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

[brnpttmn]

Adding awd is not $4500. When you build it the cost redundancy of the required Ecoboost is removed.

Ah. My bad. I had 4K tow + FX4 in my initial calcs.

Sponsored

 

[stoptothink]

I like and understand what you ae saying but how many people really understand what '"opportunity cost" is unless they took economics or marketing an enjoyed the subject?

"Opportunity cost" is one of the fundamental concepts of personal finance. If you are an adult, in charge of your own finances, and don't understand the term ...well, that is the primary reason we have individuals who make so little they don't even pay federal income tax, but are walking around with 6-figures in high-interest student loan debt and taking out 84-month loans for cars.

 

[brnpttmn]

"Opportunity cost" is one of the fundamental concepts of personal finance. If you are an adult, in charge of their own finances, and don't understand the term...well, that is the primary reason we have individuals who make so little they don't even pay federal income tax, but are walking around with 6-figures in high-interest student loan debt and taking out 84-month loans for cars.

also agree with this. I'm calculating cost:benefit (including opportunity cost and time-value terms) on any purchase over a few hundred bucks. You'll also hear people talk about "affording" something not understanding the nuances of what that means (i.e., you're always giving something up to get something).

 

[es7129]

re-read his post and the comparison---take the argument up with him, not me!

Just answering the question you asked me

 

[Mainer500]

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.

90 % of my Wife’s driving is highway (25 miles to work, 5 to 10 miles around town daily) and I didn't order the tow or FX4 packages, just the Luxury Package and some other stuff. I'm thinking she'll get 30-31 highway and a combined closer to 27-28. Her 2016 Fiesta SE gets 35 (her last check) but I'm sure she'll be fine with whatever it pans out to be. I just want to hear that it's in production

 

[BigDinTX]

Not efficient is based on what you are comparing. Much more efficient than my current vehicle. More efficient than most other AWD or 4WD configs. My guess it will get better than posted but even if it doesn’t it’s not horrible. AWD with towing and FX4 averaging 25 works just fine for me especially since I live in an area that gets snow, sleet, freezing rain and we don’t close the state when we do.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that, mine just happens to be different.

 

[vap0rtranz]

This opportunity cost is a reeeeeeeal stretch and IMO only thrown in now because the Mav is the 1st hybrid powertrain that is cheaper ($1,000 less) than its gas counterpart.

Before the Mav, every financial guru was against the more expensive hybrids because the operational ROI was 10+ years in gas savings. And then there was the old argument that hybrids depreciate more than gas, until data showed that wasn't the case either. Now Ford turned that table upside down, so some additional math is needed to justify not choosing the Hybrid.

The deck is stacked in favor of Hybrids when just bean counting.

You can say the opportunity cost is justified if you know the EB will depreciate less and AWD will be valued more in 10 years, but we just don't know that. Nobody does. Sure, 4x4s in trucks run about 4-5k in resale value right now. AWD carries some resale value, but would an owner get all $3k back? and then some? There could be another Oil Crisis and every hybrid doubles in value, so AWD resale tanks (or anything with an MPG hit) . It's just a guess in long term payback for extra $ spent.

There are much better investments to make than new cars. I can get 12-15% return just from taking 3yrs @ 0%APR financing instead of cash buy and stuffing that into microlending. But to "invest" in AWD?! Yea, I'm not gonna sink my money in thinking I'll get a huge return on it.

If you are so smart, the only car "investments" you'd be making would be in collectors like Jay Leno, not "investing" in a Maverick.

 

[Yougotmai1]

This is pretty great. Im coming from a 2015 Focus ST and I averaged about 24 mpg in that with mostly highway driving.

 

[brnpttmn]

This opportunity cost is a reeeeeeeal stretch and IMO only thrown in now because the Mav is the 1st hybrid powertrain that is cheaper ($1,000 less) than its gas counterpart.

Before the Mav, every financial guru was against the more expensive hybrids because the operational ROI was 10+ years in gas savings. And then there was the old argument that hybrids depreciate more than gas, until data showed that wasn't the case either. Now Ford turned that table upside down, so some additional math is needed to justify not choosing the Hybrid.

