Bronco Sport Overlay Comparison to the Ford Maverick Pickup

North7

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
North7
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
58
Location
North Texas
Vehicle(s)
Bronco
From our friends at fordauthority.com:

2021-Ford-Bronco-Sport-overlayed-with-2023-Ford-Maverick-prototype-001-1024x682.jpg

2021-Ford-Bronco-Sport-overlayed-with-2023-Ford-Maverick-prototype-002-1152x768.jpg

2021-Ford-Bronco-Sport-overlayed-with-2023-Ford-Maverick-prototype-003-front-ends-1024x638.jpg

2021-Ford-Bronco-Sport-overlayed-with-2023-Ford-Maverick-prototype-004-rear-ends-1024x667.jpg


Ford Maverick Pickup Will Be Very Similar To Bronco Sport B-Pillar Forward: Exclusive
by Chris Teague - August 28, 2020

In late July, our spies caught the first completed prototype of the upcoming Ford Maverick compact pickup undergoing testing. The tester was adorned in a full camouflage package, which is to be expected when it comes to development prototypes. But Ford also disguised it with a clever bed cap to trick us into thinking it’s an SUV, rather than a pickup.

From the very beginning, Ford Authority has been reporting that the Maverick will ride on the Ford C2 platform shared very closely with the Bronco Sport. However, a few outlets have since reported that the Maverick will be nothing more than a Ford Transit Connect with a bed. But that’s simply not the case.

To prove that notion, we took the side profile angle of the aforementioned Ford Maverick spy shots and overlaid a to-scale image of a Ford Bronco Sport. The mashup shows the ways in which the two vehicles will be similar, and also how they’ll be different.
Sponsored Links

From the B-pillar forward, both the Mave and Bronco Sport will be nearly identical, including the general shape and configuration of the hood and the rest of the front end, the A-pillar execution and shape, plus the front doors.

In fact, the only discernible difference on the front end is the shape of the lower bumper cover: whereas the Bronco Sport features a steeply-raked front end to enable more extreme approach and departure angles for off-road duty, the Maverick will have a more traditional lower front bumper cover execution that’s not only more squared off, but is also lower. The Maverick will also feature a lower air dam. The less aggressive front end treatment is par course for a pickup like the Maverick, rather than an off-road-oriented machine like the Bronco sport.

Additionally, the Ford Maverick and Bronco Sport will have different wheelbases. Based on estimates derived from analysis in CAD, the difference will be around eight inches in favor of the Mave, likely resulting in larger rear doors for the pickup’s four-door cab. And since the Maverick is, after all, a pickup, it will have a much longer rear overhang than the Bronco Sport.
Sponsored Links

To sum all that up: the Maverick will have nothing in common with the Transit Connect, a compact range of vans that is built on a modified version of the Ford C1 platform – an architecture that’s in the process of being replaced by the C2 platform. What’s more, the Ford Maverick will be very similar, if not identical, to the new Bronco Sport from the B-pillar forward. But from the B-pillar back, the two vehicles will be quite different, with the Mave getting a longer wheelbase and a longer rear overhang to accommodate a larger cab and a bed. We also expect surface styling/detailing to differ on both models.

The compact Maverick will slot below the midsize, body-on-frame Ranger in Ford’s growing pickup lineup. Compared to the Ranger, the unibody Mave with have a smaller footprint, less off-road prowess and less capability, while also being more affordable.

Under the hood, the Maverick is expected to offer the 1.5L EcoBoost Dragon three-cylinder engine as well as the optional 2.0L EcoBoost inline-four. The very base Maverick models could also offer one of the two naturally-aspirated four-cylinder engines, though this isn’t something we can confirm at this time. All Maverick models should feature Ford’s new 8-speed automatic transmission. Front-wheel-drive will be standard, while all-wheel-drive will be optional.

Maverick production will take place at the Ford Hermosillo plant in Mexico, which also happens to be the birthplace of the new Bronco Sport. Expect a launch in mid-2021 as a 2022 model.

https://fordauthority.com/2020/08/ford-maverick-pickup-will-be-very-similar-to-bronco-sport-b-pillar-forward-exclusive/
 
First Name
Warren
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
17
Reaction score
8
Location
Tucson, AZ
Vehicle(s)
Nissan Xterra
Ford (and others) are betting big on very small SUV's and trucks with mostly under-powered set-ups. The full-sized Bronco is an exception. I'm going to pass judgement on the Bronco Sport until there is an actual test drive by a third party who examines hill passing speed, 0 to 60 mph, etc. The trend seems to be hybrids where HP and torque is shared by electric motors, like the Rav-4 Prime with insane acceleration.
 

essentialemployee

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2020
Messages
209
Reaction score
252
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Chevrolet Tahoe
Ford (and others) are betting big on very small SUV's and trucks with mostly under-powered set-ups. The full-sized Bronco is an exception. I'm going to pass judgement on the Bronco Sport until there is an actual test drive by a third party who examines hill passing speed, 0 to 60 mph, etc. The trend seems to be hybrids where HP and torque is shared by electric motors, like the Rav-4 Prime with insane acceleration.
Mostly under-powered set-ups... maybe. I would say mostly not powerful set-ups, not under-powered. My wife’s small suv with about the same weight and size of the sport has 221 hp and 258 torque and feels more powerful than underpowered.

If you go with the 2.0L 245 hp 270 torque on the sport and maverick, they certainly won’t feel underpowered.
 
