Real world Maverick Tremor MPG -- What's yours?

[brnpttmn]

well there you go, "individual results will vary" now we've circled back to what the OP originally asked for.

That variance is exactly why it's not helpful to get anecdotal individual results.

Sponsored

 

[brnpttmn]

If it's so standard then how do you explain the fact that the EPA sometimes requires manufacturers to revise their estimates because they "spot checked" and found that the manufacturer's results were outside their allowable deviation? Like I said, I agree with OP who is asking for real world mileage. The EPA didn't even test the Tremor, it's Ford's estimate and they may have their reasons for assigning a lower EPA rating to that package. This shouldn't even be a discussion, OP asked for real world mileage not a data chart based on estimates.

If it wasn't standardized they would have to correct just about 100% of the results. Are you trying to say that there is not a standard EPA test protocol? Because the dozens of pages of results and analysis that the manufacturer submits to the EPA to get certification says otherwise.
The tremor was tested by ford. It's numbers are not estimates. They are results that estimate real world average economy. I think you may be confused about the process, or the definition of estimate.

 

[GSTRIDR]

That variance is exactly why it's not helpful to get anecdotal individual results.

If the data presented by the EPA or Ford were in a format that could be broken down for individual driving habits (say, mpg at cruising speed x, y, and Z), I might agree with you. Unfortunately, they are not. As a result we are left out of their black box of testing, and can gather additional information from reports of other owners driving identical spec vehicles at known speeds.

I happen to have a commute that is 19 miles long on flowing interstate highways typically cruising at 70 mph, with short distances on/off the highway to my destination, in a temperate/warm area. I also drive long back highways to get to my hunting property. Those two make 90% of my miles, so I’m looking for reports of driving similar to my own.

Although the official test may be accurate for an average driver, I know I am not an average driver. Therefore, I put a lot of confidence in others on this forum to provide more relevant information. It’s a beautiful thing to be able to talk to people with actual experience with the actual product.

 

[brnpttmn]

If the data presented by the EPA or Ford were in a format that could be broken down for individual driving habits (say, mpg at cruising speed x, y, and Z), I might agree with you. Unfortunately, they are not. As a result we are left out of their black box of testing, and can gather additional information from reports of other owners driving identical spec vehicles at known speeds.

I happen to have a commute that is 19 miles long on flowing interstate highways typically cruising at 70 mph, with short distances on/off the highway to my destination, in a temperate/warm area. I also drive long back highways to get to my hunting property. Those two make 90% of my miles, so I’m looking for reports of driving similar to my own.

Although the official test may be accurate for an average driver, I know I am not an average driver. Therefore, I put a lot of confidence in others on this forum to provide more relevant information. It’s a beautiful thing to be able to talk to people with actual experience with the actual product.

The EPA litmus test protocols are available online. I agree it would be nice if they provided the individual results for each test along with the top line cty/hwy/overall numbers. I also agree that they're not going to nail your specific use case, but I'd rather start from good data rather than bad data (e..g, random internet posters).

It might be worth comparing your current MPGs toyour car's EPA rating and applying that delta to the Tremor EPA rating. That's probably going to be the best estimate you can get.

Sounds like your basic commute is really close to how the EPA calculates highway mileage. Your hunting trips should exceed the EPA hwy pretty easily. I can get mid 40s in the hybrid (rated 33 hwy) on country roads.

 

[NoVaJimmy]

The EPA litmus test protocols are available online. I agree it would be nice if they provided the individual results for each test along with the top line cty/hwy/overall numbers. I also agree that they're not going to nail your specific use case, but I'd rather start from good data rather than bad data (e..g, random internet posters).

It might be worth comparing your current MPGs toyour car's EPA rating and applying that delta to the Tremor EPA rating. That's probably going to be the best estimate you can get.

Sounds like your basic commute is really close to how the EPA calculates highway mileage. Your hunting trips should exceed the EPA hwy pretty easily. I can get mid 40s in the hybrid (rated 33 hwy) on country roads.

I've already poked holes in your "good data" theory. The EPA is trusting automakers to follow their protocols, multiple manufacturers have been caught falsifying data, Hyundai was one and they were sued. If the EPA put every vehicle through their testing themselves, maybe but even still their protocols account for too wide a range of driving habits and some vehicles suffer wildly from their testing procedures due to different variables. There are hundreds of hybrid owners here reporting significantly higher MPG figures with screenshots of their driving data. I'll keep saying it, OP asked for REAL WORLD data, that is real world data. I don't know why you want to die on that hill when NOBODY asked for EPA estimates.

