Was There Ever A 1.5L EcoBoost Maverick?

[Old Ranchero]

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.

I read somewhere today (maybe MY2023 changes thread?) that Ford already decided not to bump the price on XL hybrid, and will bump XLT & Lariat MSRP by only $1k for 2023. I don't know this for a fact, but wouldn't you expect some mods to be needed to Maverick engine bay to fit a I3 (Shorter) than I4 (longer)?

Ford just reported a huge 1st quarter loss, and I would be surprised if they wanted to add expenses to adapt the I3 into a vehicle that is already exceeding sales expectations with existing configuration. Of course I could be wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=for...pIBBjQuMjkuMpgBAKABAcgBCsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

Sponsored

 

[WesM]

I read somewhere today (maybe MY2023 changes thread?) that Ford already decided not to bump the price on XL hybrid, and will bump XLT & Lariat MSRP by only $1k for 2023. I don't know this for a fact, but wouldn't you expect some mods to be needed to Maverick engine bay to fit a I3 (Shorter) than I4 (longer)?

Ford just reported a huge 1st quarter loss, and I would be surprised if they wanted to add expenses to adapt the I3 into a vehicle that is already exceeding sales expectations with existing configuration. Of course I could be wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=for...pIBBjQuMjkuMpgBAKABAcgBCsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

I don't pretend to fully comprehend how losses affect the Ford business, I know they claim a lot of it had to do with the Rivian fiasco and the subsequent Rivian stock dropping significantly. How that affects what they develop or have developed is hard to say.

The C2 architecture (based on my very limited knowledge) makes for fairly simple adaptions of engines used within the platform. I would not be surprised if Ford already has or had mules testing the 3 Cylinder engine. Its even possible that they already tried the 3 cylinder engine in the Maverick, but felt like it was not a good performance fit. This is all supposition based on very limited available information though.

I would take pricing estimates at this point with a big grain of salt. Nobody knows what inflation is going to do over the next months. If inflation tracks like it has, Ford will have to make increases or lose more money.

 

[rmay635703]

Bench seat
Long Box
6sp Stick
2.5na (not hybrid) would be fine for a stripper base truck.

Dodge and Chevy are tempted to import their small $9999 Mexican appliance trucks to compete, believe it when I see it but possible .
Both options are small, manual and ugly compared to the Maverick

Why anyone took Rivian seriously is beyond me, they might occasionally get a Tesla cast Off engineer but without proper management and business plan they were always just an investor monetization scam

 

[Stealth Raccoon]

Ford is willing to take a penalty by selling the hybrids cheap because it bumps up their corporate MPG target - the base hybrid is literally a loss-leader for Ford.
I don't believe the 3-cylinder will ever be included with perhaps the exception of it being used in a two motor setup hybrid; the 3-cylinder driving the front wheels and a dedicated electric motor driving the rear axle.

 

[eRock92]

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

Curious, was your dealer talking about the 3-cyl or 4-cyl version of the 1.5L engine? I've noticed online that many people get the two mixed up. The 3-cyl engine is relatively new debuting a few years ago; the 4G Escape and Bronco Sport are the first vehicles to feature it in NA. The 4-cyl engine, however, was the one with the dreaded coolant leak and overheating.

Just mentioning because I had to clarify with my dealer which one it was. They always have a confused look when they see at first glance on the computer "escape" and "1.5L" for my vehicle. "Huh, I thought they got rid of that 1.5 liter engine." "It's the 3 cylinder version." "Oooh..."

 

[eRock92]

Ford is willing to take a penalty by selling the hybrids cheap because it bumps up their corporate MPG target - the base hybrid is literally a loss-leader for Ford.
I don't believe the 3-cylinder will ever be included with perhaps the exception of it being used in a two motor setup hybrid; the 3-cylinder driving the front wheels and a dedicated electric motor driving the rear axle.

Yeah. Considering that the 1.5L Bronco Sport gets about 28 MPG combined, I'd bet the Maverick would only get ~26 combined at best. At that point, you're right next to the F-150 hybrid's combined MPG which wouldn't look good.

