Window Stickers show 22/29 MPG for Maverick 2.0L EcoBoost AWD 4K Tow

[CASD57]

Well the Numbers Beat the Santa Cruz....it's at 21mpg City 26 HWY 23 Combined and that is the FWD SEL

Sponsored

 

[Old Ranchero]

Exactly, but it's also not a realistic expectation for normal *aka most* driving situations. I saw someone post a trainer that was showing 25ish mpg, which sounded way more accurate.

Also, I drive a 2012 Ford focus and the in dash computer MPG is... optimistic.

If I do the math on average fill ups vs trip computer I get much closer to what the EPA rating for my car is.

I wasn't trying to day the trainers were being dishonest, or first it's not possible to get the numbers they were showing, but just trying to say that these are more realistic expectations for most people.

agreed, but are you doing the math the way "our Grandpas did"? lol

 

[CLH917]

I love it. I’d be perfectly content with a combined 25 or 26 mpg.

 

[Xtreme Thunder]

Slightly better on Highway than I expected, but this is exactly the MPG I was seeking for a small 2.0T truck type product with my drive cycle. Glad to see the 2.0T AWD 4K Tow is that as well. Sounds good to me.

 

[Barefootdan]

Wow that’s awesome in my book! I almost switched to hybrid last minute as I was worried about getting low 20s on the highway. This puts the highway figures so close to the hybrid. I’m stoked

 

[Stimpy433]

I’m happy with those numbers. Better the the 14/18 I get now with my full size truck….

 

[Edge Haley]

Page 172 of the Maverick Owners Manual clearly describes Ford’s recommendation on octane…bottomline is 87 octane is acceptable, but better performance is attained running 91 octane…manual even points out some regions 87 octane may be less than 87. I have done contract worked for major gas retailers for years…..and they frequently share the advantages of gas additives giving more life in an engine….I‘m a fan of Costco gas due to their labeled additives…if Costco is not available I keep a case of Textron on the shelf in my garage….Honda Element approaching 200,000 miles and runs like the day I bought it…162 HP, getting 24 mpg every fill-up….making me reconsider….will decide when I can sit in the seat of a Marverick, Eco or Hybrid.

 

[A Dodge that drives Fords]

The EcoBoost XL AWD starting at $19,995? I thought only the hybrid was starting at $19,995 or am I missing something.

 

[CLH917]

The EcoBoost XL AWD starting at $19,995? I thought only the hybrid was starting at $19,995 or am I missing something.

The EB and AWD is where that $3,305 charge comes from on the right just below the starting price.

 

[WesM]

The EcoBoost XL AWD starting at $19,995? I thought only the hybrid was starting at $19,995 or am I missing something.

The EB engine is an option if you look in the list, if you build it on the ford website you get about the same numbers.

EDIT, you beat me to it

 

[balucipher]

Great. Our driving is primarily highway and the mpg difference between the hybrid and Ecoboost isn't that much there. Glad I went with the faster, more fun to drive truck on a better suspension setup

 

[mamboman777]

Page 172 of the Maverick Owners Manual clearly describes Ford’s recommendation on octane…bottomline is 87 octane is acceptable, but better performance is attained running 91 octane…manual even points out some regions 87 octane may be less than 87. I have done contract worked for major gas retailers for years…..and they frequently share the advantages of gas additives giving more life in an engine….I‘m a fan of Costco gas due to their labeled additives…if Costco is not available I keep a case of Textron on the shelf in my garage….Honda Element approaching 200,000 miles and runs like the day I bought it…162 HP, getting 24 mpg every fill-up….making me reconsider….will decide when I can sit in the seat of a Marverick, Eco or Hybrid.

Thank you for pointing that out. I thought that the higher octane was only for Ecoboost engines, but the manual does not specify. Hybrid on order, I Think I'll probably stick with QT 87 and maybe fill out up with 91 on a tow.

I think I understand why a turbo engine world require higher octane. Could someone explain why the Atkinson engine would benefit from higher octane?

 

[AlienMaverick]

Thank you for the mpg information, I switched to the 2.0 to get a quicker build date and was a little worried of possible bad gas mileage like 24 mpg freeway. I’m super happy with this and I bought the 2wd ( live in the desert) so I will probably get a mile or two better.

 

[GaMaverick]

Thank you for pointing that out. I thought that the higher octane was only for Ecoboost engines, but the manual does not specify. Hybrid on order, I Think I'll probably stick with QT 87 and maybe fill out up with 91 on a tow.

I think I understand why a turbo engine world require higher octane. Could someone explain why the Atkinson engine would benefit from higher octane?

I'll put 87 in the 2.0 EB for daily driving and 91+ if trail riding or towing.

 

[Old Ranchero]

Page 172 of the Maverick Owners Manual clearly describes Ford’s recommendation on octane…bottomline is 87 octane is acceptable, but better performance is attained running 91 octane…manual even points out some regions 87 octane may be less than 87. I have done contract worked for major gas retailers for years…..and they frequently share the advantages of gas additives giving more life in an engine….I‘m a fan of Costco gas due to their labeled additives…if Costco is not available I keep a case of Textron on the shelf in my garage….Honda Element approaching 200,000 miles and runs like the day I bought it…162 HP, getting 24 mpg every fill-up….making me reconsider….will decide when I can sit in the seat of a Marverick, Eco or Hybrid.

I live in "high desert" (6200') region of SW Colorado. We don't have 87 Octane Regular locally, 85 at ironically -Maverick- branded gas stations and I think Speedway is same. Most others are 86. Costco advertises "top tier" rated gasolines, and luckily my local Conoco stations also advertise top tier, even though the Regular is only 86

Sponsored