Ford Maverick Not Sure For Towing

[Tcw8848]

I can understand why folks buy a boat and tow with the vehicle they already have, but I don't know why anyone would intentionally buy a marginal tow vehicle for a boat they already own? When you do this it might work out or you find you hate the tow and end up buying another vehicle.

Tcw8848 if you buy this type of vehicle, make sure the specific vehicle you are considering has the tow capacity you think it has. Individual vehicles will had different limits based on the way the individual tow vehicle is optioned. Make sure that run the vehicle specific numbers, you also calculate the payload to make sure it falls within the payload capacity. To do this, you need to know the tongue weight of your trailer/boat.

Jim

So, in my case, I am just finding it hard to buy a bare bones used full size truck so it will work for somewhere around 20-25 boat outings /year a couple miles down the road versus this fully loaded Maverick, luxury package, moonroof, leather, brand new, tons of features, compact, perfect for my needs about 340 days a year. I am in Florida on the west coast about 3 miles to closest ramp. Flat ground, not bringing it other places etc. Ideally, I would buy a brand new F-150 king ranch or raptor, but not happening on a teacher salary.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

I would never tell folks what vehicle to buy as in the end it is a very personal decision, based on many different variables. On the other hand, I will try to help them make more informed decisions. In the end, we all buy vehicles to suit our needs. Tcw8848 if you think the Maverick suits your specific needs, then

I can also appreciate the comment regarding size of some parking areas. Sometimes I do have to park my truck a little bit further away than I would like, but in the end I like having a full size truck.

It is kinda a crazy market for cars & trucks, now, as well as boats. I usually end up buying my trucks at the end of the model year. When I purchased my 2020 RAM 1500 last October, they were almost giving them away. LOL, I only wish I would have had the same foresight to buy a new boat!

The low tow ratings on the Jeeps really surprised me when I was browsing for a new vehicle last year. I had looked at the new Jeep Gladiator, but the crazy high price and low towing capacity steered me back to RAM. In hindsight I am very glad it did, as I love my new RAM.

Jim

 

[HangOutdoors]

The low tow ratings on the Jeeps really surprised me when I was browsing for a new vehicle last year. I had looked at the new Jeep Gladiator, but the crazy high price and low towing capacity steered me back to RAM. In hindsight I am very glad it did, as I love my new RAM.

I was looking at the New Wagoneer. 9,850 lbs tow rating. Although the prices are way out of my range.

Experience the All New Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer - Premium SUVs (jeep.com)

 

[2kwik4u]

So, I came here with a similar question. I see a lot of arguing and bashing of the Maverick, but what is the final consensus in terms of a 2.0 ecoboost non-hybrid FWD Maverick with 4k tow package (250 hp and 277lb/ft torque) towing a 19ft sx190? The 2.0 also has a standard 8-speed transmission, not the cvt. (Won’t be going any bigger than 19ft Yamaha with this truck).

In my particular case, it is under 5-6 miles to ramp and flat land with 40mph speed limits. I’m pretty positive it will just do fine for that trip, but I’m mostly asking about launching/retrieving boat.

Would appreciate any additional thoughts, experience, physics lessons.

My 190 scaled at 3,200-ish lbs this spring. Have a measured 285lb of tongue weight. You'll be under the limit with just the boat and driver, but pretty close once you add people, gear, and supplies.

I towed with a FWD Traverse. Had no issues with traction at the ramp. Took it slow and methodical and it did fine. Our local ramps are "corrugated" concrete at a medium decline. Tons of traction available. I wouldn't try a FWD at an asphalt, or unimproved ramp.

No CVT is a plus. Hope Ford has a TON of cooling for that 2.0T, it's gonna get a workout with that load.

 

[BlkGS]

Came in here to make this comparison. It's a Ridgeline from Ford. Would make a fine daily driver, and handle runs to the local Home and Garden center just fine. Lots of people will get them for the high seating position, truck like appearance, and car like drive.

My AR190 scaled at 3,160lbs this spring. That is a razor thin margin to get a family, a dog, and a boat to the lake and back under the limit. The CVT from Ford is concerning (took them a few years to iron out the DCT in the Focus, I would bet on similar results with the CVT here). CVT's are notoriously poor at handling high torque low speed applications (like yanking a boat out of the water on a steep ramp.

It's a Subaru Baja. It'll be good for a small family that wants to throw smelly sports gear I the bed, but it's not a mid-size truck. And it's certainly not a full size truck. Hell it's not even a mid-size suv.

 

[BlkGS]

I don't think the Maverick is suitable for boat towing, personally.

The Cvt hybrid one doesn't have the capacity, and the fwd one is a wet ramp away from a totaled truck. I think it will be great for the person who hauls are small but also sort of large objects. Fishing poles, skis, mulch, etc. The fwd one will probably work for a small lawn business or something like that. If you were just towing an ATV or dirt bikes or similar, I think it would be fine. But I don't see it working well with a boat.

