~$30K Utility Vehicles Compared: Maverick vs Santa Cruz and Tucson - Specs & Pricing

[hcforde]

You may be correct but think it will be a little better. I need some hard numbers not interpolation from other 2.0 user groups. My 20 Ranger had the 2.3 EB and got the best mileage (towing and non towing) of the 3 mid size trucks I owned, the other two were normally aspirated V6's but that doesn't mean everyone else will get the same results.

Your normally aspirated trucks were from older model years than 2020 Ranger so the engine technology has changed from 2010 Frontier till now.

Real time users are the hard numbers. Aerodynamics are the aerodynamics. Trucks have worse MPG's because of aerodynamics. If 2.0EB users are reporting their towing mpg numbers in cars how can a truck be better? The same people driving a 2.3 EB will get better towing numbers because the engine is stronger, not because they have changed their driving habits. Yes the 2.3EB is MUCH stronger.

The 2.0EB will strain at towing and so many people are going to push the limits of the Maverick and be surprised at the gas pump. The data shows that, naturally aspirated is better at towing, mpg wise, than a turbo.(everybody drives differently and that can have an impact) I even looked at what it would cost to put a 2.3EB in a Maverick. The crate 2.3 is anywhere between $5000-$6000. If Ford put a 2.3EB in a Maverick that would eat into the Ranger sales. Ford put the 2.0 in the Maverick for a purpose and you do not hear them touting their towing mpg's as being stellar.

The reason Turbo engines have bad MPG - Thermal efficiency and compression ratio are directly correlated. To reduce the temperature, you have to dump more fuel to protect the engine with a higher fuel to air ratio, and your fuel economy goes out the window. So when you ask for full power, turbocharged engines aren’t as efficient because of the high fuel to air mixture that’s needed to protect the engine. (from motorbiscuit,com)

Sponsored

 

[JASmith]

The reason Turbo engines have bad MPG - Thermal efficiency and compression ratio are directly correlated. To reduce the temperature, you have to dump more fuel to protect the engine with a higher fuel to air ratio, and your fuel economy goes out the window. So when you ask for full power, turbocharged engines aren’t as efficient because of the high fuel to air mixture that’s needed to protect the engine. (from motorbiscuit,com)

Decent intercoolers and direct injection like the 2.0 Ecooboost has addresses the temperature issue pretty well, you're just way more resistant to knock compared to port injection.

Compression ratios on turbocharged engines are also not static. At low boost, its true you have slightly less efficiency because of the lower compression ratio, but that's compensated somewhat by lower pumping losses since you're able to convert some wasted thermal energy from the exhaust into spinning the turbine and pre-compressing the intake and not having to fight a vacuum. On boost, the compression ratio is effectively increased since the turbo is doing some of the compression work too. Basically, a turbocharger is like having a multi-displacement multi-compression ratio engine.

So that article is a bit outdated, and if we look at the F-150 for 2020 the 5.0L Coyote engine competes pretty well with the 2.7L Ecoboost. The Coyote has higher top end power but less low end and visa versa, and the Coyote costs $800 more.

According to fuelly, average fuel economy over 500K miles tracked for the V8 gave 16.1mpg. For the 2.7L Ecoboost it averages over 800K miles tracked as 18.8mpg, which doesn't sound like a lot but is about a 20% efficiency increase.

 

[Ron Neal]

Your normally aspirated trucks were from older model years than 2020 Ranger so the engine technology has changed from 2010 Frontier till now.

Real time users are the hard numbers. Aerodynamics are the aerodynamics. Trucks have worse MPG's because of aerodynamics. If 2.0EB users are reporting their towing mpg numbers in cars how can a truck be better? The same people driving a 2.3 EB will get better towing numbers because the engine is stronger, not because they have changed their driving habits. Yes the 2.3EB is MUCH stronger.

The 2.0EB will strain at towing and so many people are going to push the limits of the Maverick and be surprised at the gas pump. The data shows that, naturally aspirated is better at towing, mpg wise, than a turbo.(everybody drives differently and that can have an impact) I even looked at what it would cost to put a 2.3EB in a Maverick. The crate 2.3 is anywhere between $5000-$6000. If Ford put a 2.3EB in a Maverick that would eat into the Ranger sales. Ford put the 2.0 in the Maverick for a purpose and you do not hear them touting their towing mpg's as being stellar.

