What to do when you need to replace your beloved ST?

[Larry Michael]

Watched the video. I won't be in line to buy one. My now ironclad rule is to never, ever buy a vehicle that is in its first year of production. I did that once and paid the price, with several features that seemed great at the time but turned into repeat problems. As tempted as I was to buy a shiny new super-cool vehicle several times after that I realized that waiting for the owner reliability reviews and a 2nd year fix of design and production glitches was the smarter way to go.

Second, I'm not sold on Hyundai reliability. My next door neighbor bought one four years ago and it had electrical problems. Many warranty trips back to the dealership later he traded it in on a Toyota. The decision was based on a private admission by one of the dealership mechanics that this model was prone to having difficult to diagnose and repair electronic system problems that kept it from starting when it was cold. This is the third friend with a Hyundai who said the longer warranty did not make up for the inconvenience of multiple dealer shop visits.

And finally, as my mom would say, "There's nothing like cubic inches." I'm still not convinced that small engine displacements with turbos to make up the difference are the most long-term reliable solution for owners like me who drive over steep mountain passes with great regularity here in Colorado.

 

[blksn8k]

Rumor has it the Ford Maverick will start around $20k. Production is rumored to be starting in July. As usual, Ford is being pretty tight lipped about it even though there are photos out there without any camouflage. Should be an announcement in the next couple of months.

This photo was supposedly taken in San Diego where Ford was filming a Maverick commercial.

 

[Todd Z]

3 Cyl engine......

 

[blksn8k]

As far as first year reliability issues, that may not be as big of an issue since the Maverick is being assembled in the same plant as the Bronco Sport which also shares its platform with the Escape. The expectation is that the Maverick will share most of its internal components (drivetrains, chassis parts, electrical, etc.) with those two vehicles even though the body is obviously all new.

 

[blksn8k]

3 Cyl engine......

That's the rumor for the base engine but there is also supposed to be a 4-cyl option, same as the Bronco Sport.

 

[Doug Kaye]

I'm still not convinced that small engine displacements with turbos to make up the difference are the most long-term reliable solution for owners like me who drive over steep mountain passes with great regularity here in Colorado.

I could go either way on this - once had a turbo Subaru Legacy 2.5L, it didn't even notice the mountains, steady 70mph through everything - and it lasted until 225k and Cash for Clunkers, was still running great when I turned it in on a new shiny Honda.
OTOH my son's WRX is great when it's working, but seems to have an awful lot of crotchets and foibles, we struggle to keep that turbo running well.
The ST revs higher than I like on Vail pass, though that doesn't last very long. Even so I think about those plastic timing chain guides, every time I go up a mountain pass..

Rumor has it the Ford Maverick will start around $20k.

now that's more my speed.. hope for another 5-6 years out of the ST, then they should have worked the bugs out on the Maverick and secondhand ones will be starting to show up.. and it's a Ford, would like another Ford.

3 Cyl engine......

Yes, I was flabbergasted to see the new Bronco starts with a 1.5L 3cyl turbo.. offhand this seems faintly ludicrous. The reviews for that engine in the Escape are fairly good tho.
Used to have a 1L 3cyl Geo Metro, the engine looked like a breadbox..

 

[blksn8k]

Yes, I was flabbergasted to see the new Bronco starts with a 1.5L 3cyl turbo.. offhand this seems faintly ludicrous. The reviews for that engine in the Escape are fairly good tho.
Used to have a 1L 3cyl Geo Metro, the engine looked like a breadbox..

Actually it's the Bronco Sport that has the 3 cyl as the base engine. The "real" Bronco that hasn't started production yet will use the Ranger's 2.3L 4 cyl EcoBoost as the base engine with the 2.7L V6 EcoBoost as an option. The V6 puts out 400 lb ft of torque which is significantly more than the 4.6L V8 in the 2nd gen ST.

None of that helps the Maverick though since it is supposed to share engines with the Sport. However, the optional engine in the Sport is a 2.0L 4 cyl EcoBoost rated at 245 hp and 275 lb ft which is also supposed to be available in the Maverick.

