Sponsored

2.0 Ecoboost expected MPG for Maverick?

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
That is the older HP rating the 2.0L EcoBoost has been 250Hp for several years
They always low ball the numbers for some reason. 1.5 and 2.0 was estimated way lower on the bronco sport than actual
Sponsored

 

Salwans

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Threads
19
Messages
68
Reaction score
40
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
2010 Audi A4
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
The Maverick 2.0 AWD MPG will likely be somewhere between that of the Bronco Sport Badlands and the Escape Titanium AWD.

Things to consider:
1. The Maverick 2.0 AWD and the Badlands weigh about the same (~3,700 lbs, while the Titanium is ~150 lbs lighter)
2. 4WD drivetrain on the Badlands, versus AWD on the other two vehicles. 4WD = more moving parts even when in 2WD mode, creating additional drag.
3. A/T tires on the Badlands, slightly less efficient than the AS tires on the other two vehicles.
4. The Maverick's final gear ratio (3.47) (3.63) is smack in the middle of the other two.

I am venturing a guess that the Maverick 2.0 AWD MPG is somewhere in the middle (22 city? 28-29 Highway?) I'm sold.
 
Last edited:

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
The Maverick 2.0 AWD MPG will likely be somewhere between that of the Bronco Sport Badlands and the Escape Titanium AWD.

Things to consider:
1. The Maverick 2.0 AWD and the Badlands weigh about the same (~3,700 lbs, while the Titanium is ~150 lbs lighter)
2. 4WD drivetrain on the Badlands, versus AWD on the other two vehicles. 4WD = more moving parts even when in 2WD mode, creating additional drag.
3. A/T tires on the Badlands, slightly less efficient than the AS tires on the other two vehicles.
4. The Maverick's final gear ratio (3.47) is smack in the middle of the other two.

I am venturing a guess that the Maverick 2.0 AWD MPG is somewhere in the middle (22 city? 28-29 Highway?) I'm sold.
Final gears are 3.63 for the AWD. 3.81 if you get the tow package. You are likely correct though that non tow package AWD might do slightly better then the Bronco Sport Badlands but I expect the tow package to meet or be slightly below the Badlands.
 

Salwans

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Threads
19
Messages
68
Reaction score
40
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
2010 Audi A4
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Final gears are 3.63 for the AWD. 3.81 if you get the tow package. You are likely correct though that non tow package AWD might do slightly better then the Bronco Sport Badlands but I expect the tow package to meet or be slightly below the Badlands.
Oops, typo. Final gears are 3.47 3.63. Thanks for catching it.
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

TylerDurden

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
91
Reaction score
136
Location
Chicago, IL
Vehicle(s)
2003 Mercury Marauder & 2002 Ford Explorer
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
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.
 

technolithic

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
88
Reaction score
179
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
NA
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.
The expected efficiency is very underwhelming. Makes me just want to put A/T tires on the FWD and live it
 

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
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.
itā€™s the bed. If it was an suv the highway milage would be close to 30.
The 2010 Ranger 4x4 4.0 v6 only got 14c18h 16 combine.

so the Maverick 2.0 AWD with the
3.63 rear. Will Likely get 23c 26h 24 combine. So a considerable amount better.
 

dano0726

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
196
Reaction score
276
Location
NW Houston
Vehicle(s)
2011 Jeep JK Wrangler Sport
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Our Badlands is like a Prius to me, compared to my Jeep JK Wrangler with the 3.8L hog.......I'd kill or maim for a consistent 13 mpg for 100% city driving.
 

Ems

2.0L EcoBoost
Member
First Name
E
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
13
Reaction score
35
Location
Dfw
Vehicle(s)
2020 ranger xlt
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
itā€™s the bed. If it was an suv the highway milage would be close to 30.
The 2010 Ranger 4x4 4.0 v6 only got 14c18h 16 combine.

so the Maverick 2.0 AWD with the
3.63 rear. Will Likely get 23c 26h 24 combine. So a considerable amount better.
my 2020 ranger gets every bit of the epa estimate, and itā€™s a 2.3 turbo. I donā€™t really get why this 2.0 couldnā€™t do better with a significantly lighter vehicle šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø
 
Sponsored

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
my 2020 ranger gets every bit of the epa estimate, and itā€™s a 2.3 turbo. I donā€™t really get why this 2.0 couldnā€™t do better with a significantly lighter vehicle šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø
Biggest difference is gearing.
ranger has 2 more gears. That makes a massive difference
 

Old Ranchero

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Threads
26
Messages
2,587
Reaction score
3,497
Location
CO
Vehicle(s)
2018 F-150 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2022 Maverick
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
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.
No, not at all. It's the tradeoff for all that torque & HP from a tiny 4 cyl engine. The turbo injecst a highly pressurized fuel mix into the combustion tract to get the higher power numbers and uses more fuel doing it. 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 pulley 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-150- but they won't be selling them starting at $20k anymore if they did.
 
Last edited:

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
my 2020 ranger gets every bit of the epa estimate, and itā€™s a 2.3 turbo. I donā€™t really get why this 2.0 couldnā€™t do better with a significantly lighter vehicle šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø
the Maverick 2.0 with the 3.63 rear 8 speed has virtually the same gear range as the ranger 2.3 3.73 10 speed.
~17.4 - ~2.3. Both around 1860rpm at 70mph and 1500rpm at 55mph.

so the 2 extra gears fill more gaps.
 

oljackfrost

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Threads
38
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
1,797
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
They're all sold, waiting for Maverick
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
itā€™s the bed. If it was an suv the highway milage would be close to 30.
The 2010 Ranger 4x4 4.0 v6 only got 14c18h 16 combine.

so the Maverick 2.0 AWD with the
3.63 rear. Will Likely get 23c 26h 24 combine. So a considerable amount better.
A bed cover would help. Pretty sure EPA tests without.
 

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
A bed cover would help. Pretty sure EPA tests without.
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
Sponsored

 
 




Top