I do wonder if the 3-cyl 1.5L could be used in a PowerBoost hybrid system a la the F-150. I'm no mechanical engineer or automotive engine expert, so I have no idea if a turbo 1.5L engine paired with an hybrid batter running to an automatic is 1) even as efficient as the 4-cyl Atkinson engine w/ eCVT and 2) is even worth the cost of initial research.

 

[Nw_adventure]

Curious, was your dealer talking about the 3-cyl or 4-cyl version of the 1.5L engine? I've noticed online that many people get the two mixed up. The 3-cyl engine is relatively new debuting a few years ago; the 4G Escape and Bronco Sport are the first vehicles to feature it in NA. The 4-cyl engine, however, was the one with the dreaded coolant leak and overheating.

Just mentioning because I had to clarify with my dealer which one it was. They always have a confused look when they see at first glance on the computer "escape" and "1.5L" for my vehicle. "Huh, I thought they got rid of that 1.5 liter engine." "It's the 3 cylinder version." "Oooh..."

Which ever unit comes in the lower Bronco Sport trims -

 

[Finklejag]

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.

You’re correct. I originally ordered a Bronco Sport sight unseen because they were not easy to find. After I placed my order I finally found a dealer with an used one and test drove it. It was so unrefined and course. That day was January 26, the day I removed my name from that Bronco Sport and ordered the Maverick with the EB.

The Bronco Sport 1.5T is rate 25mpg city and 28mpg hwy. That’s not good in a CUV it’s size.

 

[TacoHolder]

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

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

Ford is willing to take a penalty by selling the hybrids cheap because it bumps up their corporate MPG target - the base hybrid is literally a loss-leader for Ford.
I don't believe the 3-cylinder will ever be included with perhaps the exception of it being used in a two motor setup hybrid; the 3-cylinder driving the front wheels and a dedicated electric motor driving the rear axle.

The 1.5EB makes around 20hp and 35lbft more than the 2.5 in the hybrid Mav. Hyundai has proven that the hybrid powertrain with a small turbo engine is a formula that works. I think a slight but noticeable bump in power and torque would make a lot of hybrid owners very happy.

I test drove a base Bronco Sport and I think the 1.5 is enough for my needs. I can also see why others think it's a turd. But would this turd shine just a little bit if you polished it with an eCVT and a battery pack?

 

[JASmith]

The 1.5EB makes around 20hp and 35lbft more than the 2.5 in the hybrid Mav. Hyundai has proven that the hybrid powertrain with a small turbo engine is a formula that works. I think a slight but noticeable bump in power and torque would make a lot of hybrid owners very happy.

I test drove a base Bronco Sport and I think the 1.5 is enough for my needs. I can also see why others think it's a turd. But would this turd shine just a little bit if you polished it with an eCVT and a battery pack?

You certainly can do that, and that's basically the route that Kia/Hyundai went with their 1.6T hybrid engine they put in everything.

However, the 1.5 is a three banger, so it doesn't have the inherent balance of an inline 4 or V6 or any even number of cylinder engine. Most note that with the 1.5 as well that its not as smooth as the 2.0 or 2.3 four cylinder version, especially at low RPM.

While a turbo can produce good cruising lower boost efficiency and good power output in heavy boost, rarely are they all that efficient when on boost compared to naturally aspirated when both are floored. Look at the Miata vs Spyder for example, Mazda used a naturally aspirated engine and Spyder a turbo in the same chassis, and people quickly noticed that with the Spyder when you really were flooring it a lot the fuel economy suffered much more than the Miata. The 2.5 is also an atkinson cycle engines, which are inherently a bit down on power but also more efficient overall even on boil. You can see this with some of the 2022 Tucson hybrid complaints where some are getting far below EPA rating, which is because they're putting the engine in high boost a lot which kills efficiency fast.

The 2.5 is also a regular port injected engine, while the 1.5 is direct injection only. Carbon buildup should be a non-issue on the former but will be an extra maintenance item on the 1.5.

