mobile-menu-icon
Ford Authority
Sponsored

Ford Maverick ST Renderings Imagine Performance-Oriented Compact Pickup

Sponsored

When the 2022 Ford Maverick was revealed earlier this week, it raised a lot of eyebrows thanks to its impressive fuel economy figures, standard hybrid drivetrain, and bargain-basement price tag. But for now, at least, Ford isn’t offering much in the way of performance, with its range-topping 2.0L EcoBoost I-4 delivering a targeted 250 horsepower and 277 pound-feet of torque. Thus, that had us wondering – what if the automaker decided to build a more performance-oriented Ford Maverick ST?

A high-performance Ford Maverick ST makes sense for a number of reasons. For starters, the Maverick is built on the Ford C2 platform, which is a front-wheel-drive, unibody base, meaning that it straddles the line between a car and a truck. The base Maverick’s rear twist-beam suspension even shares its Force Vectoring Springs with the Ford Fiesta ST hot hatch, as Ford Authority recently reported.

Ford has already shown a willingness to build high-performance variants of some of its crossovers as well, including the Ford Edge ST and Ford Explorer ST. Thus, it would make perfect sense to expand those offerings with a Maverick ST, especially since Ford CEO Jim Farley recently expressed his desire to see the Maverick grow into a family of its own one day, just as the Ford Bronco and Ford Mustang already have.

Thus, we created these Ford Maverick ST renderings using the same formula applied to existing ST models. That means a suspension tuned for street performance, bigger wheels and stickier tires, blacked-out trim for a more sinister appearance, and of course, red ST badges. It’s similar to the Ford F-150 ST we rendered some time ago, in many regards.

The big question left to be answered, then, is what sort of engine might power our imaginary Maverick ST? The natural choice would be Ford’s 2.3L EcoBoost I-4, which is already used in another FoMoCo vehicle underpinned by the C2 platform – the Lincoln Corsair. In that guise, it produces 295 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque, a nice increase from the 2.0L EcoBoost-powered Maverick’s output. Standard all-wheel-drive would be the optimal choice to put that power to the pavement, too.

A performance-oriented Maverick ST certainly makes a lot of sense, and we imagine that it would prove quite popular among younger automotive enthusiasts that crave an affordable and fun vehicle that’s also practical. Now the only question is, will Ford build it?

We’ll have more cool renderings like this to share soon, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for more Ford Maverick news and ongoing Ford news coverage.

Sponsored

Brett's lost track of all the Fords he's owned over the years and how much he's spent modifying them, but his current money pits include an S550 Mustang and 13th gen F-150.

Subscribe to Ford Authority

For around-the-clock Ford news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest Ford updates.
It's totally free.

Sponsored

Comments

  1. Rillest

    If they stuff the 2.7 twin turbo in this, I’m confident an ST variant could sell.

    Reply
  2. Roy Chile’s

    Yes, Yes, and Yes. Am all in A Pocket Rocket Pickup would make a great daily driver. 2.3 AWD Auto and Standard some fun for everyone and start a new Truck Trend

    Reply
  3. Josh

    Somehow I believe that the Bronco sport’s off road chops on a Maverick along with a 2.3 making the power figures from the Mustang would be a hit. Couldn’t call it a Raptor, Tremor maybe? Yes, Maverick Tremor. And of course an ST model as well.

    Reply
  4. John

    This honestly makes a lot of sense. An ST model could channel the spirit of the Australian Utes and would definitely appeal to a lot of people, and a Tremor or possibly even Raptor is a no-brainer as well. Ford has already engineered the platform for serious off-roading with the Bronco Sport, and it shouldn’t be too hard to transfer some of that over to the Mav.

    Reply
  5. NCEcoBoost

    Looks absolutely terrible as a 4-door. If Ford had held proper customer clinics and done proper surveys (NOT via social media), they’d have realized that a 2-door version should have been in the mix from the get-go.

    Reply
    1. John

      Honestly, I disagree. The target audience isn’t really looking for a 2-door. Sure, there’ll be some fleet buyers who want that kind of vehicle, but most of them would jump for a Ranger anyways. I don’t think there would be enough interest in a 2-door to justify the development and production costs. You do realize that outside of the enthusiast community and a small portion of the commercial sector, virtually nobody wants a 2-door truck anymore.

      Reply
      1. Kristopher

        You may be right about insufficient demand for a 2-door but I can tell you in all honesty that I have no interest in the 4-door/short bed being offered. When it was announced months ago that there would not be a 2-door/longer bed model, I lost interest. I really hoped for a normally-aspirated 4 cyl w/manual transmission as a base model offering. Those days are over….still, I hope it sells well for them.