It might work fine at first, but eventually, it won't work, and then you have a really bad day.

 

[Tcw8848]

I don't think the Maverick is suitable for boat towing, personally.

The Cvt hybrid one doesn't have the capacity, and the fwd one is a wet ramp away from a totaled truck. I think it will be great for the person who hauls are small but also sort of large objects. Fishing poles, skis, mulch, etc. The fwd one will probably work for a small lawn business or something like that. If you were just towing an ATV or dirt bikes or similar, I think it would be fine. But I don't see it working well with a boat.

It might work fine at first, but eventually, it won't work, and then you have a really bad day.

wet ramp part confuses me. Having rear wheels available to power wouldn’t make a lick of difference with a wet ramp issue.

 

[2kwik4u]

wet ramp part confuses me. Having rear wheels available to power wouldn’t make a lick of difference with a wet ramp issue.

Tongue weight helps a RWD, hurts a FWD. If you're on the edge of traction it can make the difference. A really wet asphalt ramp is bad news for either. It really depends on what the ramp is made from. We have some ramps here that are concrete at the base, then turn to asphalt about 50' beyond the waterline. Minivans and other FWD vehicles struggle pretty bad at the transition, most RWD just keep trucking. The difference is the tongue weight mostly. Of course we can talk tire compounds, inflation pressures and things like that, but that hurts both the same. All else being equal, the FWD will struggle a bit more in my experience.

Wife's Traverse had absolutely HORRID wet weather traction. The FWD in that car made it borderline dangerous to drive in wet weather. I got a little wheelspin at the ramp (corrugated concrete) with it. Never had an issue with my Sierra on the same ramp.

 

[BlkGS]

wet ramp part confuses me. Having rear wheels available to power wouldn’t make a lick of difference with a wet ramp issue.

Disagree. Instead of trying to put down 125lb of torque per wheel on a slick surface, you're only putting down 62 lb per wheel. If the ramp is slick enough, that makes a difference.

Granted, you may not need to put down that amount of torque to get your boat out, but the tires/ramp might not hold to that level of torque anyways. Point is, you're applying torque across a larger area, thus able to put more dow effectively without slipping.

 

[BlkGS]

Tongue weight helps a RWD, hurts a FWD. If you're on the edge of traction it can make the difference. A really wet asphalt ramp is bad news for either. It really depends on what the ramp is made from. We have some ramps here that are concrete at the base, then turn to asphalt about 50' beyond the waterline. Minivans and other FWD vehicles struggle pretty bad at the transition, most RWD just keep trucking. The difference is the tongue weight mostly. Of course we can talk tire compounds, inflation pressures and things like that, but that hurts both the same. All else being equal, the FWD will struggle a bit more in my experience.

Wife's Traverse had absolutely HORRID wet weather traction. The FWD in that car made it borderline dangerous to drive in wet weather. I got a little wheelspin at the ramp (corrugated concrete) with it. Never had an issue with my Sierra on the same ramp.

The traverse IMO had the wrong engine for it in FWD. That 3.6 would blow the tires off the front once it got into its power and, which you had to do fairly often to get it going. Made for a rather interesting drive in what's supposed to be a family hauler.

Can't comment on newer ones, this is the like 2012ish ones. We will likely check out the new ones while looking at a new family hauler for ourselves.

 

[adrianp89]

Tongue weight helps a RWD, hurts a FWD. If you're on the edge of traction it can make the difference. A really wet asphalt ramp is bad news for either. It really depends on what the ramp is made from. We have some ramps here that are concrete at the base, then turn to asphalt about 50' beyond the waterline. Minivans and other FWD vehicles struggle pretty bad at the transition, most RWD just keep trucking. The difference is the tongue weight mostly. Of course we can talk tire compounds, inflation pressures and things like that, but that hurts both the same. All else being equal, the FWD will struggle a bit more in my experience.

Wife's Traverse had absolutely HORRID wet weather traction. The FWD in that car made it borderline dangerous to drive in wet weather. I got a little wheelspin at the ramp (corrugated concrete) with it. Never had an issue with my Sierra on the same ramp.

In my experience, I will take good tires over any other factor when it comes the ramp. I've seen dually F350s struggle to pull up 20-24ft boats (actually see it often). The right tires on the Maverick, it will be more than suitable for the 19ft at a local ramp.

 

[2kwik4u]

The traverse IMO had the wrong engine for it in FWD. That 3.6 would blow the tires off the front once it got into its power and, which you had to do fairly often to get it going. Made for a rather interesting drive in what's supposed to be a family hauler.

