25 MPG for Maverick EcoBoost 2.0L AWD, 1 MPG Less Than FWD

[brnpttmn]

In my lay-person opinion, depreciation is less of a concern for a buyer who views a vehicle as a long-term purchase and/or does not typically trade for a new model every 3-5 years.

The cost of ownership for long term buyers is the vehicle cost plus fuel and maintenance costs (oil, tires, tune-ups, cleaning, etc).

People also forget to calculate the opportunity cost in the cost of ownership. The $4500 cost of AWD @ 6% annual return could be turned into more than $8000 over 10 years of Maverick ownership.

Sponsored

 

[JASmith]

So my Camaro with the 6.2L V8 gets 25 mpg on combined driving. would think the 2.o can do better?? It better or my first Ford will be my last!

1) The Chevy smallblock is one of if not the best most efficient V8s on the planet that has cylinder deactivation technology (well they call it active fuel management, same thing)
2) The Camaro is an aerodynamic two door sports car with a small frontal area

Trucks have the aerodynamics of a barn door. Put that ecoboost in a Prius with appropriate super tall gearing, and I bet it would blow you away. Thats part of the reason that Teslas get decent range, they spend a ton of time in a wind tunnel.

 

[es7129]

Even if your city/hwy proportions were reversed (10/90) you'd still see real benefit from the hybrid. I threw this together when everyone was hyping the hwy mileage of the EB. I was surprised at even at 70-80% hwy you're still getting 25-30% more efficiency from the hybrid.

City %	Hwy %	Ecoboost	Hybrid	% diff	MPG diff	$/yr (@15K $3.50)
100​	0​	22​	40​	82%​	18​	$ 1,073.86
90​	10​	22.7​	39.3​	73%​	16.6​	$ 976.90
80​	20​	23.4​	38.6​	65%​	15.2​	$ 883.49
70​	30​	24.1​	37.9​	57%​	13.8​	$ 793.20
60​	40​	24.8​	37.2​	50%​	12.4​	$ 705.65
50​	50​	25.5​	36.5​	43%​	11​	$ 620.47
40​	60​	26.2​	35.8​	37%​	9.6​	$ 537.34
30​	70​	26.9​	35.1​	30%​	8.2​	$ 455.95
20​	80​	27.6​	34.4​	25%​	6.8​	$ 376.01
10​	90​	28.3​	33.7​	19%​	5.4​	$ 297.26
0​	100​	29​	33​	14%​	4​	$ 219.44

At $200annual savings I’d be choosing the additional 120tq & awd. No brainer for me.

No one is saying the hybrid doesn’t get better fuel economy, but the Ecoboost is actually more efficient when you factor in power output.

 

[Darnon]

1) The Chevy smallblock is one of if not the best most efficient V8s on the planet that has cylinder deactivation technology (well they call it active fuel management, same thing)

Until you have to pay for replacement cam/lifters. GM's cylinder deactivation has been a bit unreliable especially the past two MY have reportedly had a high incidence of issues.

 

[WesM]

Lol, so what are you guys actually arguing about?

Ecoboost = 250hp and 270 lbs torque, 22-29mpg AWD, or 23-30mpg FWD.
Hybrid = 190hp, 155lbs torque, 34-40mpg.

These engines/drive setups have different use cases, one is not better than the other.

 

[Jon]

Here's a Maverick EcoBoost 2.0L AWD window sticker!

The EcoBoost 2.0L AWD Engine only has an EPA 25 MPG overall rating, 29 MPG Highway and an abysmal 22 MPG for city driving.

Compare to:
FWD EcoBoost Maverick rated for 26 MPG overall
Hybrid Maverick trip computer showing 37.4 MPG

Glad that I am holding out for my Hybrid Maverick and the 40 MPG city rating (hopefully)

90% of my miles driven are city, stop and go, short trips.

I wish Ford would have offered a non turbo in the awd I would have went that route. I ended up ordering fwd model in the hybrid because my experience with turbo charged engines makes me scared to buy the 2.0

 

[Delzona]

Ordered almost the exact same truck. Skipped the tow package and co-pilot

Great quote by Eagle Bicycle Co!

 

[brnpttmn]

At $200annual savings I’d be choosing the additional 120tq & awd. No brainer for me.

No one is saying the hybrid doesn’t get better fuel economy, but the Ecoboost is actually more efficient when you factor in power output.

But that's $200/yr ($219/yr for 100% hwy) on top of the initial $4500 $3300 savings. Over 10 years (including opportunity cost) that's at least $10K in savings (> $80/mo).

 

[mrrk47]

Here's a Maverick EcoBoost 2.0L AWD window sticker!

The EcoBoost 2.0L AWD Engine only has an EPA 25 MPG overall rating, 29 MPG Highway and an abysmal 22 MPG for city driving.

Compare to:
FWD EcoBoost Maverick rated for 26 MPG overall
Hybrid Maverick trip computer showing 37.4 MPG

Glad that I am holding out for my Hybrid Maverick and the 40 MPG city rating (hopefully)

90% of my miles driven are city, stop and go, short trips.

abysmal, really? Did you expect 30 in the city? Someone else mentioned opinions, this is all this is. It's really not that bad, especially since my other car is a Fusion Energi.

 

[es7129]

But that's $200/yr ($219/yr for 100% hwy) on top of the initial $4500 savings. Over 10 years (including opportunity cost) that's at least $10K in savings (> $80/mo).

Not for me. I ordered an XLT hybrid but had I gone with an AWD Ecoboost I would’ve ordered an XL with 360.
The difference between a hybrid and an AWD Ecoboost is only about $3300 when comparing with the same trim/equipment. I’d bet the XL AWD Ecoboost is worth more than the XLT hybrid in 10 years.

 

[JKinPA]

I will get what I want and be happy

 

[brnpttmn]

At $200annual savings I’d be choosing the additional 120tq & awd. No brainer for me.

No one is saying the hybrid doesn’t get better fuel economy, but the Ecoboost is actually more efficient when you factor in power output.

I'm no expert on EPA ratings, but I don't think we know the "power output" at which they're calculating the numbers. We know the max power of the engines, but I assume the ratings are made at a more normal power output. Which I assume is more for the EB but not necessarily at the same ratio at the max output. But frankly, I have to clue so I'd welcome anyone more informed to chime in.

 

[brnpttmn]

Not for me. I ordered an XLT hybrid but had I gone with an AWD Ecoboost I would’ve ordered an XL with 360.
The difference between a hybrid and an AWD Ecoboost is only about $3300 when comparing with the same trim/equipment. I’d bet the XL AWD Ecoboost is worth more than the XLT hybrid in 10 years.

Sure, but you could have also gone for the XL with Hybrid and saved the $$ again. It's all cost:benefit, and it only makes sense to calculate those costs and benefits in isolation of other variables.

 

[WVX76]

I’m tickled with the MPG of the 2.0. Replacing a 262 hp Nissan Pathfinder that gets around 15 mpg combined. For me, AWD, towing, and power for high altitude mountain passes are crucial. I’ll be saving 40% on fuel, which at current prices is around $120!

If I lived in California at sea level and my boat was a paddle board, I would be all over the Hybrid. It would be a no brainer. I’m happy there are two distinct options.

 

[Morgan33]

20/20 Kia Sportage is 23 and 30.
Still not bad for a small truck.
But that's one of the reasons I was waiting for the hybrid. If I wanted 25 and 29 I would just keep the car I was in and get a trailer.

Sponsored