In reply to SV reX :
The actual "I'm gonna buy this for autox" market is about three people. It's the image. They couldn't do track, obviously. They couldn't really revisit rally, they did that with the Mach E. Autox, why not?
Ill bet the autox-ish tweaks make it kinda fun to drive on the street.
looks similar to what Brian Goodwin did to their Maverick shop truck, also starting with a 2.0 turbo, auto, and all-wheel drive. GWR also sells upgrade parts and their forum has the build notes and pics. I am not affiliated with them in any way, I just admire their work.
Well done, congratulations to the Ford team that made this happen. Very cool project and story. This is exactly how the F150 Tremor came to be, an idea, some like minded enthusiasts, parts bin robbers, and a skunk works project was born. Pleases me you got to tell this story, for some reason the great Tremor story was kept quiet. I strongly believe that the customer for products like these appreciate hearing that people like themselves are behind them. M.Schneider
Keith Tanner said:In reply to SV reX :
The actual "I'm gonna buy this for autox" market is about three people. It's the image. They couldn't do track, obviously. They couldn't really revisit rally, they did that with the Mach E. Autox, why not?
Ill bet the autox-ish tweaks make it kinda fun to drive on the street.
I hear you, and I get it. However, then there is their stated design goals:
"Specifically, its engineering team designed it with autocross and drifting in mind."
4" more drop to be legal. That's a LOT. It can't be achieved without fairly significant suspension mods, which makes their stated design goals a fail. They said enthusiasts might want to swap brake pads or tires. They didn't mention height or track width. Did they understand the rules? It can't compete in stock class.
I like the truck, and I'm probably the right kind of buyer for them (I don't race enough to care). I'd like the performance bonuses on the street.
But they should definitely reconsider how they market it.
In reply to SV reX :
In all fairness to the marketing for this truck, GRM is the only place I've seen the insider comments about it being for Autox/Drift published and played up. Everybody else I've seen has just talked about it as a street truck, and even the Ford press release I saw only mentions autox/drift as inspiration. This might actually be a rare case of the engineers optimism outshining that of the marketeers.
In reply to SV reX :
2" drop and wheels with 25mm less offset and there you go :)
Only a magazine that used to be called "Auto-X" would really get too deep into that.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Right. So we agree. There won't be any Mavericks run in stock class.
z31maniac said:I don't need it, but I like it. If they had upped the HP it would really be interesting. Although I don't think we will be getting rid of the Mazda 3 anytime soon.
44-46K gets you a FP700 F150 single cab if you want to go nuts, not as nice inside though. I am just happy they are making this. Smaller trucks are a lot of fun.
In reply to SV reX :
Nope. Stock class is boring anyhow :) Bring on the mods!
I like that they are doing this, it's kinda hard to believe actually. I do wish they had made it lower.
wearymicrobe said:z31maniac said:I don't need it, but I like it. If they had upped the HP it would really be interesting. Although I don't think we will be getting rid of the Mazda 3 anytime soon.
44-46K gets you a FP700 F150 single cab if you want to go nuts, not as nice inside though. I am just happy they are making this. Smaller trucks are a lot of fun.
I've already got more than that in the BRZ.
And I see that Harrop just released their supercharger kit for the 2nd gens............
Curious.... reported: "with a track width 63.1 inches at its narrowest"
is that where you measure track? I thought/assumed it was middle of the tire...
In reply to jfryjfry :
According to another GRM thread, it's measured "at the midpoint of one side's tire to the midpoint of the other side's tire". I suspect the Lobo may have slightly different track widths front and rear and 63.1" is the narrower of the two.
It's a ute. Which is considered a truck in many parts of the world. It's okay, it won't take away from the truckness of the F150's body on frame.
For the moment, let's pretend it's allowed to autocross.
My question is, does it make sense to buy one of these, or start with a regular one and put on actual good parts: wheels of your choice, tires of your choice, springs and shocks of your choice, exhaust, intake, etc. Point being, every time I see a car implied to be "track-ready", they never seem to be, always coming up short on proper mods. For what this truck will sell for, it would be an interesting comparison. And regarding it not being legal - I wonder if the Ford guys just assumed that it would be and didn't actually look it up. Oh and I can't wait for the upcoming thread "I auto-x'd this truck, it broke, and Ford won't cover it under warranty." The term "inspired" get them off the hook for a lot of things.
