Actual mileage for an ecoboost

[MWR]

After waiting for an ecoboost Lariat for 2 years to no avail, I finally had to move forward with a Honda Ridgeline as I really needed a truck. I looked at the Ranger and was not impressed and could not find a Colorado so I settled for the Ridgeline. So far it is fantastic and exceeding my expectations. Due to this, I am reconsidering my long term plans to order a Maverick seeing as I am getting great mileage from the Ridgeline and it is a joy to drive.

So my question is, what real world mileage are owners getting from a Maverick Ecoboost with a 4K tow package? So far I am getting 25 - 26 mpg on the Ridgeline without a load; I averaged just under 18 mpg with a full bed of equipment and pulling a 5 x 8 Uhaul trailer fully loaded! These are long haul averages on trips that are 315 miles, not short trips. At this rate I am seriously reconsidering the Maverick, keeping the Ridgeline.

Your thoughts?

Sponsored

 

[Dmthomp32]

Well I have an FX4 Ecoboost with Falcon Wildpeak AT tires (no 4k tow package). Others seem to be getting better mpg than me. In Charlotte driving my kids to school and basically sitting in stoplights every mile I’m getting 20 mpg. When I drive for work into the mountains I get between 24-27 mpg, keep in mind that’s going up and down a couple thousand feet in elevation a bunch of times. I think if I were driving on flat terrain (like heading to the beach) I’d be closer to 29-30 mpg. Honestly I’m not real impressed right now with my mileage, I’ve been babying this truck and even tried mid grade fuel as well. No such luck in terms of improvement.

 

[bgn]

There's no point in selling the Ridgeline, most likely taking a loss on value/taxes, and eking out tiny gains from the Maverick on mileage. You should also keep in mind that the Ridgeline is closer.to the Ranger in terms of size than the Maverick.

I did a 240 mile trip this weekend with two mountain passes twice...28.5 mpg "door to door" with significantly heavier tires than stock. No tow package, which would affect the MPG too.

 

[bgn]

Well I have an FX4 Ecoboost with Falcon Wildpeak AT tires (no 4k tow package). Others seem to be getting better mpg than me. In Charlotte driving my kids to school and basically sitting in stoplights every mile I’m getting 20 mpg. When I drive for work into the mountains I get between 24-27 mpg, keep in mind that’s going up and down a couple thousand feet in elevation a bunch of times. I think if I were driving on flat terrain (like heading to the beach) I’d be closer to 29-30 mpg. Honestly I’m not real impressed right now with my mileage, I’ve been babying this truck and even tried mid grade fuel as well. No such luck in terms of improvement.

The Ecoboost doesn't do well in the city/stop and go.

 

[Dmthomp32]

The Ecoboost doesn't do well in the city/stop and go.

Yeah I’m learning that! Tonight with less traffic and more time in between lights we were up to almost 23 mpg. Unfortunately that’s just not how it is when driving in the city most days.

 

[MWR]

There's no point in selling the Ridgeline, most likely taking a loss on value/taxes, and eking out tiny gains from the Maverick on mileage. You should also keep in mind that the Ridgeline is closer.to the Ranger in terms of size than the Maverick.

I did a 240 mile trip this weekend with two mountain passes twice...28.5 mpg "door to door" with significantly heavier tires than stock. No tow package, which would affect the MPG too.

Thanks for your input. You hit my dilemma straight on; I wanted the smaller truck, being an old Ranger owner (before they upsized it) and loved it but the Ridgeline is great so the only difference would be MPG and manueverability. I still have a few weeks before the order book opens so I have some thinking to do.

 

[WildHorse]

What do you expect? Wanna everyone to say the Maverick EB has real mpg of 80, tows 10000 pound, sporty like a Porsche, rides like a Rolls-Royce?

It's an inexpensive small light truck, from day 1 to now and foreseeable future.

 

[Ford Fanatic]

I have had mine for 13 months and a total of 7,000 miles... XLT, 2.0 AWD it averages almost 30 mpg for the entire time of ownership. I bought it for $26K. I think that is significantly less than a Ridgeline. That said, I don't think it would be wise to trade for the MPG difference.
The Big difference in the price going in would have been the decider to me. Want a sporty car with the performance of a stock Fox GT Mustang?? Want a 4 door car for your family that gets excellent gas milage and rides as good as an Accord or Camry?? Want a light duty truck to do every day chores??? The answer to All is....Buy a Maverick.

 

[MWR]

Thanks for your input. This just makes it harder to decide!

 

[BryanSD]

The Ecoboost doesn't do well in the city/stop and go.

Doing well and not doing well are relative term. While the Maverick Ecoboost doesn't do as well as the hybrid, at 23 MPG for city driving I'm certainly not going to complain. My previous truck, Ford F-150 Ecoboost was only averaging at 13 MPG in the city. From my experience, It's not just the stop and go but the shorter distances that affect MPG. Ecoboost doesn't do well until the engine warms up and if you're only driving a few miles here and there in the city the turbo engine doesn't have a lot of time to "get into it's zone".

Now, it would have been interesting if Ford made a 4 cylinder non-turbo straight gas truck where it comes to city MPG. I suspect a non-turbo engine would have better City MPG than the Ecoboost but but come with some disadvantages too (especially in torque and hauling/towing capabilities).

 

[Blkraven66]

I've got a "22 Ecoboost XL AWD , stock tires and steelies . I've got 31000 miles on it. Daily driver with a 50/50 mix of country roads and highway driving. During the warm months I'm getting 31-32 mpg , during the colder weather, 28-28.5 mpg. I'm definitely a lead foot . No less than 70mph on the highway at all times .

 

[bgn]

Doing well and not doing well are relative term. While the Maverick Ecoboost doesn't do as well as the hybrid, at 23 MPG for city driving I'm certainly not going to complain. My previous truck, Ford F-150 Ecoboost was only averaging at 13 MPG in the city. From my experience, It's not just the stop and go but the shorter distances that affect MPG. Ecoboost doesn't do well until the engine warms up and if you're only driving a few miles here and there in the city the turbo engine doesn't have a lot of time to "get into it's zone".

Now, it would have been interesting if Ford made a 4 cylinder non-turbo straight gas truck where it comes to city MPG. I suspect a non-turbo engine would have better City MPG than the Ecoboost but but come with some disadvantages too (especially in torque and hauling/towing capabilities).

Good way to look at it. And yes, short trips kill mileage for sure (and oil life). The Maverick takes quite a while to fully warm up, especially in the winter. But I guess that's a truck thing.

 

[JBryant]

Do the math. Using 15,000 miles as a baseline and $3.50 per gallon for das, Yao would save a whopping $350.00 per year, $6.73 per week. Fuel alone is not the determining factor. It is vehicle cost, comfort, looks, quality, etc. We have 2 hybrid Mavericks that average 43 mpg. If they had towing, etc to match EB, you would still just save $880.00 per yr, $16.92 per week.

Your money - your call. Sounds like you like your Ridgeline, so problem solved. Next problem.

 

[WhiteMaverick12]

My '22 2.0L W/ 4K package gets about 28 MPG. Mostly city driving and AC on high. Any highway driving is with a heavy foot. If I cared more, I'm sure I could get 30+.

 

[ToneKing]

What do you expect? Wanna everyone to say the Maverick EB has real mpg of 80, tows 10000 pound, sporty like a Porsche, rides like a Rolls-Royce?

It's an inexpensive small light truck, from day 1 to now and foreseeable future.

Lighten up there Skippy. He just asked a question. Don't be hurt because someone questions your precious little Maverick.

Sponsored