The reason Turbo engines have bad MPG - Thermal efficiency and compression ratio are directly correlated. To reduce the temperature, you have to dump more fuel to protect the engine with a higher fuel to air ratio, and your fuel economy goes out the window. So when you ask for full power, turbocharged engines aren’t as efficient because of the high fuel to air mixture that’s needed to protect the engine. (from motorbiscuit,com)

I don't want to get into a pissing contest but it seems since you decided to buy a new Frontier you start ragging on anyone who buys a 2.0EB Maverick and wants to tow what Ford says you can tow. I don't really care about towing mileage but still think your estimated mpg numbers may be incorrect (or not) but I will wait and see and I didn't say a truck got better mileage towing, all I said was I want to see hard numbers for the Maverick not other users so I guess we can just agree to disagree.

 

[hcforde]

Decent intercoolers and direct injection like the 2.0 Ecooboost has addresses the temperature issue pretty well, you're just way more resistant to knock compared to port injection.

Compression ratios on turbocharged engines are also not static. At low boost, its true you have slightly less efficiency because of the lower compression ratio, but that's compensated somewhat by lower pumping losses since you're able to convert some wasted thermal energy from the exhaust into spinning the turbine and pre-compressing the intake and not having to fight a vacuum. On boost, the compression ratio is effectively increased since the turbo is doing some of the compression work too. Basically, a turbocharger is like having a multi-displacement multi-compression ratio engine.

So that article is a bit outdated, and if we look at the F-150 for 2020 the 5.0L Coyote engine competes pretty well with the 2.7L Ecoboost. The Coyote has higher top end power but less low end and visa versa, and the Coyote costs $800 more.

According to fuelly, average fuel economy over 500K miles tracked for the V8 gave 16.1mpg. For the 2.7L Ecoboost it averages over 800K miles tracked as 18.8mpg, which doesn't sound like a lot but is about a 20% efficiency increase.

Of the people that buy a Maverick, how many of them are going to add an intercooler? How many of them actually know what it is? They can also modify their exhaust system for better mpg also, how many actual will? For every person the buys an intercooler how many more are going to buy the car hearing the weight restrictions(maybe), and load it up. Because you are knowledgeable about it does not mean the average joe is.

 

[hcforde]

I don't want to get into a pissing contest but it seems since you decided to buy a new Frontier you start ragging on anyone who buys a 2.0EB Maverick and wants to tow what Ford says you can tow. I don't really care about towing mileage but still think your estimated mpg numbers may be incorrect (or not) but I will wait and see and I didn't say a truck got better mileage towing, all I said was I want to see hard numbers for the Maverick not other users so I guess we can just agree to disagree.

Pissing contest, nah! just knowing human nature about how people push things to the limit and have the potential to put others, if not themselves in danger. I am not one of those people. BTW maybe you missed the part of why I am buying an Frontier AND a Maverick Hybrid. Apparently I like the Maverick so much that I am willing to keep my place in line after learning about the towing limitations of the 2.0EB (1. The 4Ktow nixed from FWD car, 2. from a Ford mechanic) and instead, get a hybrid. Rather than say "I know this mechanic that said", I looked it up for myself and there was consistency on numerous sites(end users and mechanic sites) about the gas mileage of the 2.0EB under towing conditions. There are also numerous sites talking about the aerodynamics of cars VS trucks. If you add to that a trailer(travel or cargo) you have a large flat surface that must be overcome aerodynamically. I also explained that I will be towing a trailer back and forth to Michigan from Texas as well as hauling blueberries around Michigan. I am getting the Frontier because I wish to travel that 1200 miles in 2 days maximum, not 3 days.

The 2.0EB is a great engine for that extra punch but I have yet to see it being praised for its towing ability at highway speed and great gas mileage. I am not in a contest with you but explaining my position and why I have that position.