The deck is stacked in favor of Hybrids when just bean counting.

You can say the opportunity cost is justified if you know the EB will depreciate less and AWD will be valued more in 10 years, but we just don't know that. Nobody does. Sure, 4x4s in trucks run about 4-5k in resale value right now. AWD carries some resale value, but would an owner get all $3k back? and then some? There could be another Oil Crisis and every hybrid doubles in value, so AWD resale tanks (or anything with an MPG hit) . It's just a guess in long term payback for extra $ spent.

There are much better investments to make than new cars. I can get 12-15% return just from taking 3yrs @ 0%APR financing instead of cash buy and stuffing that into microlending. But to "invest" in AWD?! Yea, I'm not gonna sink my money in thinking I'll get a huge return on it.

If you are so smart, the only car "investments" you'd be making would be in collectors like Jay Leno, not "investing" in a Maverick.

That's exactly the point . The $3000 marginal increase in cost is not only costing that $3000, but it's costing you the return you could get on that $3000. I'm not talking about investing in the Maverick, I'm talking about the fact that you have fewer assets to invest because you're spending more on AWD.

 

[AngeloInSC]

Not efficient is based on what you are comparing. Much more efficient than my current vehicle. More efficient than most other AWD or 4WD configs. My guess it will get better than posted but even if it doesn’t it’s not horrible. AWD with towing and FX4 averaging 25 works just fine for me especially since I live in an area that gets snow, sleet, freezing rain and we don’t close the state when we do.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that, mine just happens to be different.

Exactly right. Great for the lighter duty and hot, dry roads, but let's see how that hybrid does when things get a little squirrely or you need to actually tow something substantial.

 

[bgn]

All the hybrid folks in here should be thanking us Ecoboost folks for subsidizing their builds instead of telling us we bought the wrong truck.

 

[Tulros]

I own a plug-in hybrid 2016 Sonata. My hybrid repairs EASILY have cost more than my gas savings. Check the price on the hybrid parts, inverter, charger ect they are thousands. Good luck.

I'm going 2.0EB

 

[mcarneybsa]

Not efficient is based on what you are comparing. Much more efficient than my current vehicle. More efficient than most other AWD or 4WD configs. My guess it will get better than posted but even if it doesn’t it’s not horrible. AWD with towing and FX4 averaging 25 works just fine for me especially since I live in an area that gets snow, sleet, freezing rain and we don’t close the state when we do.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that, mine just happens to be different.

The FX4 AWD that I saw in person had, on that tank of gas, gone 516 miles with an average mpg of 31.5.

 

[Radar]

Name something brand new as inexpensive, as capable, can fit in a garage, can tow 4k pounds and get better than 25mpg mixed...

Beats the heck out of my 98 3.0 Ranger. 50% better to be exact.
my first choice was the hybrid, but I tow a boat occasionally.

 

[aberdeenmeadows]

Name something brand new as inexpensive, as capable, can fit in a garage, can tow 4k pounds and get better than 25mpg mixed...

My friend has the Colorado Diesel and he gets 29mpg city. You can get them for about $28,000 but to customize like the Maverick, figure about $38,000 - $50,000 - yikes!

But yeah, we lucked out! We are going to have a story to tell in a few years! During a pandemic when most dealers are selling $5,000 or move over MSRP, chip shortages, and truck buyers having to take what they can get... Bronco and Maverick buyers actually get to order the exact vehicle they want! Sure, delivery sucks but the fact that we are able to beat the odds and get exactly what we want is very rare right now.

A friend of mine bought a truck for his business and he had to pay more and not get what he wanted. He was frustrated. He couldn't wait for the Maverick, though.

And that's it... once the smoke clears, this is going to be one hell of a truck for cannonball delivery drivers who need and upgrade. Fleets are going to go bananas over the hybrid, especially when we are at the cross-roads of going electric or not and the fact that there aren't any electric trucks on the road yet and delivery will be slower than the Maverick so to get 35-40mpg on the hybrid over 16-20mpg over what they already have will save companies a lot of money.

Sponsored