Last edited:

Beach_Bum

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ken
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
58
Reaction score
45
Location
St. Augustine, FL
Vehicle(s)
2003 Jeep Liberty Limited
Folks have to keep in mind when comparing HP/torque among different vehicles. Manufacturers don't have a set standard so the consumer compares apples to apples. Often, they will report the highest metric but include in the small print the rpms at which the metric is achieved. It would be more honest if they would report the metrics across the entire spectrum of rpms.

Take for example the 2.0 liter Ecoboost available in the Badlands BS. It will achieve the 245 hp at 5500 rpms. Driving on the highway, you are likely never going to push the engine to 5500 rpms even if you were passing up a hill.
 
Last edited:

essentialemployee

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2020
Messages
209
Reaction score
252
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Chevrolet Tahoe
Folks have to keep in mind when comparing HP/torque among different vehicles. Manufacturers don't have a set standard so the consumer compares apples to apples. Often, they will report the highest metric but include in the small print the rpms at which the metric is achieved. It would be more honest if they would report the metrics across the entire spectrum of rpms.

Take for example the 2.0 liter Ecoboost available in the Badlands BS. It will achieve the 245 hp at 5500 rpms. Driving on the highway, you are likely never going to push the engine to 5500 rpms even if you were passing up a hill.
That’s good to consider because I didn’t.. All I do know is I’ve seen the sport power steep rocks from a dead stop. That surely can’t be under-powered..
 

Beach_Bum

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ken
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
58
Reaction score
45
Location
St. Augustine, FL
Vehicle(s)
2003 Jeep Liberty Limited
That’s good to consider because I didn’t.. All I do know is I’ve seen the sport power steep rocks from a dead stop. That surely can’t be under-powered..
But that is a torque attribution. Torque is more important than HP when it comes to off-road. The 275 lb of foot torque at 3000 rpm is attainable. (Reference the 2.0 Liter Ecoboost engine).

I drive a v6 Jeep Liberty. It is reported as having 210 hp. I've had it for 17 years and never had the engine pushing 4000 rpms no less 5000 where the 210 hp is attained. The highest rpms that I've ever pushed it has been 3500 - 3800, and that upper end would be the extreme. But in all my years with the v6, I've never experienced not enough power in accelerating.
 

essentialemployee

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2020
Messages
209
Reaction score
252
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Chevrolet Tahoe
But that is a torque attribution. Torque is more important than HP when it comes to off-road. The 275 lb of foot torque at 3000 rpm is attainable. (Reference the 2.0 Liter Ecoboost engine).

I drive a v6 Jeep Liberty. It is reported as having 210 hp. I've had it for 17 years and never had the engine pushing 4000 rpms no less 5000 where the 210 hp is attained. The highest rpms that I've ever pushed it has been 3500 - 3800, and that upper end would be the extreme. But in all my years with the v6, I've never experienced not enough power in accelerating.
$20 says my 4 cylinder sport will beat your v6 liberty in 0-60 and quarter mile... and mpg.. and more hp at 3000 rpm

but idk, if i knew I would bet higher like $25
 

Beach_Bum

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Ken
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
58
Reaction score
45
Location
St. Augustine, FL
Vehicle(s)
2003 Jeep Liberty Limited
That isn't a bet. That is charity. I have no doubt the BS would beat my v6 liberty in every category. But I can't knock the v6 as it is still running strong. I only have 85K miles on it.

As an aside, years ago, I had a Jaguar XJ6. Early on they were referred to as a Camaro Killer. I never understood why as it was heavy in initial acceleration. But once it got over 25, it would literally lurch with the slightest depression of the accelerator. It would literally float down the highway. The dual gas tanks allowed for it to drive forever without refilling.
 

Tdubz

Active Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
37
Reaction score
32
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Ford
I think he was referencing the 1.5L when he said underpowered. It has 181 hp and 190 torque compared to the 2.0’s 245 and 275. I currently have the 2.0 and it’s a great engine.
 
First Name
Warren
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
17
Reaction score
8
Location
Tucson, AZ
Vehicle(s)
Nissan Xterra
Re: acceleration....I'm guessing a lot depends on the way the computers are programmed for fuel economy, the way power transfers to the wheels and vehicle weight? For example, the Kia Telluride (291 hp) was one of my earlier choices but reviewers (Car and Driver, et al.) and owners all complained of it being flat on highways, e.g., passing / quick acceleration. That was a deal breaker. The same issue exists with the Tacoma. In fact, it's the number one complaint overall and biggest deal breaker for dealers during test drives. I absolutely hate any vehicle with a second or more hesitation when you step on the gas! Then again, I'm chasing storms and sometimes they chase me.
 

TXArchitect

First Edition
Well-Known Member
First Name
Kent
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
67
Reaction score
58
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Ford Ranger
Anyone do a comparison with BS and new Escape. It would help understand size and scale tremendously until we see these in dealers.
 
First Name
Warren
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
17
Reaction score
8
Location
Tucson, AZ
Vehicle(s)
Nissan Xterra
Sport: 172.7 (inches)
Toyota FJ Cruiser: 183.9 (This suprises me as I always thought this vehicle was short).
Escape: 180.5
Nissan Xterra: 178.7 (My current vehicle)
Cherokee: 182
Subaru Forester: 182.1
Land Rover Defender: 180.4 to 197.6.
Ford Explorer: 198.8
Toyota Rav-4 Prime: 180.9
Chevy Blazer: 191.4
Mini Cooper S: 158
 
Last edited:
Top