I also keep my cars for a long time. Once I got seriously overloaded in my 4.7L Toyota Sequoia, I could feel it and my gas mileage was crap. Same only more so with the2.0EB There are people on this forum talking about how 4000lbs is under the capability of the Maverick and is only about 80% of want it can do.

 

[JASmith]

Of the people that buy a Maverick, how many of them are going to add an intercooler?

It comes with a modern intercooler and direct injection straight from the factory, no modification required.

A bit moot though, as I doubt the Maverick will ever end up as someone's dedicated tow rig, meaning most of the miles will be without a trailer, and just occasionally hooking one up for a weekend w/ a small fishing boat or jet ski or whatever.

Not that I'm hating on naturally aspirated engines, as that's what I have in my current truck. Being naturally aspirated generally just means a much simpler engine with less moving parts, and simpler tends to be more long-term reliable and the throttle response and engine braking are more immediate and predictable. Boosted engines tend to be harder on oil and plugs, system is pressurized so you can have leaks, there's extra parts involved in making and managing the boost, direct injected engines unlike port can and will eventually carbon foul, yada yada. So its not like boosted is just always better, and the only time they are absolutely a no-brainer is if you're at high altitudes a lot as they pretty much ignore altitude differences unlike naturally aspirated engines that can feel pretty weak up in the mountains.

 

[Ron Neal]

Pissing contest, nah! just knowing human nature about how people push things to the limit and have the potential to put others, if not themselves in danger. I am not one of those people. BTW maybe you missed the part of why I am buying an Frontier AND a Maverick Hybrid. Apparently I like the Maverick so much that I am willing to keep my place in line after learning about the towing limitations of the 2.0EB (1. The 4Ktow nixed from FWD car, 2. from a Ford mechanic) and instead, get a hybrid. Rather than say "I know this mechanic that said", I looked it up for myself and there was consistency on numerous sites(end users and mechanic sites) about the gas mileage of the 2.0EB under towing conditions. There are also numerous sites talking about the aerodynamics of cars VS trucks. If you add to that a trailer(travel or cargo) you have a large flat surface that must be overcome aerodynamically. I also explained that I will be towing a trailer back and forth to Michigan from Texas as well as hauling blueberries around Michigan. I am getting the Frontier because I wish to travel that 1200 miles in 2 days maximum, not 3 days.

The 2.0EB is a great engine for that extra punch but I have yet to see it being praised for its towing ability at highway speed and great gas mileage. I am not in a contest with you but explaining my position and why I have that position.

I also keep my cars for a long time. Once I got seriously overloaded in my 4.7L Toyota Sequoia, I could feel it and my gas mileage was crap. Same only more so with the2.0EB There are people on this forum talking about how 4000lbs is under the capability of the Maverick and is only about 80% of want it can do.

I understand your position and no one can argue purchasing a bigger truck if it meets your towing needs better and we can both agree that the Maverick is not a tow monster. It has its limitations and if new buyers look at tow calculators that should answer most questions they have.
All my questions will be answered when its in my garage. I have not seen any formal road tests nor even driven one so I can't comment on its capabilities or mpg other than what info Ford has given us. I am sure you will enjoy your new Mav hybrid and hopefully you will get scheduled soon if not already.

 

[hcforde]

It comes with a modern intercooler and direct injection straight from the factory, no modification required.

A bit moot though, as I doubt the Maverick will ever end up as someone's dedicated tow rig, meaning most of the miles will be without a trailer, and just occasionally hooking one up for a weekend w/ a small fishing boat or jet ski or whatever.

Not that I'm hating on naturally aspirated engines, as that's what I have in my current truck. Being naturally aspirated generally just means a much simpler engine with less moving parts, and simpler tends to be more long-term reliable and the throttle response and engine braking are more immediate and predictable. Boosted engines tend to be harder on oil and plugs, system is pressurized so you can have leaks, there's extra parts involved in making and managing the boost, direct injected engines unlike port can and will eventually carbon foul, yada yada. So its not like boosted is just always better, and the only time they are absolutely a no-brainer is if you're at high altitudes a lot as they pretty much ignore altitude differences unlike naturally aspirated engines that can feel pretty weak up in the mountains.

Yes, some of the dual turbos on bigger machines are simply beast!!

