Sponsored

2.0 Ecoboost expected MPG for Maverick?

Ron Neal

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Ron
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Threads
16
Messages
566
Reaction score
750
Location
SC
Vehicle(s)
Sold Ranger
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
No, not at all. It's the tradeoff for all that torque & HP from a tiny 4 cyl engine. The turbos inject a highly pressurized fuel mix into the combustion tract to get the higher power numbers and uses more fuel doing it. Also, the turbos have to be driven somehow. I don't know if they are gear driven or belt or what here but they have to use the rotation of the crankshaft in some manner to spin the turbos and that adds drag/load on the engine. Also, the AWD has to convert a single source of spinning motion to 4 separate spinning locations- more drag/load on the drivetrain. I think I read Mav has electric power steering which is now a common way to take load off the crank as there is no belt and pully added anymore to drive the old pump. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on any of that. About the only other thing Ford might do to improve MPG is go to aluminum body (at least panels like hood, tailgate, doors) like on F-15- but they won't be selling them starting at $20k anymore if they did.

Superchargers are gear or belt driven while turbos are driven by exhaust gas.
Sponsored

 

Fast64Ranchero

Well-known member
First Name
Walt
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Threads
7
Messages
115
Reaction score
193
Location
Meridian, Idaho
Vehicle(s)
Lifted 96 F150, 65 Mustang, 2021 R3
Here's my thought, Ford want a 500 mile range, if you take 500 and divide by fuel tank size you get the Combined MPG Hybrid has a 13.8 gallon tank, and the 2.0 Turbo has a 16.5 gallon tank. this puts the FWD 2.0 at 30 mpg combined. AWD will knock this down some.
 

zackmd1

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Zack
Joined
Jun 12, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
216
Reaction score
482
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
1970 Mustang 429BB / 2019 Tesla Model 3
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Here's my thought, Ford want a 500 mile range, if you take 500 and divide by fuel tank size you get the Combined MPG Hybrid has a 13.8 gallon tank, and the 2.0 Turbo has a 16.5 gallon tank. this puts the FWD 2.0 at 30 mpg combined. AWD will knock this down some.
Interesting thought… We shall see if that holds true. It might be possible Ford made some improvements to the Maverick’s tune/ aerodynamics that gives it slightly better efficiency then the Bronco Sport.
 

NHB_ZOEY

Active member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
25
Reaction score
34
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Camry XSE V6
Don’t matter I’m gonna be going 80 mph on my texas highways so I’m not late to work lol here’s hoping for 24MPG+
 

eRock92

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2021
Threads
11
Messages
173
Reaction score
258
Location
Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2020 Ford Escape SE
Engine
Undecided
Aren't MPG's a little on the overestimating side? My 1.5L 3-cyl Escape was pretty much hitting it's 33 MPG on a road trip loaded up with luggage through rain storms in slightly under inflated tires (I was too lazy) through the Appalachian Mountains hitting 60-70 mph average. I really considered seeing if I could make all 450+ miles in one tank because my math on where we would be at half a tank was off.

If I get the Maverick, I'd most likely go the hybrid route. I'm just trying to justify the 2.0L in my head. Pardon my wishful thinking and optimism on the 2.0L engine. lol
 

Sponsored

Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
19
Reaction score
17
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
'17 F150, '20 F350 Powerstroke
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Absolutely. Bed cover on my Silverado adds 1-2 highway.

also keep in mind EPA STILL tests highway mpg AT 55mph!
which is a big reason why so many people complain about cars not meeting epa estimates.

Maverick at 55mph is 1500rpm
75mph is 1860rpm. Not a massive difference but enough to knock off 1mpg or so
EPA hasn't tested at 55mph for years
 

FirstOnRaceDay

Well-known member
First Name
Devin
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Threads
24
Messages
366
Reaction score
505
Location
Toledo Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2000 Mercury Grand Marquis LS
EPA hasn't tested at 55mph for years
1 test at 55mph
1 test “up to” 80mph
3 test in stop and go traffic.

and the EPA doesn’t do the tests themselves. The manufacturers do and submit their full report and the EPA audits them.

so sure highway milage isn’t purely 55mph. But the UP TO is a grey area.
In any case in a perfect scenario, no wind flat road at sea level with cruise control set to 70mph. You are likely to get worse mpg than the “epa milage”
 

Xtreme Thunder

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
249
Reaction score
458
Location
NY
Vehicle(s)
Honda, Toyota
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
19
Reaction score
17
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
'17 F150, '20 F350 Powerstroke
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
1 test at 55mph
1 test “up to” 80mph
3 test in stop and go traffic.

and the EPA doesn’t do the tests themselves. The manufacturers do and submit their full report and the EPA audits them.

so sure highway milage isn’t purely 55mph. But the UP TO is a grey area.
In any case in a perfect scenario, no wind flat road at sea level with cruise control set to 70mph. You are likely to get worse mpg than the “epa milage”
Still not 55mph and since they changed the tests the EPA est figures are way closer to what people actually get.
 