 

[rdmallory]

This is no longe true. "There is no replacement for displacement" The GT is powered by a 3,496 cc (3.5 L; 213.3 cu in) twin-turbocharged Ford EcoBoost V6 engine rated at 647 hp (482 kW; 656 PS) and 550 lb⋅ft (746 N⋅m) of torque.

 

[Powly]

My wife had a Mini Clubman with a 3cyl turbo. Great car. Like driving a go cart. It came off lease and she replaced it with the newer model a 4 cyl turbo. 30% worse gas mileage. They told us in Canada they are not bringing the smaller engine 3cyl Clubmans over anymore.
I love my V8 Gen 2Adrenalin. Don’t think you want to own the small turbo engines in once they get old and have high mileage.

 

[Larry Michael]

rdmallory said, "This is no longer true. 'There is no replacement for displacement'"

That was not my point. I'm not convinced that vehicles with small engine displacements made up for by the use of turbochargers last as long and have the same level of maintenance required as they age versus a larger displacement non-turbo engine when used frequently in high altitude mountain driving.

I routinely drive between Denver and Grand Junction with 700+ pounds of payload plus the 225 pound driver. That means driving from 5,280 feet elevation in Denver up to the Eisenhower tunnel (elevation 11,013'), back down to Silverthorne (elevation 9,035') and then over Vail Pass (elevation 10,666') with a lot of other significant ups and downs along the way.

The high altitude portion of this four hour drive takes more than 2 hours. Any car engine works hard for long stretches to travel this sort of route, including the V-8 in my SportTrac. In hot weather the cooling system is certainly challenged. This isn't the Garden State Parkway.

So my concern is the frequent and prolonged heat buildup and stress on the small block engine and turbo when used for many years in this kind of driving. I have never seen any real comparison of small displacement turbo engine life when mostly driven in high altitude environments versus flatland use. But for the moment my brain is not convinced that there would be no difference in maintenance cost and longevity of the vehicle in those two different environments.

 

[JC2008SportTrac]

Several replies:

First - blksk8k - awesome early Bronco!!! I'd LOVE to have something like that, with a non-computer-bs engine that is relatively easy to maintain. Carb'ed 302's and 351's are so simple. And, if I'm not mistaken, the 393 is just a 351 bored/stroked, correct?

Second, what is your snake (I'm guessing the '99 Cobra? I, too, had a '99 Cobra, put a Vortech on that one, before the '03/'04 Termi's came out, but after I was disappointed that the '01 didn't do anything special...think I picked it up in '02, and slapped that V2 on it the next day).

RDMallory - I didn't know these trucks had a manual option in the Gen1 version. I haven't driven an automatic (before this truck) in over 30 years, and I miss the shifting. Guess I should have done a little more research before buying...

I LOVE the dark-blue pic of the ST you have in your post. I have a gallon of 7N Mustang paint in my garage, that's just waiting to be put on something. It was going to be on a two-tone GT fox (I think it's a stock '88 color on the two-tone GT), but I think a two-tone ST would be awesome, if paired with the right secondary color, I'm thinking a dark grey or black-ish color, with that 7N Midnight-Blue '88 Mustang color).

I bought this truck because I've loved the looks of them, without knowing what they were (I was in Mustang world, so just knew they weren't Lightnings, and weren't F150's, but had a truck bed). When I had to get a truck, I was looking at Lightnings, but wanted something with a crew cab. I LOVE the looks of the Lighting (and the 5.4/SC), but knew there was something else out there in the Ford world that had a great-looking back-end, with four doors. With a little research, I found the ST's. With a lot more looking, I found a black, V8, 4x4 version (400 miles away!) I don't regret driving a bit to get it, and I knew what I was getting, buying a 120K mile vehicle. But I LOVED the looks of these trucks, and will keep it going.

Short of the body rusting away, there's no reason you can't keep this (or any) vehicle going nearly forever. You just have to do the maintenance, and be ready to replace the hard-parts/wear-items every 80-150K miles or so. I'll keep this one until I replace it with an Adrenaline, which I didn't know was a thing (hadn't seen one), until I found this site.

So, to answer the OP's original question; my next truck will be an Adrenaline, LOL!