Anybody know the drag coeffieicnt Cd number for the Maverick?

[K5Blazer]

I can’t find anything published online.
I just want the stock, baseline numbers for the EB and Hybrid, not the AWD.

About the only information I can find is from a 2009 statement from ford saying their trucks range from 0.40 to 0.44

Sponsored

 

[RedRider]

The author at https://www.automobile-catalog.com/...er_crew_awd_2_0-liter_ecoboost.html#gsc.tab=0 has estimated the Cd for the EB at 0.55. The hybrid should be identical. Its a square brick like all pickups on the road today, so if you work out the fuel costs, going 85 on a Texas highway is just plain stupid.

 

[K5Blazer]

The author at https://www.automobile-catalog.com/...er_crew_awd_2_0-liter_ecoboost.html#gsc.tab=0 has estimated the Cd for the EB at 0.55. The hybrid should be identical. Its a square brick like all pickups on the road today, so if you work out the fuel costs, going 85 on a Texas highway is just plain stupid.

That sounds wrong considering the 2009 report from Ford was much lower, and these were for full size trucks with worse aerodynamics.

 

[Darnon]

I'd wonder if it might be listed in the EPA certification test results which I thought were linked here at one point but my Google-fu is failing me at finding it.

 

[ejouie]

I'd wonder if it might be listed in the EPA certification test results which I thought were linked here at one point but my Google-fu is failing me at finding it.

Doesn't seem to be data they record.

Data on Cars used for Testing Fuel Economy | US EPA

 

[dalola]

It's up to the OEM if they want to make public Cd data.....some do, some don't, pending the model and if its worth bragging about. But they all have that data, whether shared or not.

I'm guessing the Mav is pretty good for a truck, given the styling/shape, and great EPA numbers. I'd guess somewhere in the mid/high .30's.

 

[Johnkn]

so if you work out the fuel costs, going 85 on a Texas highway is just plain stupid.

And what if someone doesn't care about the difference in fuel cost? Are Texans still stupid?

.

 

[commadorebob]

And what if someone doesn't care about the difference in fuel cost? Are Texans still stupid?

.

I think he was saying that if your concern is fuel economy, driving a glorified brick at 85MPH in a hot environment doesn't make sense. However, if you don't care about fuel economy, then do whatever as long as you don't endanger anyone else.

 

[Johnkn]

I think he was saying that if your concern is fuel economy, driving a glorified brick at 85MPH in a hot environment doesn't make sense. However, if you don't care about fuel economy, then do whatever as long as you don't endanger anyone else.

He didn't say anything about 'making sense', he stated: "so if you work out the fuel costs, going 85 on a Texas highway is just plain stupid"

..

 

[K5Blazer]

Back to my post.

I already made an educated guess about the Cd, maybe around .348? I have no doubt that it is below .400, but by how much?

I just wondered if anyone has found any confirmed values.

We can guess all we want, it doesn’t answer my question.

Maybe there aren't any verified figures out there yet. I’m just wondering if anyone else has found something.

 

[RedRider]

That sounds wrong considering the 2009 report from Ford was much lower, and these were for full size trucks with worse aerodynamics.

There is something very wrong with that report. The 2017 Dodge RAM has a published Cd of 0.52, and I'd be very hard pressed to believe that the F150 is much better than that. I see anecdotal evidence that the 2022 F150 Cd is around 0.66, which is way more believable. A 2022 Mustang is 0.43 by comparison, so having an inherently non-aerodynamic brick like a pickup measuring their claimed 0.44 seems like a serious calculation error.

 

[K5Blazer]

There is something very wrong with that report. The 2017 Dodge RAM has a published Cd of 0.52, and I'd be very hard pressed to believe that the F150 is much better than that. I see anecdotal evidence that the 2022 F150 Cd is around 0.66, which is way more believable. A 2022 Mustang is 0.43 by comparison, so having an inherently non-aerodynamic brick like a pickup measuring their claimed 0.44 seems like a serious calculation error.

2014 , USA figures show, the 2014 Ram number is 0.360 for its regular-cab 4×2 and the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab is 0.410. All 2014 4×2 Toyota Tundras have a 0.370, while all their 4x4s have a 0.380 Cd.

Quite a discrepancy.from the 2017 Cd figures you are posting.

The maverick is a unibody platform developed just a few years ago. Hard to believe there were no aerodynamic advancements from a decade ago.

Except for Tesla and Rivian, manufactures dont seem to be as willing to disclose Cd figures as they once were.

We can argue Maverick Cd theory all day long.

I didn’t ask for opinions about the Cd, I asked for credible evidence from trusted sources.

Maybe there aren’t any, who knows?

First person to find plausible or conclusive Cd figures for the Maverick wins.

 

[RLmesc]

There is absolutely no drag coefficients allowed in Florida, but you might find some at Irwindale Drag Strip in Cali...LOL

Sponsored