2022 Maverick Trailer Towing & GVWR / GCWR Guide

[Probity]

I don’t know how you can get a real concrete answer, too many things we don’t know. You already know the impacts – more frontal area = more crappy mpg, and more grunt needed for the tow vehicle. Why does Ford specify a max. of 40 ft2 (why not 38.2 or 55.63 ft2) frontal area for the Maverick + trailer? Don’t know.

If we knew the Maverick real drag coefficient (Cd), we could figure out how much more aerodynamic HP is required at a certain speed as you increase frontal area:
*Cd = (drag force) / (0.5 x air density x velocity squared x frontal area)
*Aerodynamic drag force (D) = Frontal Area (S) x drag coefficient (Cd) x Air density (p) x speed squared (V2)
*Therefore power (P) to overcome that force = D x V = 0.5 x S x Cd x p x V3

So if we knew Cd we could figure out P for whatever velocity (speed) you want to assume. But we don’t know Cd, and even if we did, what speed are you going to assume, and what does that resulting increase in HP needed to overcome aero drag really mean regards your engine power, engine cooling, etc?

MPG obviously an impact, but not a limiting factor. I doubt Ford cares if you got only 5 mpg on your tow vehicle as long as the vehicle was actually capable of towing whatever load you applied to it without having the instrument display light up like a Christmas tree with error codes and going into “limp mode”.

My suspicion is that engine cooling will get you. Ford has tested the Maverick (both Hybrid and EB) in line with SAE J2807 towing standard (with its infamous Davis Dam test), so I’m pretty confident that 40 ft2 combined frontal area is a good number as far as that goes. But if you want to know if you could “really” tow a 60 ft2 (tow vehicle + trailer) frontal area, can’t help you.

FWIW, from Caterpillar some numbers on aero HP and fuel consumption at different speeds for a “typical” car and big rigs:
LEGT6380.qxd (electracold.com)

Edit" "My suspicion is that engine and transmission cooling will get you."

Sponsored

 

[vap0rtranz]

I'm no trailering expert, but I think that trailer might be pushing the limits of a tow-equipped Mav, once you add passengers, cargo, fuel, water, etc. Even more so if you plan on mountain or desert trips.

Yup. I wouldn't tow a trailer with that much frontal with the Hybrid.

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

I don’t know how you can get a real concrete answer, too many things we don’t know. You already know the impacts – more frontal area = more crappy mpg, and more grunt needed for the tow vehicle. Why does Ford specify a max. of 40 ft2 (why not 38.2 or 55.63 ft2) frontal area for the Maverick + trailer? Don’t know.

If we knew the Maverick real drag coefficient (Cd), we could figure out how much more aerodynamic HP is required at a certain speed as you increase frontal area:
*Cd = (drag force) / (0.5 x air density x velocity squared x frontal area)
*Aerodynamic drag force (D) = Frontal Area (S) x drag coefficient (Cd) x Air density (p) x speed squared (V2)
*Therefore power (P) to overcome that force = D x V = 0.5 x S x Cd x p x V3

So if we knew Cd we could figure out P for whatever velocity (speed) you want to assume. But we don’t know Cd, and even if we did, what speed are you going to assume, and what does that resulting increase in HP needed to overcome aero drag really mean regards your engine power, engine cooling, etc?

MPG obviously an impact, but not a limiting factor. I doubt Ford cares if you got only 5 mpg on your tow vehicle as long as the vehicle was actually capable of towing whatever load you applied to it without having the instrument display light up like a Christmas tree with error codes and going into “limp mode”.

My suspicion is that engine cooling will get you. Ford has tested the Maverick (both Hybrid and EB) in line with SAE J2807 towing standard (with its infamous Davis Dam test), so I’m pretty confident that 40 ft2 combined frontal area is a good number as far as that goes. But if you want to know if you could “really” tow a 60 ft2 (tow vehicle + trailer) frontal area, can’t help you.

FWIW, from Caterpillar some numbers on aero HP and fuel consumption at different speeds for a “typical” car and big rigs:
LEGT6380.qxd (electracold.com)

Turns out we have all been overthinking what Ford means by frontal area.

they literally mean: Frontal Area is the total area in square feet that a moving vehicle and trailer exposes to air resistance. Source: https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...ral/pdf/guides/20Towing_Ford_Ranger_Oct15.pdf

 

[GregS]

Ok, some of you are towing geniuses, so please help a newbie out a bit. You've discussed the hybrid towing and the 2.0 4K towing package towing capabilities . . . but where will a 2.0 FX4 towing Maverick land in the towing range?

