By Jon Crowley
Originally published October 18, 2012. This review preserves our firsthand impressions from the original Can-Am Maverick 1000R media ride at Nevada’s Logandale Trail System.
The 2013 Can-Am Maverick 1000R marked Can-Am’s entry into the rapidly expanding pure-sport side-by-side market. Its specifications immediately attracted attention: a claimed 101-horsepower Rotax V-twin, 14 inches of suspension travel and an available Maverick X rs package equipped with adjustable FOX 2.5 Podium shocks.
Specifications only tell part of the story, however. Shortly after the Maverick’s introduction, Dan Rosenzweig from Magnum Offroad and I traveled to Nevada to drive the new machine through the dunes, rocks, washes and rough trails of the Logandale Trail System.
This is our original first-ride review of the two-seat Maverick 1000R and higher-spec Maverick 1000R X rs. For its complete 2013–2017 model history, later Turbo versions and used-buying information, see our first-generation Can-Am Maverick 1000R guide.
Can-Am Enters the Sport UTV Market
Can-Am unveiled the Maverick at the 2012 Sand Sports Super Show in Costa Mesa, California. It was an appropriate place to introduce a machine aimed directly at dune and desert enthusiasts. The unveiling attracted a standing-room-only crowd and became one of the important moments documented in our broader Sand Sports Super Show history.
At the time, the Maverick entered a performance category led by machines such as the Polaris RZR XP 900 and Arctic Cat Wildcat 1000. Can-Am did not simply add longer suspension to its existing recreation-utility platform. The Maverick combined familiar Can-Am components with a purpose-built sport chassis and a new rear-suspension design.
2013 Can-Am Maverick 1000R Specifications
| Engine | 976cc liquid-cooled Rotax V-twin |
|---|---|
| Claimed output | 101 horsepower |
| Transmission | CVT with high, low, park, neutral and reverse |
| Drivetrain | Selectable 2WD/4WD with Visco-Lok front differential |
| Front suspension | Double A-arm with 14 inches of travel |
| Rear suspension | Torsional Trailing A-arm with 14 inches of travel |
| Width | 64 inches |
| Wheelbase | 84.3 inches |
| Ground clearance | 13 inches |
| Fuel capacity | 10 gallons |
| Rear rack capacity | 200 pounds |
Our separate 2013 Can-Am Maverick 1000R first-look guide provides a more detailed breakdown of the original model’s features and factory specifications.
Familiar Cockpit, Very Different Chassis
Dan and I started the day in a standard Maverick 1000R. Because we had both owned Can-Am Commander 1000s, portions of the cockpit felt familiar. The original Maverick even shared its ROPS structure with the Commander.
Once we started driving, however, the similarities quickly faded. Compared with the original Commander, the Maverick’s 84.3-inch wheelbase was 8.5 inches longer and its 64-inch stance was approximately six inches wider. Those dimensional changes were immediately noticeable on the gravel access road and became even more important once we reached faster, rougher terrain.
The original Can-Am Commander remained a recreation-utility machine with a dumping cargo bed. The Maverick felt lower, wider and far more focused on performance.
101-Horsepower Rotax V-Twin
We felt the additional power as soon as we entered the sand dunes. The Maverick used a performance-focused version of the Commander’s 976cc Rotax V-twin, but Can-Am increased its claimed output to 101 horsepower—16 horsepower more than the contemporary Commander 1000.
Changes included a higher-flow intake plenum, independent intake runners, larger intake and exhaust valves, a 12.0:1 compression ratio and a high-flow dual-exhaust system.
The improvement was not merely something printed on the specification sheet. Both of us could feel the stronger performance, particularly in the upper portion of the engine’s rpm range. The Maverick pulled harder than the Commander and delivered the type of acceleration expected from a dedicated sport UTV.
TTA Rear Suspension Surprises in the Whoops
After crossing the dunes, we entered a hard-packed area containing whoops and torn-up washes. Before the ride, I was skeptical about how well Can-Am’s new Torsional Trailing A-arm rear suspension would work.
