Reason why Hybrid Maverick interest so high? [WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[zeketolliver]

It is a 40mpg truck with more rear legroom than any midsized crew cab, save the Ridgeline. People who want the versatility of a truck with the cab space of an SUV, and the fuel economy of a small hybrid SUV are getting EXACTLY what the want with the hybrid Maverick.

I was prepared to pay as much as $35k for a hybrid Maverick, or Santa Cruz, before the vehicles had been introduced.

Also, I was going to be happy with 30mpg for my small urban truck.

What I am getting, a Lariat hybrid Maverick that gets 40ish mpg city is beyond my widest hopes.

I am disappointed that it will not be AWD, but FWD is the next best thing, IMO.

Sponsored

 

[AngeloInSC]

I pretty much understood that you think the EcoBoost Maverick will get as good or better mileage than the hybrid. I'm happy to wait until hybrids are actually out to see how that goes.

It was really the other two ideas (hybrid EPA numbers being somehow pumped up, hybrid getting different tires) that I was concerned about -- because I am buying a hybrid. It sounds like you don't have any specific info on that related to the Maverick so I guess we'll have to wait on that too.

[ETA] The Consumer Reports article says that the Ford Escape hybrid doesn't sacrifice stopping distance compared to the non-hybrid. That's encouraging, as the Maverick and the Escape have a lot in common.

Yes, that is a good point. The first thing I always look at is stopping distance considering that could be the difference in crashing/injury/death or just going about your business. An extra 5 feet could make all the difference considering how fast you are going 5 feet before you actually stop from 60 MPH. As for the MPH, here is a post from someone that has the Turbo and the actual mileage on a 48 mile loop of both Hwy and local. As I mentioned, it is very possible to do better than EPA if you know how.

 

[brnpttmn]

Yes, that is a good point. The first thing I always look at is stopping distance considering that could be the difference in crashing/injury/death or just going about your business. An extra 5 feet could make all the difference considering how fast you are going 5 feet before you actually stop from 60 MPH. As for the MPH, here is a post from someone that has the Turbo and the actual mileage on a 48 mile loop of both Hwy and local. As I mentioned, it is very possible to do better than EPA if you know how.

Context/comparison-free MPG examples of short trips are not really helpful in making your point. Yes, all cars will exceed or underperform EPA numbers depending on context, driving, and other factors. The EPA numbers are simply a controlled test to provide consistent comparison between car models. Based on the EPA testing, we can expect/predict that the hybrid would exceed 35.3 MPG in this exact same situation.

 

[AngeloInSC]

Context/comparison-free MPG examples of short trips are not really helpful in making your point. Yes, all cars will exceed or underperform EPA numbers depending on context, driving, and other factors. The EPA numbers are simply a controlled test to provide consistent comparison between car models. Based on the EPA testing, we can expect/predict that the hybrid would exceed 35.3 MPG in this exact same situation.

Knocking anything anyone comes up with doesn't help either. If you don't like what people post, just move on and keep your worthless criticisms to yourself. People like you are exactly why I moved away from MN after 4 years of putting up with them.

 

[DryHeat]

As I mentioned, it is very possible to do better than EPA if you know how.

I agree with you about that, and I think @brnpttmn (he of the "worthless criticism") does too.

He was just making the separate point that EPA tests are designed to see how vehicles do when driven in a similar manner. It's an attempt to get an apples-to-apples comparison.

No one disputes that drivers who know how can adjust their behavior to do better than EPA (with either the hybrid or the EcoBoost). I'm sure you can in an EcoBoost. And there are hypermilers who get ridiculous MPG in hybrids.

Most of us, though, are average drivers who don't plan to seriously alter our driving to fit the truck. So the EPA numbers are a useful guide to fuel economy for most of us.

 

[Espeer]

I’m getting one to replace my Ford Focus. Mileage that is just as good or better, plus the utility of a truck. Can’t get any better. I have a Bronco coming to handle the towing I do and the 4wd needs.

Also replacing a focus with the hybrid mav. I bought the cheapest model of the 1st year of the mk3 (5-speed, roll-up windows in the back, etc). It was my first new car and it's been great for 185k. My other vehicle will also be a truck - an e350 box truck with a v10! That can haul or tow anything I'll need for the farm. Burns about 500% more gas per mile than the mav, though!

It's cheaper, more comfortable, more capable, and better for the environment to have these two vehicles rather than a single newer f150 or similar for my needs.

 

[Deleted member 1483]

Too bad ,seems you are the one that's clueless. We're not talking about escapes here! I have a maverick 2.0 and I got 27.4 mpg driving around town and can get way over 30 hwy.

Maybe if you drive downhill the whole time. Can tell you are one of those full cups.

 

[Camlt12010]

Maybe if you drive downhill the whole time. Can tell you are one of those full cups.

With all the vehicles I've had in my lifetime I think I probably forgot more than you know about an automobile. Now go away and don't message me again! Being rude is not what this forum is about!

 

[DryHeat]

Mr.Truck drove ... about 800 miles about 75mph & got over 38mpg.

