EcoBoost Maverick, really ?

[Wire4money]

Okay a fact. On the highway the hybrid gets 34mpg not 40. The electric motor only helps in city driving. So the difference between the 2.0 and the hybrid is not too terribly big. The good news is that the more car companies build electric the better they will be and the cost will come down.

And the ecoboost will only get 21 or so in the city. That’s 60% more.

Sponsored

 

[vap0rtranz]

Okay a fact. On the highway the hybrid gets 34mpg not 40.

You're forgetting that someone claimed their Jeep Cherokee could get better MPG @ 70MPH than the rated 60MPH from the EPA highway. Well, then the Hybrid will get even MORE MPGs than 34! Or is there some special exception to this rule of more efficiency at higher speed?

 

[Scooter66]

And the ecoboost will only get 21 or so in the city. That’s 60% more.

80% of my driving is on the highway. So buy the truck with the engine that fits your needs.

 

[Didj]

Were you part of the Element Owners Club?!

I was…never posted much.

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

You're forgetting that someone claimed their Jeep Cherokee could get better MPG @ 70MPH than the rated 60MPH from the EPA highway. Well, then the Hybrid will get even MORE MPGs than 34! Or is there some special exception to this rule of more efficiency at higher speed?

My HCH2 was optimized for 65 mph. I got 44 mpg with everything right, not drafting. At 75 it dropped to about 36mpg. At 80, 29.7 ish.

I never figured out why Honda optimized for a 65mph target speed. But then I also never figured out why the HCH3 was a worse vehicle than the 2.
34 is about what I get now in my HCH2 without the battery. I calculated what gas would have to cost to make it worth while for a 2500$ 75k battery to be worth the fuel economy increase… about 12$ A gallon.

I am looking forward to seeing how long the battery pack will last in GA heat. Fortunately batteries have improved substantially in 14 years.

 

[Fish Chris]

Okay a fact. On the highway the hybrid gets 34mpg not 40. The electric motor only helps in city driving. So the difference between the 2.0 and the hybrid is not too terribly big. The good news is that the more car companies build electric the better they will be and the cost will come down.

Wait ... So you have already driven one ?
My Prius was listed at 52 / 48... And yet I've gotten 53 for the entire 53K I've owned it.... With a bunch, in fact, the majority freeway driving. I know it might be different with the Maverick because if gearing and such, but I'd be surprised to see it only get 34 for a combined total. I'd expect at least 38.... Which is be okay with.

 

[jimmy fitzwell]

Adding all wheel drive to a front wheel drive truck doesnt help in inclement weather.
Adding all wheel drive to a rear wheel drive truck does help in inclement weather.

I can tell you with a high degree of certainty, considering snow to be inclement weather, AWD is a big, big, big help over FWD.
I'm not sure about adding AWD to a RWD truck; never heard of it.

 

[Scooter66]

Wait ... So you have already driven one ?
My Prius was listed at 52 / 48... And yet I've gotten 53 for the entire 53K I've owned it.... With a bunch, in fact, the majority freeway driving. I know it might be different with the Maverick because if gearing and such, but I'd be surprised to see it only get 34 for a combined total. I'd expect at least 38.... Which is be okay with.

I didn’t say combined total. No, I have not driven one. This is my first experience with a vehicle that has a standard hybrid engine. So I was a bit educated when I learned that this particular hybrid gets better city mileage than highway. I don’t know, but maybe all hybrids get better city than highway. I commute to work 25 miles each way and 18 of those are on I95. So the 2.0 is not a bad choice for me especially if I can take the Maverick on the beach or up into the mountains with the available AWD.

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

80% of my driving is on the highway. So buy the truck with the engine that fits your needs.

Also if you are in hilly terrain as I am in the North GA mountain foothills, the hybrid systems improve mileage by charging the battery going downhill with regenerative energy and assist in going uphill with assist.

Now, if you are in flat terrain, that is of minimal benefit, but I only know i35,635,20,40,75,85, and 285 most of our state highways are hilly but around ATL even the interstates are a bit variable with all the overpasses.
Just some additional thoughts. (i20,35 and 40 are so flat you can watch them disappear along the curvature of the planet)

 

[Ron Neal]

Interesting thread and I was taught long ago:
1. there are liars
2. there are damn liars
3. there are statistics

 

[eRock92]

Don't feel like going through all 9 pages, but has anyone mentioned that the speculated 26 mpg on the ICE Maverick was based on that picture of the dash of a Lariat FX4 version? I would assume the AWD 2.0L non-FX4 and non-4K Tow with standard all-season tires would have better mpg; the FWD version being even better.

 

[CLH917]

Don't feel like going through all 9 pages, but has anyone mentioned that the speculated 26 mpg on the ICE Maverick was based on that picture of the dash of a Lariat FX4 version? I would assume the AWD 2.0L non-FX4 and non-4K Tow with standard all-season tires would have better mpg; the FWD version being even better.

If you omit misconceptions, misinformation, and just shitting on what other people like for their respective reasons then you missed nothing

 

[DavidS]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more power, and the double the towing is awesome...
But id just think that mileage would be more important for most folks.
I'm hearing that the 2.0 ECO boost will likely get somewhere around 26mpg, which impo, is about as terrible as I'd expect from a small ICE truck.

I would have guessed (before coming to this forum) Ford would sell 10 to 1 of the 2.5L hybrids to the 2.0 ECO boost, but apparently not

From a personal standpoint, if I had to stick to an ICE truck, I'd just stick with my F150. That truck is my baby, I can just barely afford to drive it

A lot of people are opting for the EcoBoost for the AWD. Personally, I prefer mechanical engines that I can work on. I don't see the value in electric vehicles, but there's a lot of liability in the batteries going bad. Also, I want that extra towing capacity.

 

[r100gs91]

Switched my order to the Hybrid. The days of $4 gas even here in the midwest is not that far away. There is probably a 40% chance I will walk away after a test drive. Not sure I can live with the "funky eclectic" interior. My test drive will determine whether I purchase or not. The cruise control will need to work well at holding 60mph speeds in my hilly terrain that I drive frequently. There will be 4 of those on my test drive.

 

[pxpaulx]

Don't feel like going through all 9 pages, but has anyone mentioned that the speculated 26 mpg on the ICE Maverick was based on that picture of the dash of a Lariat FX4 version? I would assume the AWD 2.0L non-FX4 and non-4K Tow with standard all-season tires would have better mpg; the FWD version being even better.

I don't think we know whether the 4k tow would have any impact on the final mpg (probably not enough for it to receive a separate EPA rating) - but it is fairly common for a FWD equivalent to at least have 1-2mpg improvement over an AWD equivalent drivetrain.

It will be interesting for us all to find out what the final MPG numbers are - I would guess they'll be 3-4 better overall than my 2019 Ranger fx4. OK so I just looked at my Ranger's fuelly...it is 20.4 overall, yikes. But, at 12k miles, it is barely broken in, and with the pandemic my trips are 80% 10 miles or less, so not surprising. Best trips are 23-25mpg, I know those were all highway too. Also, last April I paid $1.63/gallon to fill up with premium! Where was my 1,000 gallon tank when I needed it.

Sponsored