No Time said:Is the height vs width issue something that would be skirted if Ford was able to work with SCCA to get it classed?
If I understand correctly, the height/width is used for vehicles that are not specifically listed in any of the classes.
Height/width is a catchall, and used for vehicles that don't have a published SSF of >1.30. I highly doubt the Maverick has an SSF in that range. NHTSA does publish the SSF numbers they test monthly, but you'd have to scour the list from the past few years to find a Maverick example.
Its going to take a lot off offset change and drop to make up for that much of a difference, and it would still be risky as you may end up with a truck that borderline and still likely to roll.
(https://www.regulations.gov/search?filter=%22NCAP%20Combined%20Crashworthiness%22&sortBy=postedDate&sortDirection=desc) if you feel like scraping the files yourself
kb58 said:And regarding it not being legal - I wonder if the Ford guys just assumed that it would be and didn't actually look it up.
I would have to think they would know better after the Fiesta.
z31maniac said:wearymicrobe said:z31maniac said:I don't need it, but I like it. If they had upped the HP it would really be interesting. Although I don't think we will be getting rid of the Mazda 3 anytime soon.
44-46K gets you a FP700 F150 single cab if you want to go nuts, not as nice inside though. I am just happy they are making this. Smaller trucks are a lot of fun.
I've already got more than that in the BRZ.
And I see that Harrop just released their supercharger kit for the 2nd gens............
In reply to prodarwin :
Thank you for clarifying. I'm always interested in learning something new. Interestingly, the track and height in in the beginning of the thread are narrower and higher (seems counter to what for was trying to do).
So I found the 2022 Maverick data here.
If I'm understanding the calculation, and the average track is the same as 2022, then Ford only needed to drop the average CG 25.14" to 23.76" for an SFF of 1.33 using the formula in the report.
Tom Suddard said:I don't get it, but I'm glad it exists.
Didn't you used to own an Element? 
I think it's cool because Ford is making a sporting version. I still don't think they have caught up with Maverick demand, so they could have just phoned this in and not really done much of a model refresh across the entire line.
As far as autocross, this board thinks SCCA style solo racing. However, a lot of truck and hot rod shows have an autocross at their events, which I don't believe have the same rules and the Lobo would be able to run in. Maybe that's what they're referring to?
-Rob
rob_lewis said:I think it's cool because Ford is making a sporting version. I still don't think they have caught up with Maverick demand, so they could have just phoned this in and not really done much of a model refresh across the entire line.
-Rob
The pragmatist in me says that they are simply trying to shift a larger percentage of their production from the bare-bones end of the product range to the added feature, higher-profit end. How much more do these add-ons cost Ford beyond the base stuff? Not that I'm criticizing. I think that it's a very smart strategy, and good for the consumer as well as Ford.
But I still would like to see the wide-track, box-flared version.
Appleseed said:Tom Suddard said:I don't get it, but I'm glad it exists.
Didn't you used to own an Element?
Touché
In reply to kb58 :
Admittedly, for somebody that really did want to autox it, I do think this would be the considerably better (and more fun) starting point. The mods you mention would mostly (or all) likely be required for both trucks, so at that point this would cost more, but the most interesting bits for helping it autox are unique to the Lobo. I suspect getting a regular AWD Maverick to behave similarly would require more time, effort, and/or money, as well as quite possibly resulting in a more poorly compromised vehicle for street use.
In reply to No Time :
Which still means that they probably didn't lower it enough to not require the same suspension mods as any other AWD Maverick to be 'legal' in stock form.
Also from the SCCA Solo rules: "...vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 116” may be excluded by the Event Chairman if they determines, at their discretion, that they cannot readily negotiate the course." I've been on some pretty tight courses before, where this might have been applicable.
rob_lewis said:As far as autocross, this board thinks SCCA style solo racing. However, a lot of truck and hot rod shows have an autocross at their events, which I don't believe have the same rules and the Lobo would be able to run in. Maybe that's what they're referring to?
I took part in my first autox in 1993 and even ran an autox organization for a few years. I've never driven in or attended an SCCA-sanctioned event :) Or NASA when I think about it.
You'll need to log in to post.