I have a maverick 2.0 and I got 27.4 mpg driving around town and can get way over 30 hwy.

I'm confused... I thought you were saying that your Maverick EcoBoost could get over 38 mpg at 75 mph, like "Mr. Truck" in @soNso's post.

Are you really just saying you can get "way over 30"?

That sounds reasonable to me. Don't see why anyone would argue with that.

 

[Camlt12010]

I'm confused... I thought you were saying that your Maverick EcoBoost could get over 38 mpg at 75 mph, like "Mr. Truck" in @soNso's post.

Are you really just saying you can get "way over 30?

I'm confused... I thought you were saying that your Maverick EcoBoost could get over 38 mpg at 75 mph, like "Mr. Truck" in @soNso's post.

Are you really just saying you can get "way over 30"?

That sounds reasonable to me. Don't see why anyone would argue with that.

I'm confused... I thought you were saying that your Maverick EcoBoost could get over 38 mpg at 75 mph, like "Mr. Truck" in @soNso's post.

Are you really just saying you can get "way over 30"?

That sounds reasonable to me. Don't see why anyone would argue with that.

Yes way over 30. Just like the rep with the trainer car said.

 

[Camlt12010]

I want to see an EB get 40-41 hwy.....My 1.5

I want to see an EB get 40-41 hwy.....My 1.5 EB got 26-30

I want to see an EB get 40-41 hwy.....My 1.5 EB got 26-30 MAX.

So Why are you telling me this?

 

[DryHeat]

Yes way over 30. Just like the rep with the trainer car said.

Great. For EcoBoost that sounds more attainable than getting 38 mpg on an 800 mile trip.

As for me, I'm also hoping to get "way over" the EPA 33 mpg on the highway in my hybrid. But even if I don't the 42 mpg in the city will probably make my fuel costs ok for me. I know I'm sacrificing some power but that doesn't bother me.

 

[r100gs91]

Merging onto highways with a 190HP Hybrid is not going to be an issue, period. Not even worth mentioning IMO.

Easily merged several times onto busy interstates today in my Hybrid vehicle, the power gauge never was more than midway in the power zone on the dial.

 

[huunvubu]

Trying my best to keep politics out of it is 100% futile. It's 100% about gas prices. It's not a mystery to anyone with a brain why they are high. But, even when they are lower, people still want a 30-40mpg truck. This has been true forever.

No it is not 100% about gas prices.

For me it is about total cost of ownership as I own my vehicles 12+ years. I had my 1998 Ford Ranger XLT SuperCab for 16+ years.

Yes gas prices and MPG ratings do equate to lower overall fuel costs. So that is one factor.

Another factor is that the Hybrid Maverick costs $1085 less than the FWD EcoBoost Maverick. So that is direct savings.

The Hybrid also has lower overall maintenance and probable repair costs vs the EcoBoost.

The Hybrid 2.5-liter Atkinson cycle engine is not turbo charged like the EcoBoost which is more problematic because of the turbo. Also the Hybrid 2.5-liter Atkinson cycle engine will be off more because of the Hybrid Electric Motor so less wear and tear. Also the Hybrid has no accessory belts whereas the EcoBoost engine has two belts.

The brakes on the Hybrid gets less wear because of the regenerative braking feature.

The eCVT has less moving parts than the 8-speed transmission (two driving clutches and four brake clutches, solenoids). The eCVT has no clutches or solenoids just gears. Somewhere I read (WeberAuto I believe) that the eCVT has only about 1/3 the parts compared to a traditional transmission.

There maybe more positives (and savings) for the Hybrid that I missed but overall I see the Hybrid saving quite a lot over the 12+ years I plan to own it.

 

[Bushpilot]

No it is not 100% about gas prices.

For me it is about total cost of ownership as I own my vehicles 12+ years. I had my 1998 Ford Ranger XLT SuperCab for 16+ years.

Yes gas prices and MPG ratings do equate to lower overall fuel costs. So that is one factor.

Another factor is that the Hybrid Maverick costs $1085 less than the FWD EcoBoost Maverick. So that is direct savings.

The Hybrid also has lower overall maintenance and probable repair costs vs the EcoBoost.

The Hybrid 2.5-liter Atkinson cycle engine is not turbo charged like the EcoBoost which is more problematic because of the turbo. Also the Hybrid 2.5-liter Atkinson cycle engine will be off more because of the Hybrid Electric Motor so less wear and tear. Also the Hybrid has no accessory belts whereas the EcoBoost engine has two belts.

The brakes on the Hybrid gets less wear because of the regenerative braking feature.

The eCVT has less moving parts than the 8-speed transmission (two driving clutches and four brake clutches, solenoids). The eCVT has no clutches or solenoids just gears. Somewhere I read (WeberAuto I believe) that the eCVT has only about 1/3 the parts compared to a traditional transmission.

There maybe more positives (and savings) for the Hybrid that I missed but overall I see the Hybrid saving quite a lot over the 12+ years I plan to own it.

^^^ What he said. ^^^

Sponsored