 

[RR - All the way]

I've already poked holes in your "good data" theory. The EPA is trusting automakers to follow their protocols, multiple manufacturers have been caught falsifying data, Hyundai was one and they were sued. If the EPA put every vehicle through their testing themselves, maybe but even still their protocols account for too wide a range of driving habits and some vehicles suffer wildly from their testing procedures due to different variables. There are hundreds of hybrid owners here reporting significantly higher MPG figures with screenshots of their driving data. I'll keep saying it, OP asked for REAL WORLD data, that is real world data. I don't know why you want to die on that hill when NOBODY asked for EPA estimates.

How about both of you giving it a rest. At least until I have my second cup of coffee!!

 

[crbalch]

FIRST REAL WORLD MPG TEST [Lariat Lux Tremor]:

I commute to Chicago a few times a week (~19 mi or so). All highway outside of getting onto the highway and then a mile of lower wacker drive. Stop and go traffic but today not AS bad.

Ended up getting 24.1 MPG using CP360 the whole time (a dream for Chicago commuting). I personally couldn't care less about MPG as this vehicle will likely get less than 7k miles per year, but I'm happy with it so far.

 

[GSTRIDR]

FIRST REAL WORLD MPG TEST [Lariat Lux Tremor]:

I commute to Chicago a few times a week (~19 mi or so). All highway outside of getting onto the highway and then a mile of lower wacker drive. Stop and go traffic but today not AS bad.

Ended up getting 24.1 MPG using CP360 the whole time (a dream for Chicago commuting). I personally couldn't care less about MPG as this vehicle will likely get less than 7k miles per year, but I'm happy with it so far.

Much appreciated!

 

[brnpttmn]

I've already poked holes in your "good data" theory. The EPA is trusting automakers to follow their protocols, multiple manufacturers have been caught falsifying data, Hyundai was one and they were sued. If the EPA put every vehicle through their testing themselves, maybe but even still their protocols account for too wide a range of driving habits and some vehicles suffer wildly from their testing procedures due to different variables. There are hundreds of hybrid owners here reporting significantly higher MPG figures with screenshots of their driving data. I'll keep saying it, OP asked for REAL WORLD data, that is real world data. I don't know why you want to die on that hill when NOBODY asked for EPA estimates.

I'm not sure what you think is "good data," but if you think a small convenience sample of forum users posting their highest MPGs is at all equal to a controlled standardized fuel consumption test you don't understand anything about data validity (i.e., "good data"). I never said the EPA data was perfect (no data is), but the 2008 and 2017 revisions to testing certainly improved the ratings and I'm sure they could improve their monitoring/oversight of testing (but that takes funding). Even with the potential error, it's miniscule compared to self-reported anecdotal reporting via forum members.

The OP is interested the Tremor's efficiency in the real world. EPA data is still the best to determine that (at least as a starting point). Just look at some of the "best" "real world" data with enough observations (thousands of fill ups over millions of miles by hundreds of drivers) and you'll pretty much see normal curves with mid points ±10% of the combined EPA ratings.

 

[NoVaJimmy]

I'm not sure what you think is "good data," but if you think a small convenience sample of forum users posting their highest MPGs is at all equal to a controlled standardized fuel consumption test you don't understand anything about data validity (i.e., "good data"). I never said the EPA data was perfect (no data is), but the 2008 and 2017 revisions to testing certainly improved the ratings and I'm sure they could improve their monitoring/oversight of testing (but that takes funding). Even with the potential error, it's miniscule compared to self-reported anecdotal reporting via forum members.

The OP is interested the Tremor's efficiency in the real world. EPA data is still the best to determine that (at least as a starting point). Just look at some of the "best" "real world" data with enough observations (thousands of fill ups over millions of miles by hundreds of drivers) and you'll pretty much see normal curves with mid points ±10% of the combined EPA ratings.

no offense but I'm done with you. I am getting drastically higher mileage than what your EPA states, proven by actual data, not just hearsay or magical theoretical formulas. Newsflash, that is REAL WORLD mileage, aka, exactly what OP asked for. You just want to argue a moot point. Enjoy your EPA "data".

 

[GSTRIDR]

@crbalch - Thank you! I have the same Mav on order and currently driving a 3rd gen 4Runner... I get around 18 MPG (mostly highway) with KO2's...

