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

[Old Ranchero]

It's the triangle portion that goes on the sides of the vehicle from the roof to the sides of the bed. Has been added for stability. Ridgeline used to have it, but now doesn't. Santa Cruz has it. Old Subies had a silver bar there.

http://turbosaga.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/first-drive-2022-hyundai-santa-cruz-7.jpg

I don't mean any disrespect here, but this sounds like a Red Herring issue cooked up by a sales and marketing team somewhere. I never even heard of this until maybe 48 hours ago on this forum. I've been around cars in many capacities since about age 14 (I'm 63 now) and this idea of needing this specific bracing just doesn't pass the common sense test for me. My 1964 unibody Ranchero did not have any triangle connection like that and none of the other trucks I ever owned had it either.

Food for thought here: If it was long true in mainstream vehicle design, how do we explain convertibles with no top? They are unibody and typically have no metal structure at all connecting roof to main body. Yes, I know some have a reinforced metal B pillar for rollover protection, but designs without that bar pass crash worthiness testing as well.

And I see you mentioned stability, but I think the actual issue would be rigidity to control body twisting and flex. I've read a lot about convertible designs and that is usually the hardest part to solve, like when they introduce say a Camaro or Mustang coupe and then they later decide to offer a convertible they have to have same rigidity on the same body with roof removed and instead they build rigidity into the main body.

I could be wrong here and can always learn something new (it's happened on this very forum ) but my Senior Citizen brain is having a hard time getting wrapped around this as a critical issue

Sponsored

 

[jwiedle24]

Alex on Autos, on YouTube, recently did a first test drive review and reached out to Hyundai for clarification. That’s what was initially interpreted for their press release. It actually can handle all weight in the bed, sans driver, like any other truck’s payload. The 660 lbs was with 4 average adults in the cab and that’s what was remaining. Not the best initial marketing language and may have hurt many initial impressions, but Hyundai did clarify. Curious if they will update their User Manual as I thought I saw someone post that the other day as well.

So Hyundai’s interpretation is that an average adult is around 225lb? Geesh, only in America

 

[Xtreme Thunder]

So Hyundai’s interpretation is that an average adult is around 225lb? Geesh, only in America

Probably and sounds plausible!

I only watched it once, but may have also included 10% tongue weight of a trailer weighing 5,000 lbs.

So that would put 4 adults at 150 lbs each.

 

[SgtLip]

So Hyundai’s interpretation is that an average adult is around 225lb? Geesh, only in America

Yes, this morning I was 223.4 lbs. so that's about right.

Look around, aren't we all carrying an extra few. Look at our younger generation, they not too skinny nowadays.

 

[mamboman777]

I don't mean any disrespect here, but this sounds like a Red Herring issue cooked up by a sales and marketing team somewhere. I never even heard of this until maybe 48 hours ago on this forum. I've been around cars in many capacities since about age 14 (I'm 63 now) and this idea of needing this specific bracing just doesn't pass the common sense test for me. My 1964 unibody Ranchero did not have any triangle connection like that and none of the other trucks I ever owned had it either.

Food for thought here: If it was long true in mainstream vehicle design, how do we explain convertibles with no top? They are unibody and typically have no metal structure at all connecting roof to main body. Yes, I know some have a reinforced metal B pillar for rollover protection, but designs without that bar pass crash worthiness testing as well.

And I see you mentioned stability, but I think the actual issue would be rigidity to control body twisting and flex. I've read a lot about convertible designs and that is usually the hardest part to solve, like when they introduce say a Camaro or Mustang coupe and then they later decide to offer a convertible they have to have same rigidity on the same body with roof removed and instead they build rigidity into the main body.

I could be wrong here and can always learn something new (it's happened on this very forum ) but my Senior Citizen brain is having a hard time getting wrapped around this as a critical issue

You very well may be correct. Unfortunately, until either one of us speak to one of the engineers, it's all just speculation.

 

[RayNash]

$36,700 is very steep.

 

[Xtreme Thunder]

$36,700 is very steep.

It’s all relative.

I was looking to spend around $45-48K on my next long term vehicle and that was me being “cheap”. So a fully loaded Maverick Lariat at about $38K was under budget by about $7-10K.