A naturally aspirated 2.5 is a fairly simple low-stress engine and should be nice and easy on the oil, whereas a smaller displacement 1.5 with quite a bit of boost has the added complexity of a turbocharger, more blowby concerns, and turbos are generally just harder on oil life.

That complexity also means that the 1.5T is likely more expensive than the 2.5, and so while a hybrid would probably be higher output just like Hyundai/Kia's 1.6T hybrid is higher output (226hp), it would also probably bump the hybrid price quite a bit. For example with the Ford the hybrid is the cheaper base engine saving $1K, whereas with Hyundai/Kia the hybrid is the upgrade more expensive engine costing $1.3K extra over the base engine. So a 1.5T hybrid might be a bit of a premium over the 2.0L Ecoboost.

 

[eRock92]

You certainly can do that, and that's basically the route that Kia/Hyundai went with their 1.6T hybrid engine they put in everything.

However, the 1.5 is a three banger, so it doesn't have the inherent balance of an inline 4 or V6 or any even number of cylinder engine. Most note that with the 1.5 as well that its not as smooth as the 2.0 or 2.3 four cylinder version, especially at low RPM.

While a turbo can produce good cruising lower boost efficiency and good power output in heavy boost, rarely are they all that efficient when on boost compared to naturally aspirated when both are floored. Look at the Miata vs Spyder for example, Mazda used a naturally aspirated engine and Spyder a turbo in the same chassis, and people quickly noticed that with the Spyder when you really were flooring it a lot the fuel economy suffered much more than the Miata. The 2.5 is also an atkinson cycle engines, which are inherently a bit down on power but also more efficient overall even on boil. You can see this with some of the 2022 Tucson hybrid complaints where some are getting far below EPA rating, which is because they're putting the engine in high boost a lot which kills efficiency fast.

The 2.5 is also a regular port injected engine, while the 1.5 is direct injection only. Carbon buildup should be a non-issue on the former but will be an extra maintenance item on the 1.5.

A naturally aspirated 2.5 is a fairly simple low-stress engine and should be nice and easy on the oil, whereas a smaller displacement 1.5 with quite a bit of boost has the added complexity of a turbocharger, more blowby concerns, and turbos are generally just harder on oil life.

That complexity also means that the 1.5T is likely more expensive than the 2.5, and so while a hybrid would probably be higher output just like Hyundai/Kia's 1.6T hybrid is higher output (226hp), it would also probably bump the hybrid price quite a bit. For example with the Ford the hybrid is the cheaper base engine saving $1K, whereas with Hyundai/Kia the hybrid is the upgrade more expensive engine costing $1.3K extra over the base engine. So a 1.5T hybrid might be a bit of a premium over the 2.0L Ecoboost.

One minor correction, the 1.5L 3-cyl has both port and direct injection.

 

[kingranchero]

Nope. Base Hybrid and optional EcoBoost I4 was the plan from the start.

 

[JASmith]

One minor correction, the 1.5L 3-cyl has both port and direct injection.

Ah, crap you're right. Edited my post. Here's a mechanical review of the 1.5:

 

[rlhdweman]

I am willing to bet it is a future possibility. Check out the C/D side by side test of the 2020 Escape one with the EB2.0 & the other with the EB1.5. Pay attention to the acceleration & fuel economy parts. The acceleration would be acceptable, but I am guessing if it was installed in the Maverick max payload in the box would by 1000lb & towing no more than 1500. Less capability, but for probably 50% of the buyers it would be fine. Would it be cheaper to manufacture & sell.???

 

[eRock92]

Nope. Base Hybrid and optional EcoBoost I4 was the plan from the start.

And the man, the myth, the legend, @kingranchero has spoken. Shut 'er down. That's a wrap. Please dispose of your trash in the available receptacles. Pictures are available at the photo booth near the entrance. Have a great day.

While you're here, any ideas on when the Maverick will get AWD in another powertrain maybe possibly someday potentially... maybe?

Sponsored