Pairof98s

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2021
Threads
8
Messages
120
Reaction score
135
Location
NW Arkansas
Vehicle(s)
2014 Ram 1500, 2020 4Runner
The 2.0 AWD FX4 should net me close to 30mpg highway or better, which is WAY better than anything I have in my garage today. The wife's QX80 gets 15.7 no matter what. My Ram 1500 Hemi with 4" lift and 35s gets about 12 highway (but 15+ around town), and the 4Runner is 17-19. We have rented cars for road trips in the past to save on wear and tear, chances of deer incident ruining our cars, and the nasty wash and detail required after a trip. It has been nice to drop off the dirty rental and be done with it. But with a rental car shortage and higher rates, I can no longer do the 3 day weekend at $13/day with unlimited miles. The Maverick will give me (or my new teen driver) decent mpg around town and be our economy car for travel baseball and other road trips. Most of our local "City" driving is 20+ mile round trips doing 50-60 mph, so the hybrid would not be much better in that scenario than the 2.0. I hope to average 30mpg.
 
Sponsored

fishinmagician

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
342
Reaction score
443
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2022 maverick hybrid XL
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Clubs
 
The 2.0 AWD FX4 should net me close to 30mpg highway or better, which is WAY better than anything I have in my garage today. The wife's QX80 gets 15.7 no matter what. My Ram 1500 Hemi with 4" lift and 35s gets about 12 highway (but 15+ around town), and the 4Runner is 17-19. We have rented cars for road trips in the past to save on wear and tear, chances of deer incident ruining our cars, and the nasty wash and detail required after a trip. It has been nice to drop off the dirty rental and be done with it. But with a rental car shortage and higher rates, I can no longer do the 3 day weekend at $13/day with unlimited miles. The Maverick will give me (or my new teen driver) decent mpg around town and be our economy car for travel baseball and other road trips. Most of our local "City" driving is 20+ mile round trips doing 50-60 mph, so the hybrid would not be much better in that scenario than the 2.0. I hope to average 30mpg.
30mpg seems pretty optimistic, but it's all speculation until they release the numbers.
 

QuesoEnFuego

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Zach
Joined
Jun 30, 2021
Threads
6
Messages
89
Reaction score
87
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
2018 Ford Fiesta
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Is there a reasonable estimate as to when Ford will publish mpg ratings for the Ecoboost version? Are they legally obligated to publish this when they start selling Ecoboost Mavericks?
 

Tennessee

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
70
Reaction score
102
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fiesta ST
Though to say with that bed. I’m not sure how much of that will affect the milage. City might be better than what I guess. But I’m worried about highway milage.
for reference the Ridgeline drops 2mpg highway 1mpg city vs the Pilot Because of the weight and the bed
The Ford designed bed topper may improve mileage at highway speeds. It also looks like it prioritizes visibility, which would make it easy to live with.
 

Tennessee

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
70
Reaction score
102
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fiesta ST
Does anyone else find the 2.0 AWD MPGs to be lackluster? My 02 Explorer V6 4.0 4x4 is rated 16/21. For the 2.0 being half the displacement, two thirds the cylinders, being turbo, and in a significantly lighter and more modern vehicle, I really expected those numbers closer to 30.
Truck beds and modern truck styling are not friendly to fuel efficiency. 3700# is 100# less than our 1980 F-150 long bed, which had a 300ci 6cyl, a one barrel carb, and a ridiculously tall final drive for a truck. It reliably got 20 mpg, BTW.
 

Tennessee

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
70
Reaction score
102
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
Ford Fiesta ST
Aren't MPG's a little on the overestimating side? My 1.5L 3-cyl Escape was pretty much hitting it's 33 MPG on a road trip loaded up with luggage through rain storms in slightly under inflated tires (I was too lazy) through the Appalachian Mountains hitting 60-70 mph average. I really considered seeing if I could make all 450+ miles in one tank because my math on where we would be at half a tank was off.

If I get the Maverick, I'd most likely go the hybrid route. I'm just trying to justify the 2.0L in my head. Pardon my wishful thinking and optimism on the 2.0L engine. lol
A lot depends on how you drive. My Fiesta ST gets 32 mpg when driven hard, and 40+ mpg when I'm playing the mileage game
Sponsored

 
 




Top