Was There Ever A 1.5L EcoBoost Maverick?

[eRock92]

If I recall correctly, the first ever "spy" photo of the Maverick was that modified 3G Escape that several sites mistook as a next gen Transit Connect. Then came the rumors about a compact truck based on the Transit Connect using the NA I-4 engine. Then, we started seeing the black camo padded mules. So was Ford's intention always to make a base hybrid engine for the Maverick, or do you think the 3 cyl I-3 EcoBoost was considered and tested in very early mules? I just find it interesting because the same or similar FWD hybrid system is a $1,825 upgrade from the FWD 3 cyl Escape.

Sponsored

 

[WesM]

I would not be surprised if the 3 cyl engine makes its way into the Maverick as a base option. Say the 3 cyl starts at $19,995 while the hybrid and 2.0 MSRP goes up $1-2k.

 

[JASmith]

I hope not, the 3-cylinder is a turd, technically speaking.

Hybrid is a much better base engine, as it literally does everything better.

 

[Rob Cactus Gray]

No way. The 3 cyl would never support the functionality of a truck from Ford. The bronco sport hardly gets away with it. It is also a giant turd (agree with above comments). I firmly believe the intention was to always have a base Hybrid. The entire premise was to have a fuel efficient and cheap entry (gateway drug) to the Ford family. As many fall for the Maverick we can later upgrade to electric.

 

[Shay]

Early on the media (including myself) speculated the 1.5T 3-cylinder would be standard as it is in the Bronco Sport because Ford is very much in love with the engine. Few people thought that Ford would offer the hybrid at all, let alone as a standard engine.

In the end it was the best choice as the 1.5T is the least desirable engine in the Ford lineup. It;s rough, noisy, thirsty, sounds odd and really doesn't offer anything pleasant.

 

[KevCuRaoi]

I hope not, the 3-cylinder is a turd, technically speaking.

Hybrid is a much better base engine, as it literally does everything better.

Yeah, I don't think the 3 cylinder would work in the Maverick!

Ford's goal is to make hybrid engines standard in many vehicle lines as soon as they can, so I think the hybrid will stay standard in the Maverick.

 

[Old Ranchero]

I would not be surprised if the 3 cyl engine makes its way into the Maverick as a base option. Say the 3 cyl starts at $19,995 while the hybrid and 2.0 MSRP goes up $1-2k.

I would be extremely surprised if they dedicated any resources to that when the drivetrain options they have now are a smash hit and they can't build them fast enough. I don't see any upside for Ford or us custmoers to installing an inferior powerplant with no advantages over what they offer now. Don't fix what aint broke?

 

[Old Ranchero]

Yeah, I don't think the 3 cylinder would work in the Maverick!

Ford's goal is to make hybrid engines standard in many vehicle lines as soon as they can, so I think the hybrid will stay standard in the Maverick.

agreed. Also there is a huge push to go electric company-wide at same time and lots of resources directed to that effort.

 

[Clarkdonbran]

No way. The 3 cyl would never support the functionality of a truck from Ford. The bronco sport hardly gets away with it. It is also a giant turd (agree with above comments). I firmly believe the intention was to always have a base Hybrid. The entire premise was to have a fuel efficient and cheap entry (gateway drug) to the Ford family. As many fall for the Maverick we can later upgrade to electric.

Well, I’m addicted so it worked!

 

[Turtle]

While i don’t think the 1.5l will ever make it into the MAV one of the initial go-to-market campaigns was a under 20K hybrid and 500 miles per tank of gas. Turns out to be perfect timing considering 4+ per gallon and 8% inflation rate. I expect Ford will hold that base price for 2023 even if they have to make the AC an option due to chip availability.

 

[stevhorn]

It;s rough, noisy, thirsty, sounds odd and really doesn't offer anything pleasant.

Sorry, none of the above, especially "thirsty". I have it in my Bronco Sport and it has great fuel economy, it's not rough and it doesn't sound "odd". Will it set any land speed records? No. Is it somewhat sluggish? Yes. However, it's satisfactory for what it is - an SUV.

 

[Flomounier1]

I don't know, I've driven the I3 Ecoboost Ecosport and that thing sucked ass. I averaged only 23mpg with normal driving, it was ridiculously slow and the turbo didn't kick in until after 5000rpm, and it just felt like a horrible car to drive because of the engine. I don't see how an extra 0.5l will be able to propel a small truck forward.

3 Cylinder engines should be left in truly small cars like the 2nd Gen Smart car, or Fiat 500 size cars that weigh less than 2000lbs.

A regular old 1.8l Corolla engine even feels/is faster than the EcoSport and gets better MPG.

 

[eRock92]

In the end it was the best choice as the 1.5T is the least desirable engine in the Ford lineup. It's rough, noisy, thirsty, sounds odd and really doesn't offer anything pleasant.

Whoa! Hold on there, man. I currently own a 2020 Escape with the 1.5L I-3.

"It's rough..."
I hasn't been rough unless I was in eco mode going uphill or idling for a very long time (10+ minutes). I do have to note that I'm using 89 octane only because I can't shake using regular with that little turbo. I know the manual says it can, but it also says better performance with a slightly high octane. I'm no mechanical engineer, just an idea.

"...noisy..."
The road noise from my tires is louder than the engine (swapped the stocks for Michelin Cross Climate 2's). The only time I really hear the engine is when I floor it to get on I-95. Other than that, it's quieter than my old Escape, even quieter than my girlfriend's Hyundai Santa Fe Sport.

"...thirsty..."
I have driven my Escape all over VA, to NC, OH, and recently to New Orleans. Average hand calculated mpg was 32 every trip. When driving around town, it's usually around 26-28 depending on if my Northern VA road rage kicks in and I flip it into Sport mode to pass the a-hole who cut me off... or maybe I cut them off, first... it was all a blur to me.

"...sounds odd..."
...ok, when cylinder deactivating kicks in, it does sound weird if you haven't experienced it. It's a low frequency note. And I like to drive sometimes with no radio playing and you notice it. You win this round.

"...really doesn't offer anything pleasant."
It gets you from points A to B with good mpgs. It's not the lowest nor loudest off the line at a red light. After 40,000 miles in my first year, maintenance has been good. It's like Thomas the Tank Engine: a really useful engine.

Btw, I'm not wishing for the 1.5 in the Maverick. I'd rather wait for the hybrid AWD than get the 1.5 with an expect mpg hit due to size, shape, and retuning for a compact pick-up.

 

[WesM]

I would be extremely surprised if they dedicated any resources to that when the drivetrain options they have now are a smash hit and they can't build them fast enough. I don't see any upside for Ford or us custmoers to installing an inferior powerplant with no advantages over what they offer now. Don't fix what aint broke?

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that they will not be able to afford making the XL hybrids at a $20k entry price. They will have to charge more for the hybrids and probably soon. But ford likes the idea of having a cheap 20k entry price... enter the cheap 3 cyl, which is already used in the bronco sport and, sharing the C2 platform, would not really have to be modified any if at all for the Maverick.

 

[Nw_adventure]

The sales manager of the dealer we ordered from said thank goodness the Maverick got the 2.0 and not the 1.5 thing -

Sponsored