Sherminator98 Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/us/en/articles/2026/maverick-hybrid-awd-upgrades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 That's great but the real question is why they weren't already doing that type of test, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted May 11 Author Share Posted May 11 4 minutes ago, akirby said: That's great but the real question is why they weren't already doing that type of test, Quote Originally, our traction control calibration for the Maverick Hybrid AWD focused primarily on-road. In typical low traction conditions, like icy or rain-slicked streets, the system was designed to minimize wheel spin to keep the vehicle stable. However, in rare cases where three wheels might be spinning on ice, mud, or crossing a ditch, the Maverick AWD traction control system wasn't sending enough power to the one wheel that still had grip to overcome the obstacle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 That doesn't answer my question. Seems to me a 3 roller test would be standard for any awd system on road or off road. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 10 minutes ago, akirby said: That doesn't answer my question. Seems to me a 3 roller test would be standard for any awd system on road or off road. My guess is internally they didn’t think it was necessary. The program leaders likely didn’t think those kinds of extremes would be likely to be seen in the real world and didn’t see the need to invest the time or money into developing it, until TFL publicly called it out and it forced them to. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted May 11 Author Share Posted May 11 4 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said: My guess is internally they didn’t think it was necessary. The program leaders likely didn’t think those kinds of extremes would be likely to be seen in the real world and didn’t see the need to invest the time or money into developing it, until TFL publicly called it out and it forced them to. Yep exactly-nothing is perfect and you never have enough time or money to do everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 I watched that YT video last week. I'm sure Ford didn't think the average Joe was likely to encounter a scenario like that. But Ford figured they could easily program that fix into their systems and did it. So I do give Ford a little credit for at least addressing it quickly. Not waiting until the next gen to alter the characteristics. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 38 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said: Yep exactly-nothing is perfect and you never have enough time or money to do everything. And if you can cover 95% of use cases, you do that first and worry about the 5% later. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotRunrGuy Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 I wonder if the 4WD lock on my Tremor would pass the 3-roller test. I would assume so. I don't need no stinkin' computer to think for me,,,,,,,, HRG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcartwright99 Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 TFL is a legit truck and truck testing channel. Their towing tests are legit as well as their off road tests. It helps that they are in Colorado. The slip test really shows which vehicles have the best AWD systems. Nothing worse than getting stuck in an AWD vehicle. Knowing the harder you push it to try to get out, the more likely you are going to fry the PTU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 AWD with open diffs is really just 2 wheel drive (one front and one rear). Ford's system compensates by braking the spinning wheel(s) to force traction to the other wheel and it works pretty well in most use cases. Having a locking rear differential really helps. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 7 hours ago, akirby said: AWD with open diffs is really just 2 wheel drive (one front and one rear). Ford's system compensates by braking the spinning wheel(s) to force traction to the other wheel and it works pretty well in most use cases. Having a locking rear differential really helps. Pretty much a s you described I know it’s more expensive but the Torsen LSD would be ideal with let’s say, a Maverick aimed at those who want to use it along more dirt roads and light off roading… Maybe the real change is less concern with protecting Ranger above this pricing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 2 hours ago, jpd80 said: Maybe the real change is less concern with protecting Ranger above this pricing? How much protecting of Ranger could there be if the rumored Bronco Truck replacement is allegedly imminent? ROW maybe but not North America. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 51 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said: How much protecting of Ranger could there be if the rumored Bronco Truck replacement is allegedly imminent? ROW maybe but not North America. I still think Ranger gets replaced by a new TTP truck and MAP gets a bronco pickup and a Lincoln hardtop. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 1 hour ago, akirby said: I still think Ranger gets replaced by a new TTP truck and MAP gets a bronco pickup and a Lincoln hardtop. so 2 new trucks in the same segment? I don't see the point of that over the already-globalized Ranger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 18 minutes ago, rmc523 said: so 2 new trucks in the same segment? I don't see the point of that over the already-globalized Ranger. A Bronco pickup would be significantly higher ATP and the new type of truck at TTP should be way cheaper to build and more flexible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted May 12 Author Share Posted May 12 52 minutes ago, akirby said: A Bronco pickup would be significantly higher ATP and the new type of truck at TTP should be way cheaper to build and more flexible. I still think that is a lot of assumptions to be made-I don't see the point of basically splitting up the midsized market between a Bronco Pickup that would likely sell worse then the Ranger does AND spend money on what I'd assume to be a new Platform to come out with a unibody Pickup that would butt heads with Bronco Pickup at the low end price wise and compete with the CE1 EV pickup in price, when you already have the Ranger offsetting the cost of the Bronco and this apparent Lincoln variant. I don't see the market wanting or even able to support that division of the market. I'll use this as an example: Fiesta- Focus-Maverick Fusion-CE1 EV/Ranger Taurus-F-150 Crown Vic-Super Duty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: I still think that is a lot of assumptions to be made-I don't see the point of basically splitting up the midsized market between a Bronco Pickup that would likely sell worse then the Ranger does AND spend money on what I'd assume to be a new Platform to come out with a unibody Pickup that would butt heads with Bronco Pickup at the low end price wise and compete with the CE1 EV pickup in price, when you already have the Ranger offsetting the cost of the Bronco and this apparent Lincoln variant. I don't see the market wanting or even able to support that division of the market. I'll use this as an example: Fiesta- Focus-Maverick Fusion-CE1 EV/Ranger Taurus-F-150 Crown Vic-Super Duty Agreed. Like I've said a few times - they'll start slicing their pie too thin very soon instead of putting resources into other models in segments they've abandoned. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: I still think that is a lot of assumptions to be made-I don't see the point of basically splitting up the midsized market between a Bronco Pickup that would likely sell worse then the Ranger does AND spend money on what I'd assume to be a new Platform to come out with a unibody Pickup that would butt heads with Bronco Pickup at the low end price wise and compete with the CE1 EV pickup in price, when you already have the Ranger offsetting the cost of the Bronco and this apparent Lincoln variant. I don't see the market wanting or even able to support that division of the market. Bronco pickup would support significantly higher ATPs and the new pickup should be significantly cheaper to build. May or may not be unibody but I would expect it to replace T6 Ranger globally if it's successful. It's about innovation and cost control, neither of which apply to T6 Ranger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zestyg Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 Honestly why the hell are they building TTP for T-platform and not C2? You could just move the tooling from Louisville over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted May 12 Author Share Posted May 12 1 minute ago, akirby said: Bronco pickup would support significantly higher ATPs and the new pickup should be significantly cheaper to build. May or may not be unibody but I would expect it to replace T6 Ranger globally if it's successful. It's about innovation and cost control, neither of which apply to T6 Ranger. The T6 just had a major upgrade when the Bronco and the new Ranger hit the market, so they still need to pay the investment cost on that. Last time I've seen anything about either one of those programs, they aren't hitting EOL till 2030 or later. Looking at the Ranger vs the Gladiator-the Ranger sold 70K units in 2020 and the Gladiator sold about 57K units. The Gladiator MSRP is higher then the Wrangler, but often is heavily discounted. The Bronco has a higher starting MSRP then the Ranger does across the board. I'm not sure jacking the Ranger price up to sell it as a Bronco pickup is going to do anything to help with sales numbers and profitability would be a wash. The Tacoma pricing is similar to the Ranger and its number one selling in the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted May 12 Author Share Posted May 12 8 minutes ago, Zestyg said: Honestly why the hell are they building TTP for T-platform and not C2? You could just move the tooling from Louisville over. Timing and well I think they just slapped a name on the plant since the product still hasn't been nailed down yet for it. It won't open till 2029 also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted May 12 Author Share Posted May 12 Did some digging into things-the next gen Maverick is apparently given the P778 (currently the P758) platform code for its next gen Reports also say its coming in 2027, which I have my doubts about Could it be possible that the P778 goes into production at TTP in late 2028 as the 2029 Maverick? The Maverick got a new front end refresh so that could carry it for the next couple of years. Plus you have rumors of the next gen Bronco Sport hitting the market in 2028 also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 12 Share Posted May 12 I think you guys will be very surprised at what comes out of TTP based on what's been said and how Ford is currently thinking about new vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: The T6 just had a major upgrade when the Bronco and the new Ranger hit the market, so they still need to pay the investment cost on that. Worldwide I’m sure Ranger has paid for itself by now. In North America, Bronco pays the bills, not Ranger otherwise Ranger would be outselling Bronco 3:1 or whatever the current ratio is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.