 

[hsinking1932]

Turns out we have all been overthinking what Ford means by frontal area.

they literally mean: Frontal Area is the total area in square feet that a moving vehicle and trailer exposes to air resistance. Source: https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...ral/pdf/guides/20Towing_Ford_Ranger_Oct15.pdf

I'm confused. So shouldn't the part covered by the bed be counted?

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

I'm confused. So shouldn't the part covered by the bed be counted?

It’s literally (per Ford) the total frontal area exposed to wind regardless of angle, flow characteristic, or anything else. So if you go stand in front of a Maverick, and took a picture of the truck and trailer together. Measure across the front, measure across the front, multiply the 2 and get less than 40, then the frontal area is less than 40.

So say it is 5 ft tall, and 7 ft wide that’s 35 sqft

 

[hsinking1932]

It’s literally (per Ford) the total frontal area exposed to wind regardless of angle, flow characteristic, or anything else. So if you go stand in front of a Maverick, and took a picture of the truck and trailer together. Measure across the front, measure across the front, multiply the 2 and get less than 40, then the frontal area is less than 40.

So say it is 5 ft tall, and 7 ft wide that’s 35 sqft

Thank you for explanation.

Okay, whoo wants a brand new aerodynamics textbook?

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

Thank you for explanation.

Okay, whoo wants a brand new aerodynamics textbook?

But CFD is fun.

Ok we can all agree I have a very different definition of fun than most people.

Side note: to everyone that donates immunoglobulin at your local blood bank, thank you. Wed is my weekly IGG subQ infusion. Your donation literally keeps some of us alive.

 

[MikeLawry]

That just seems crazy to me, most small teardrops are around 8x8 so even those exceed the 40sq ft restriction

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

That just seems crazy to me, most small teardrops are around 8x8 so even those exceed the 40sq ft restriction

Just quoting Ford.

 

[DryHeat]

There are some small teardrops that meet the spec. Looking at NuCamp:

-- The TAG would come in just under the limit at about 37 sq ft (if you take out the 8 inches of underbody clearance).
-- But The TAG XL would come in at just over the limit at 43 sq ft.

All of their other trailers are too big (unless I misread the specs - it happens)
Probably looking at a very limited selection...

 

[Probity]

Ok, some of you are towing geniuses, so please help a newbie out a bit. You've discussed the hybrid towing and the 2.0 4K towing package towing capabilities . . . but where will a 2.0 FX4 towing Maverick land in the towing range?

It's the same as the 2.0 EB AWD with 4K tow package - 4000 lbs. The FX4 option is only available with AWD.

 

[Probity]

It’s literally (per Ford) the total frontal area exposed to wind regardless of angle, flow characteristic, or anything else. So if you go stand in front of a Maverick, and took a picture of the truck and trailer together. Measure across the front, measure across the front, multiply the 2 and get less than 40, then the frontal area is less than 40.

So say it is 5 ft tall, and 7 ft wide that’s 35 sqft

^This. I know nothing about small or large travel trailer, but surely there must be options out there that fit in a 5 ft wide x 8 ft tall or 6 ft x 7 ft or whatever.

If the frontal area ends up being 42 ft2 or 45 ft2 or 50 ft2 or ? the Maverick won't stop dead in its tracks or blow up. It's a guideline from Ford, they say if you exceed 40 ft2 "it may significantly reduce the performance of your tow vehicle." May have to go up that slight grade at 60 mph instead of 65 mph. May have an overheating problem under certain conditions. Do your normal sums on "what can I tow" (simple quick & dirty calculator is here - TowCalculator.com ), that's what you can control. Trying to figure out exactly what frontal area you can get away with without overheating/throwing engine codes/going into limp mode is beyond our ability.

Rough pic (remembering there is still some measure of clearance between the ground and Maverick/trailer that does not get counted in actual frontal area exposed to wind drag):

 

[22Mav]

It's the same as the 2.0 EB AWD with 4K tow package - 4000 lbs. The FX4 option is only available with AWD.

No it is not. FX4 AWD is limited to 2,000 lbs. The only way to get 4,000 lbs towing capacity is to get the 4k towing. You would need both FX4 and 4K to safely tow 4,000 lbs with an FX4. FX4 equipped only, without 4k is not rated for 4,000 lbs. My suspicion is because the FX4 alone does not include the auxiliary transmission cooler or shorter final gearing.

This number right here is where a non-4k, FX4 falls.

 

[Probity]

No it is not. FX4 AWD is limited to 2,000 lbs. The only way to get 4,000 lbs towing capacity is to get the 4k towing. You would need both FX4 and 4K to safely tow 4,000 lbs with an FX4. FX4 equipped only, without 4k is not rated for 4,000 lbs. My suspicion is because it FX4 alone does not include the auxiliary transmission cooler.

This number right here is where a non-4k, FX4 falls.

I thought the poster had 4K tow with his AWD along with FX4...

Sponsored