Maverick smaller than Explorer Sport Trac

[CACTI_HYBRID]

MY 2003 ST with about 139,000 miles on it is still my daily driver and we've had many great adventures together with no major repairs needed. I surely hope when, (if?), my Maverick XL comes it will be a very welcome update to what is almost 20-year-old technology however. It'll be a hard act to follow though. It does have many of the drawbacks you point out, but is still getting the job done and, (knock on wood) will keep reliably performing until the Maverick arrives.

Sponsored

 

[maggie06]

Interested in buying it? Might be a long while as I haven't ordered a Maverick yet and they tell me the line for the Maverick is a very
l----o----n----g
one.

Not as long as it is slooow.

 

[Darryl]

One word of caution on Maverick weights, most people are quoting the Ford marketing material that lists no differences for trims, so is likely the weight of a XL model without any options added.

Throw on a Lariat's laminated windshield, bigger wheels, tow package equipment, sunroof, spay in bed liner, tonneau cover, and the like and it can balloon pretty quickly.

Also note that the Maverick isn't wide or tall, but its decently long in order to have enough room for passengers without having a totally useless bed.

I saw a SPORT TRAC a few days ago and immediately compared them. If you didn't know the history, you'd think the Maverick was its successor. And you'd probably note the improvement that the new truck has a larger bed which makes it more useful as a truck. You'd probably note that the towing capacity decreased. But other than that, you'd probably be pleased overall because of the better handing and improved fuel economy.

 

[Deleted member 5597]

While I never owned a Sport Trac nor a Ranger, I've seen plenty on the road. That alone, stands for something about Ford trucks. However, I'd take my Maverick any day over the Sport Trac or Ranger. I love the way it handles, the roomy interior, gas mileage with the hybrid, and being lower to the ground-making it easy to get in/out of the cab and easier to access the bed.
The Maverick is my first Ford product I've owned since the mid '90's. I had plenty of Ford vehicles up until that point. I decided to give the Maverick a try and plan on keeping it as long as I can.

 

[Cherokee]

2003 Sport Track, If you trade it in they won’t give you shit for it. Oh the dealer will make it look good on paper.
I’ve had my 2004 escape now for eight years.
230,000 miles and the A/C will still freeze your nuts off.
They’d give me $500 trade in and it would do $600 at the auction.
It’s worth $1,000 to me because that’s what I paid for it.
Keep the ST for a back up and drive it weekly.

 

[mepot101]

Wow, old thread comes to life!
My profile pic is my 2003 ST, and 2024 XLT Hybrid Mav. Loved the ST, but the 14mpg was killing me.
My wife's comment when I took this pic was that the Mav looks like the ST. They look similar, but the 40+mpg is the winner in my book.

 

[Darryl]

Wow, old thread comes to life!
My profile pic is my 2003 ST, and 2024 XLT Hybrid Mav. Loved the ST, but the 14mpg was killing me.
My wife's comment when I took this pic was that the Mav looks like the ST. They look similar, but the 40+mpg is the winner in my book.

Yes. Fuel economy was not the Sport tracks strong point. It was considered ok in its day. But technology of the new set of engines surpassed it. I remember a bunch of the news that Ford used to justify the Ranger's discontinuation was that the base engine in the 2011 f150 got better fuel economy than the 2011 V6 ranger. And it had more power as well. Of course the same thing applied to both generations of the sport tracks. The 1st gen sport track should have been marketed as Crew cab Ranger in my opinion because that's pretty much what it was. It had the same strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Master Blaster]

I thought the Maverick would be almost the same size as my 2003 Ford Explorer Sport Trac but was surprised to see it's a bit smaller. Anyone have a pic of the Maverick parked next to the original Ranger?

I had an 87 XLT extended cab first-generation model for 744,000 miles. The original Ranger was a bit smaller in width and length and about 6" lower than the Maverick. It always got 28mpg highway with the 2.8L engine, and 30 with the 2.3L one, and about 10mpg city. The second generation Ranger was about the same width and length, but taller with a lot higher step-in height. I was always disappointed with the gutless 3.0L engine that only got 25mpg highway and half the torque of the previous 2.8L. My Maverick routinely gets 50mpg city and about 43 highway and is a lot quicker getting up to speed. I don't notice the smaller bed so much with the smarter bed design on the Maverick, but the full-sized rear seats are way better than the jumpseats in the Ranger extended cab.

 

[Darryl]

I had an 87 XLT extended cab first-generation model for 744,000 miles. The original Ranger was a bit smaller in width and length and about 6" lower than the Maverick. It always got 28mpg highway with the 2.8L engine, and 30 with the 2.3L one, and about 10mpg city. The second generation Ranger was about the same width and length, but taller with a lot higher step-in height. I was always disappointed with the gutless 3.0L engine that only got 25mpg highway and half the torque of the previous 2.8L. My Maverick routinely gets 50mpg city and about 43 highway and is a lot quicker getting up to speed. I don't notice the smaller bed so much with the smarter bed design on the Maverick, but the full-sized rear seats are way better than the jumpseats in the Ranger extended cab.

Based on my ear and seat of the pants method, I think the 3.0 has a higher stall speed torque converter. So the engine has to rev higher in order to really pull. This may account for the lack of pull. I've also noticed that the torque converter comes out of lockup fairly easily. This may be due to the fact that the 3.0 was designed as a family car (Taurus) engine rather than a truck engine. So it didn't have much low end torque. The best workhorse engine that was also as tough as nails was the 4.0 ohv engine. It was relatively thirsty. But it got the job done and was hard to kill. It was also based on the same design as the German (Capri) 2.8, which later morphed into the 2.9 before ultimately becoming the workhorse 4.0 ohv which finally evolved into the 4.0 (and less durable) 4.0 sohc engine.

 

[Escapologist]

Every model year of the Sport Trac I was looking to see "Did they fix the fuel economy and payload yet?... nope" then next year "Did they fix the fuel economy and payload yet?... nope" So it always came off as one of those "Nice idea in theory but not in practice" models to me.

Sponsored