This makes me unsure if I'm going to keep my Mav order as I'm not sure I can justify 40k for 5-8 more MPG...​

I’m running the same calcs, except I’m coming from a 5th gen 4Runner with KO2’s getting 16 mpg average, and looking at the lowest Tremor around $31k. Doubling my fuel economy would make it a no-brainer, but adding 30-50% is a tougher decision. I do need all four wheels of my vehicle to propel me forward through slick mud on occasion, but I rarely go over obstacles of any kind larger than a little road washout. So, I know I don’t NEED a Tremor to get where I go…. but it would add a little confidence. I just hate to have to bother my dealer again. It would be the third time I changed

 

[BayAreaTremor]

I’m running the same calcs, except I’m coming from a 5th gen 4Runner with KO2’s getting 16 mpg average, and looking at the lowest Tremor around $31k. Doubling my fuel economy would make it a no-brainer, but adding 30-50% is a tougher decision. I do need all four wheels of my vehicle to propel me forward through slick mud on occasion, but I rarely go over obstacles of any kind larger than a little road washout. So, I know I don’t NEED a Tremor to get where I go…. but it would add a little confidence. I just hate to have to bother my dealer again. It would be the third time I changed

Yeah so same boat as me - I need something that can go off-road when needed (maybe 5-7% of the year???) but feel like my 4Runner is over kill for the future. As we get older and friends are having kids, camping out of trucks and going off-roading isn't priority, its more comfortability and ease now.

So I thought the Tremor would be a perfect mix coming from a two car solution (Model 3 and 4Runner, sold the Model 3 since prices were crazy to finance the purchase of the Mav).

So I feel like my needs are totally met by the Maverick, even if I would still like to lift it a little more just for peace of mind, but don't know if I can justify spending the money when the only real difference is AWD vs 4WD, 5-8 mpg (annually that equates to what exactly monetary wise?), unknown insurance cost difference, coming into a recession when things might hit the fan...

Just seems like I should do the timing belt and cooling system and ride it out...

OR if more people keep experiencing them and saying they are the best thing ever, then maybe go through with it... I still can't decide but leaning more 4Runner because its more capable and does the same thing without having to spend 40k.

Apologies for the long post!

 

[GSTRIDR]

Yeah so same boat as me - I need something that can go off-road when needed (maybe 5-7% of the year???) but feel like my 4Runner is over kill for the future. As we get older and friends are having kids, camping out of trucks and going off-roading isn't priority, its more comfortability and ease now.

So I thought the Tremor would be a perfect mix coming from a two car solution (Model 3 and 4Runner, sold the Model 3 since prices were crazy to finance the purchase of the Mav).

So I feel like my needs are totally met by the Maverick, even if I would still like to lift it a little more just for peace of mind, but don't know if I can justify spending the money when the only real difference is AWD vs 4WD, 5-8 mpg (annually that equates to what exactly monetary wise?), unknown insurance cost difference, coming into a recession when things might hit the fan...

Just seems like I should do the timing belt and cooling system and ride it out...

OR if more people keep experiencing them and saying they are the best thing ever, then maybe go through with it... I still can't decide but leaning more 4Runner because its more capable and does the same thing without having to spend 40k.

Apologies for the long post!

Yeah. Tough to give up that best in class off road ability. Everything else is less capable, it’s just a question of how much is enough.

 

[BayAreaTremor]

Yeah. Tough to give up that best in class off road ability. Everything else is less capable, it’s just a question of how much is enough.

I was actually doing some more thinking, just based purely off MPG...

For round numbers and to make things easier, a fully loaded Maverick Tremor is $40k.

A Ranger FX4 with Tow and Tech etc - loaded... is $45k.

That being said, the Ranger has a bigger bed and is more capable, similar to the 4Runners/Taco's out there all while achieving the same gas mileage...

A used Ranger might be a great deal if someone is willing to take the older truck interior, which lets be fair, is the same quality as the new Maverick (PLASTIC HEAVEN).

Thoughts...?

 

[GSTRIDR]

I was actually doing some more thinking, just based purely off MPG...

For round numbers and to make things easier, a fully loaded Maverick Tremor is $40k.

A Ranger FX4 with Tow and Tech etc - loaded... is $45k.

That being said, the Ranger has a bigger bed and is more capable, similar to the 4Runners/Taco's out there all while achieving the same gas mileage...

A used Ranger might be a great deal if someone is willing to take the older truck interior, which lets be fair, is the same quality as the new Maverick (PLASTIC HEAVEN).

Thoughts...?

I had the same thought, but after researching it seems the real world mpg in the FX4 ranger is significantly less than the Mav’s quoted 20/24. I don’t think there is any hope of eking out 26 mpg in a Ranger FX4.

Sponsored