Can't comment on newer ones, this is the like 2012ish ones. We will likely check out the new ones while looking at a new family hauler for ourselves.

We had a 2010. The torque convertor was loose and would stall pretty high, then with variable valve timing it started making decent torque fairly low in the rev range. THEN combine in the overly short nose but longer rear overhang, and it would "lift" the tires a bit on acceleration and just create an absolute smoke show on hard takeoffs. Turning left in the rain required a significantly light foot on the throttle to keep from pushing across traffic.

One of the many reasons I disliked that vehicle from just about the moment we bought it.

 

[BlkGS]

We had a 2010. The torque convertor was loose and would stall pretty high, then with variable valve timing it started making decent torque fairly low in the rev range. THEN combine in the overly short nose but longer rear overhang, and it would "lift" the tires a bit on acceleration and just create an absolute smoke show on hard takeoffs. Turning left in the rain required a significantly light foot on the throttle to keep from pushing across traffic.

One of the many reasons I disliked that vehicle from just about the moment we bought it.

Haha, yep. I rented a few of those and their GMC twins for work. Burnout machines in FWD.

We would likely get an AWD Redline edition. Possibly the Caddy XT6 for the nicer stuff, but it only tows 4000 lbs vs 5000. And also, Telluride is objectively nicer, for less money.

 

[mwalker4]

I don't think the Maverick is suitable for boat towing, personally.

The Cvt hybrid one doesn't have the capacity, and the fwd one is a wet ramp away from a totaled truck. I think it will be great for the person who hauls are small but also sort of large objects. Fishing poles, skis, mulch, etc. The fwd one will probably work for a small lawn business or something like that. If you were just towing an ATV or dirt bikes or similar, I think it would be fine. But I don't see it working well with a boat.

It might work fine at first, but eventually, it won't work, and then you have a really bad day.

The Maverick which is rated for towing 4000lb has an 8 spd transmission and available with AWD. Yes, the hybrid CVT which gets the great gas mileage should never be used to tow a boat. Their advertising, along with most manufacturers, does a bait and switch using the terms tows up to 4000lb and MPG up to 40. Those are two very different powertrains achieving those numbers. The wheelbase, which is pretty important for towing, at 121 inches is longer than the Telluride at 114 inches. The engine torque of the Maverick is slightly higher while the horsepower slightly lower. Never touched or seen a Maverick in person, but based upon the numbers an AWD 2.0 Ecoboost version with 4k tow package should tow a 19 footer with a small margin for cargo. The hybrid version is probably good for mild urban / suburban use. I hope someone doesn't get confused by the advertising and try to tow a AR190 with a hybrid version. That would be ugly.

 

[BlkGS]

I thought the maverick with the 4000lb tow rating was FWD only, and the only way to get AWD was the hybrid?

I will be the first to admit, I'm not an expert on them. I think at some point, when you're not getting 4000lb towing, 40mpg, and 20k price tag, then you're going to cross into a point where the mid-size trucks make more sense.

 

[kgower]

IMHO, AWD/4-wheel drive only and go as big as the budget allows. I 'm having hard time thinking I'm going to have to pay $65-$75K for a new tow vehicle. Maybe by spring the market will ease a little, but not holding my breath.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

You don't have to spend $65 - 75K for an adequate tow vehicle. I usually buy my trucks at the end of the model year at pretty good discounts. Bought my current truck, 2020 Ram 1500 Bighorn Quad 4X4 last September for 35K (MSRP was 50K). Truck has a 5.7 Hemi, 8 speed 8HP75 Transmission, 3.92 Rear, and 33 gallon fuel tank.

 

[adrianp89]

You don't have to spend $65 - 75K for an adequate tow vehicle. I usually buy my trucks at the end of the model year at pretty good discounts. Bought my current truck, 2020 Ram 1500 Bighorn Quad 4X4 last September for 35K (MSRP was 50K). Truck has a 5.7 Hemi, 8 speed 8HP75 Transmission, 3.92 Rear, and 33 gallon fuel tank.

And your truck right now is worth 45k in this market

 

[Hadowajp]

I currently tow right at rated weight with my raptor and it feels sketchy at best(I go 2 miles each way 2-4 pulls a year. Coming from a 150 with a full rating I’d say stay as far below the rated amount as possible. Also back to the maverick remember all options are going to subtract from the GVWR and while I’m not sure what it is on the Mav I doubt you’d have much to spare.

deavers will go in this winter when she’s parked and hopefully help a bit

 

[seanmclean]

Seems to me that even the max tow edition would be barely adequate for the most lightweight 19'. The SX190 dry weight on trailer is just shy of 3100lbs. Add in the 250lbs of fuel, the 1-200lbs (or more) of junk we all keep in our boat, and start taking away the payload when you have more than one passenger in the truck, and you're already out of contention.