 

[GaMaverick]

Alex on Autos, on YouTube, recently did a first test drive review and reached out to Hyundai for clarification. That’s what was initially interpreted for their press release. It actually can handle all weight in the bed, sans driver, like any other truck’s payload. The 660 lbs was with 4 average adults in the cab and that’s what was remaining. Not the best initial marketing language and may have hurt many initial impressions, but Hyundai did clarify. Curious if they will update their User Manual as I thought I saw someone post that the other day as well.

The mouth will say anything.
Until the user manual is updated by Hyundai and/or someone actually tests it out I would not put more then 600 lbs. in the bed. Reason is, if your bed fails all Hyundai has to do is say not to exceed 600 lbs. was in the manual.
No Warranty for you.

 

[GaMaverick]

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.

I mean 25 ish mpg combined sounds realistic and would fall smack dab in between 22 city and 29 highway?

 

[mamboman777]

I mean 25 ish mpg combined sounds realistic and would fall smack dab in between 22 city and 29 highway?

I agree completely. I was referring to the trainers who were saying over 30. Not that it's not possible, just that I don't think it's a realistic expectation unless driven under a specific set of circumstances.

 

[r100gs91]

If the mileage figures on the dash say 30 mpg in reality the figure will be 6-9% less when you hand calculate Miles Driven / Gallons used. My F-150 has never matched the mileage calculator In the dash.
Since the truck was new the computer says I have acheived 23.0 mpg. Hand figured is 21.7 mpg

 

[JJC]

If the mileage figures on the dash say 30 mpg in reality the figure will be 6-9% less when you hand calculate Miles Driven / Gallons used. My F-150 has never matched the mileage calculator In the dash.
Since the truck was new the computer says I have acheived 23.0 mpg. Hand figured is 21.7 mpg

Interesting point as my 2018 5.0L F150 never matched and was always ~2mpg under when hand calc vs. the dash reading. However, my current 2020 2.0L AWD Escape, actually averages .5 mpg HIGHER when I check by hand at fill-up vs. the computer, and that's been consistent since break-in. It's strange to say the least, but I'll take it.


As someone who already owns and daily drives nearly the same 2.0L AWD just in the form of a 2020 Escape, I'm not at all surprised by these numbers. They are directly in line with the expectations I've been trying to provide others with. All of this being said, I always exceed the "rated" mpg with my Escape. I've never once gotten the ~23 city, or the ~31 highway. My hand checked, city only is closer to 26 and highway 34-35. Mind you, I also have had larger, 235/65R17 Wildpeaks on since new. I've also only run premium fuel since new. Very happy with the EcoBoost in my Escape, and I'm positive I'll love it in my Maverick.

 

[JASmith]

Wow! I have to say, I am pleasantly surprised. This is with the AWD 4K package no less, I really expected EPA numbers to match or even be a tick under that of the AWD Bronco Sport 2.0 Ecoboost with is 23cmb/26hwy/21city.

Not sure where they picked up the 1mpg city and whopping 3mpg highway efficiency boost. Guessing the angled bumper and roof rack on the Bronco Sport must be far less aerodynamic than I thought!

So Hyundai’s interpretation is that an average adult is around 225lb? Geesh, only in America

If I didn't have my hands full of cheese fries right now, I'd teach you some manners. JK, I'm not comfortable enough in my relationship yet to accumulate that much mass, but maybe some day! #lifegoals

 

[JASmith]

BTW, crunched some quick numbers. 22city / 29 highway using EPA formula for combined is 25mpg.

Based on 15K miles per year with national average fuel prices of $3.18 for regular and $3.81 for premium fuel using combined fuel economy figures:

Maverick 2.5 Hybrid (87 recommended) = $1,288 / year or $12.8K over 10 years
Santa Cruz 2.5 (87 recommended) = $2,073 / year or $20.7K over 10 years
Maverick 2.0T (*91 recommended) = $2,286 / year or $22.9K over 10 years
Santa Cruz 2.5T (87 recommended) = $2,169 / year or $21.7K over 10 years

*Note that Ford indicates that while the 2.0T Ecoboost is designed for 91+ octane for optimum performance, it can operate on 87 octane so for long trips of relaxed highway cruising you could certainly put in regular or midgrade without issue.

 

[OTACORB]

If those number hold true, I think the bulk of us that went with the 2.0EB will be pretty satisfied. I've been use to 18 and 22 with 20 combined with a 2016 Colorado with 2.5 liter. It's never gotten even close to the 26 mpg on highway even when babying it.

Sponsored