 

[Nw_adventure]

Your normally aspirated trucks were from older model years than 2020 Ranger so the engine technology has changed from 2010 Frontier till now.

Real time users are the hard numbers. Aerodynamics are the aerodynamics. Trucks have worse MPG's because of aerodynamics. If 2.0EB users are reporting their towing mpg numbers in cars how can a truck be better? The same people driving a 2.3 EB will get better towing numbers because the engine is stronger, not because they have changed their driving habits. Yes the 2.3EB is MUCH stronger.

The 2.0EB will strain at towing and so many people are going to push the limits of the Maverick and be surprised at the gas pump. The data shows that, naturally aspirated is better at towing, mpg wise, than a turbo.(everybody drives differently and that can have an impact) I even looked at what it would cost to put a 2.3EB in a Maverick. The crate 2.3 is anywhere between $5000-$6000. If Ford put a 2.3EB in a Maverick that would eat into the Ranger sales. Ford put the 2.0 in the Maverick for a purpose and you do not hear them touting their towing mpg's as being stellar.

The reason Turbo engines have bad MPG - Thermal efficiency and compression ratio are directly correlated. To reduce the temperature, you have to dump more fuel to protect the engine with a higher fuel to air ratio, and your fuel economy goes out the window. So when you ask for full power, turbocharged engines aren’t as efficient because of the high fuel to air mixture that’s needed to protect the engine. (from motorbiscuit,com)

So assuming 14-17mpg under load with a 2300 LB trailer @ 5000k feet elevation and 70 miles per hour kind of thing ?

 

[hcforde]

So assuming 14-17mpg under load with a 2300 LB trailer @ 5000k feet elevation and 70 miles per hour kind of thing ?

The 5000k ft elevation might knock mpg down lower because the turbos will have to work harder, BUT the 2300lbs should not be an issue. How big is your surface area that will cause resistance? That will be the biggest issue. 60-65mph TOPS is also a sweet spot. I hope you can get that, and I hope I am totally wrong. because I want this vehicle to do very well across the board.

 

[Nw_adventure]

Yes, some of the dual turbos on bigger machines are simply beast!!

Looking forward to the Turbo @ Elevation- Had a turbo Eclipse back in Seattle @ Sea level and it wasn't super exciting with how heavy the car was with AWD-How good are the 2.0 Pistons/ block Could you it handle a slightly bigger turbo after warranty expires ?

 

[hcforde]

Looking forward to the Turbo @ Elevation- Had a turbo Eclipse back in Seattle @ Sea level and it wasn't super exciting with how heavy the car was with AWD-How good are the 2.0 Pistons/ block Could you it handle a slightly bigger turbo after warranty expires ?

You might want to try an intercooler and a 3" exhaust!

 

[Nw_adventure]

The 5000k ft elevation might knock mpg down lower because the turbos will have to work harder, BUT the 2300lbs should not be an issue. How big is your surface area that will cause resistance? That will be the biggest issue. 60-65mph TOPS is also a sweet spot. I hope you can get that, and I hope I am totally wrong. because I want this vehicle to do very well across the board.

Not exactly sure how to calculate sweep/contour 95 inches high/86 wide while deducting under carriage pass thru- Looking at the Alto F1743-

 

[JKinPA]

I got the towing package but will probably never use. I wanted the upgrades. A fair amount of assumptions going on. It’s a unibody AWD. It’s not an F150 or a Ranger and most of us know capabilities. I currently have a Mountaineer with a V8 and I have had several F150’s . The Mav is a small but very versatile truck with a 4 cyl turbo. I know what it is and it’s limitation. Not sure why I am even posting this, possibly because I felt like my intelligence was questioned.

 

[hcforde]

Not exactly sure how to calculate sweep/contour 95 inches high/86 wide while deducting under carriage pass thru- Looking at the Alto F1743-

Let me ask you a question? How long will you keep it? How much will you use it?

Aerodynamically it is a superb unit. Cost of it is what made me go in a different direction. After the warranty is over if it is a bit sluggish (over 50-60,000 miles) you might want to take the Maverick in and have the engine walnut shell blasted to get rid of the carbon build-up.

Sponsored