The TTA layout looked more like an A-arm arrangement than the long trailing arms used on competing sport UTVs. It was actually a compact five-link system designed to reduce unsprung weight, scrub and bump steer while providing 14 inches of rear-wheel travel.
My skepticism disappeared once we started pushing the Maverick.
The machine worked remarkably well through the whoops and rough washes. The harder we drove, the better it seemed to perform. Dan and I repeatedly commented that the rear of the Maverick remained composed and never unexpectedly stepped out of line.
Even through uneven whoops that could upset a less controlled chassis, the rear end stayed planted. The Maverick felt predictable, stable and considerably more capable in rough terrain than the TTA suspension’s compact appearance had led me to expect.
Maverick 1000R X rs and FOX 2.5 Shocks
Later in the day, we moved into the top-of-the-line Maverick 1000R X rs. Its most important upgrade was a set of fully adjustable FOX Podium X Performance RC2 2.5 piggyback shocks.
The larger shock bodies provided approximately 50 percent more piston area than a two-inch shock. That allowed the shocks to perform more work with lower internal pressure while improving heat management and durability. The X rs shocks also provided high- and low-speed compression adjustment along with rebound adjustment.
The standard Maverick handled the Logandale terrain well, but the X rs was clearly another step up. Its additional suspension control was particularly noticeable when driving aggressively through repeated impacts and rough, uneven terrain.
The X rs package also included:
- FOX 2.5 Podium RC2 piggyback shocks
- Aluminum beadlock wheels
- X-package seats and graphics
- Combined analog and digital instrumentation
- Custom steering wheel
For aggressive dune, desert or rough-trail driving, the suspension was the strongest reason to choose the X rs over the standard Maverick.
Practical LinQ Rear Rack
Can-Am also gave the Maverick more cargo versatility than many sport UTVs of the period. Its multipurpose rear rack had a 200-pound capacity and worked with Can-Am’s LinQ quick-attachment system.
Owners could quickly install or remove a storage box, rack extension, bag or other compatible accessory. The rack incorporated an anti-skid surface, raised ridges and several attachment points for straps and bungee cords. An optional liner provided a more conventional cargo area.
The Maverick was not intended to haul firewood like a Commander, but the rack provided useful storage without compromising the vehicle’s sport-focused character.
Visco-Lok Was the Weak Point in the Rocks
The original Maverick used Can-Am’s Visco-Lok front differential. Once four-wheel drive was selected, the system progressively transferred power away from a slipping front wheel and toward the wheel with traction.
It worked acceptably during most of our drive, but its delayed engagement was noticeable when rock crawling. A front tire sometimes had to spin through several revolutions before the differential transferred meaningful power to the opposite side.
Can-Am had already introduced the quicker-engaging Visco-Lok QE differential on selected 2013 Commander models with power steering. I was disappointed that the same technology was not included on the original Maverick, where it would have improved slow-speed technical performance.
Can-Am addressed that weakness on later Maverick packages. Models such as the Maverick X xc and DPS-equipped versions received Visco-Lok QE, giving them faster front-differential engagement in rocks, mud and other low-traction situations.
2013 Can-Am Maverick 1000R Review Conclusion
The original Maverick proved that Can-Am was serious about the sport UTV market. It was not merely a long-travel Commander, nor did it feel like a copy of the RZR XP or Wildcat. It brought its own combination of Rotax power, centralized engine placement, distinctive TTA rear suspension and practical LinQ cargo capability.
The 101-horsepower engine delivered the expected performance, but the chassis was the bigger surprise. Its rear suspension remained planted through terrain that I expected would expose the limitations of its compact design. The upgraded FOX 2.5 shocks made the Maverick X rs especially capable for aggressive driving.
The slow engagement of the original Visco-Lok differential was its clearest weakness, particularly in technical rock terrain. Beyond that issue, the Maverick offered strong ergonomics, aggressive styling, excellent power and suspension performance that could compete with the leading sport UTVs of its era.
More than a decade later, the 2013 Maverick’s importance is even easier to recognize. It established the foundation for the Maverick MAX, X xc, X mr, X ds and factory-turbocharged models that followed—and ultimately helped pave the way for the Maverick X3 and today’s Maverick R.
