles.

correct me if I'm wrong but the awd is essentially front wheel natively but just tuned to give control to rear wheels as well.

It depends. Some AWD systems are very limited, like the Prius AWD-e. Other AWD systems with torque vectoring can send power to one rear wheel.

I'm guessing that the Maverick has a system that lands solidly in the middle. It probably sends 30-50% of the power to the rear depending on input from several data points, but I doubt it'll offer torque vectoring like the Bronco Sport.

How truly capable is the awd on a unibody truck? I'm not bashing but just genuinely curious as far as what a small truck like the Maverick can do even with the FX4 package.

I'm guessing it'd be like that of a compact or midsize unibody SUV. Sufficient for getting you to the ski park, some fun at the OHV park, or exploring out near campgrounds or open dispersed camping in the southwest.

The biggest issue I've encountered is ground clearance. This includes approach/breakover/departure angles as well as running ground clearance. Some trails marked green circle (easiest) will have cantaloupe-sized rocks randomly, and with low clearance, it's easy to damage or scrape something.

Though one time I was off roading with a friend of mine who has a late-model Honda Ridgeline. He had a lot of wheel hopping/wheel spinning going up one trail. Eventually, he got a warning message on the Driver Information Center that said something like "AWD overtemperature. FWD only." We ended up turning around so he could park his Ridgeline and we continued in my Nissan Frontier 4x4.

In my opinion, if you're needs/wants are such that you are going to modify a vehicle for off-road performance beyond tires and armor, your money may be better spent on a more capable vehicle from the factory.

 

[oljackfrost]

I just looked underneath my AWD RAV4 Hybrid and the front-to-rear driveshaft is completely missing! Must have been built on a Monday or a Friday.

I think Rav4 has a separate electric motor driving the rear wheels when in AWD

 

[MarcusBrody]

As people have mentioned, FWD is both easier/cheaper to do and really works better in a wider variety of situations (as the weight of the engine is over the driven wheels). I'm not sure what the benefit of having a RWD version would be outside of allowing higher towing limits in 2wd configurations (as now more of the weight is over the rear wheels).

Regarding the off road package: The Maverick is clearly never going to be a Sasquatch Bronco, but unibody vehicles can be plenty tough. The new Land Rovers are supposed to be awesome off road, the unibody Discovery with the diesel supposedly being a particular beast and magazines at least seem to say the new Defender is at least as good. Unibody can be stronger than body on frame, esp. at the same weight, though it does have some off roading downsides.

AWD is getting WAY better with computer controlled modes that mimic locking differentials tailored to different situations. Again, their are some downsides to this approach for serious off roading but it's working better and better and is now above what most people will ever need in capability when implemented well. Take a look at some of the Bronco Sport (the Mavericks closest cousin) doing some pretty technical trails.

To me, though, the biggest attraction of the FX4 package on the Maverick is the skid plates. I spend a lot of time driving in pretty low clearance vehicles on dirt roads in the desert/mountains. Skid plates would give me a lot more confidence in the case of a small misjudgment, missing a protruding rock, or just something getting kicked up.

There aren't too many places with roads you can't go with 8.5 in of clearance, well programmed AWD, AT tires,and skid plates and the FX4 package adds two of those. It's not a super expensive package and makes the Maverick pretty much turn key ideal as a Forest Service/BLM road exploration vehicle, if not an off road rock crawler.

Sponsored