        Reply
    2. Stalkbroker94

      The vehicle is based on the C2 platform. It is unlike the F-150, Super Duty, And Ranger platforms in that it is non-modular. They would have to redesign the vehicle and create a new platform, thus driving up cost of development for a vehicle that really isn’t worth building. If you need a 2 door truck (as opposed to wanting a 2-door vehicle because it’s only got two doors) get an F-150. It will serve the role of truck much more effectively than a Maverick. If you don’t NEED a truck, stop asking for one to be made in such a useless configuration.

      Reply
  6. Dave Mathers

    The Maverick makes MUCH more sense than the Ranger IMO. It’s much better looking.

    Reply
  7. Vern

    Thought the Maverick was going to be my next purchase but no. Wanted all Wheel drive and a bit more power. Maybe if they have an ST version with all wheel drive would it.

    Reply
    1. Karl

      Some of you guys are so hilarious it is not even funny. Keep window shopping buddy. You and I know fully well you had no intention of purchasing the Maverick.

      Reply
      1. Stalkbroker94

        I’m with you Karl. Sounds like he wants the Ranger. It has the “more power” that he doesn’t even need and it has all wheel drive. Can be modified to make even more power.
        But he’s one of those “could be better” commenters that doesn’t BUY cars so much as complain about them.

        Reply
  8. fpvfan

    If you’re going to use the 2.3L Ecoboost engine, why not use the variant that was in the Focus RS with 350hp/350tq? To me, that would be the most logical setup dealing with a fwd based vehicle that is as small as the Maverick is. Personally, I’m not a fan of it, but if I were going to embark on such a project as to make a performance version of the Maverick, first, I wouldn’t call it an ST, I’d call it a Maverick Grabber, like the Maverick of old. I would drop in a performance upgraded DCT transaxle with alot of drivetrain stuff from the Focus RS and focus on making the driveline a bit more rear-biased with up to 70% power going to the rear wheels. To be honest, I would prefer to see this vehicle with the 2.7L Ecoboost V6 with about 330hp/400tq, Magneride, torque vectoring and all that kind of stuff. Give it aero and styling upgrades and 22×10″ wheels. That’s how I would design a Maverick Grabber pickup

    Reply
    1. Roy Chile’s

      I 1st suggested a RS model of the baby Sport Trac also because the parts are there, ST is a nice start for a sports model as well. It wouldn’t accommodate the 2.7 due to engine bay size and weight, 350hp 2.3 is a shoe in for the AWD with no problems plus there’s already aftermarket parts for the 2.3 I’d add fog lights to both ST and RS

      Reply
    2. Stalkbroker94

      You can throw around horsepower numbers and engine displacements all you want, but it doesn’t mean it would sell to the masses. As enthusiasts, we aren’t the primary vehicle buyers. We don’t ask for practical vehicles so much as throw out ideas that were probably proposed and rejected for a good reason.

      Reply
      1. Roy Chile’s

        Am not throwing anything around it’s a Suggestion for the engines that could be used on the Suggested rendering above. The Focus and Fiesta ST where good seller which used these engines that might sell better in a baby truck. More customers might buy the ST or RS model Trucks over a Hatchback which is smaller and has less room

        Reply
        1. Stalkbroker94

          No, more enthusiasts would go nuts over it, but statistically, they wouldn’t buy. This isn’t a performance oriented model. This is a very low-budget truck meant for the masses.

          Reply
  9. Randy

    I just wonder about why there aren’t any gas mileage specs on the fx4 platform. This is the platform that is I am interested in. A small truck is needed that gets a decent mpg with 4 wheel drive. My 2001 Dodge 3500 dually diesel gets 16 mpg on the highway while not towing anything. Why can they not figure out how to get good mileage on a small 4 wd?

    Reply
    1. Roy Chile’s

      They alway post the highest mpg as a selling point am sure the FX4 is 30-35

      Reply
  10. Mark L Bedel

    If I’m not mistaken, doesn’t “ST” means Sport Touring? Do SUV’s and pickups really fall into that category of vehicle? Sorry, the Focus, the Fiesta…yes…loosely throwing around this label does not infer similar attributes…

    Reply
    1. Roy Chile’s

      Ford used the Maverick name which use to be a car, but to answer your question a truck can fit in that category

      Reply
      1. Stalkbroker94

        The Ford Maverick was a 2 and 4 door sedan that ended production before the 80’s even rolled around and hadn’t been in production for decades at this point. The NAME was recycled, but the Maverick of old is dead. ford used the word Maverick for a new vehicle because they had the rights to the name. Just saying.

        Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel
Sponsored