EcoBoost Maverick, really ?

[Old Ranchero]

I get you're smiling there but there was a lot of flack against conventional hybrids b/c of their premium price. Hybrid was a premium markup scam that took 15+yrs to payback in gas savings, blah blah blah. What Ford did here with Maverick is tilt the scales in the opposite direction. Maverick Ecoboost is more expensive to buy than the hybrid. And then the gas savings go on top as icing on the cake. So no, I'm not the foolish one.

but you still don't get the 4k towing or AWD with Hybrid- which tilts the scales back the other way. Gas savings are so miniscule as to be irrelevant in this purchase equation. I think overall hybrid ownership is more about virtue signaling (hey! look at me- I'm saving the planet!) than a well thought out purchase based on how many of your needs AND wants are satisfied in the vehicle you are purchasing.

Sponsored

 

[vap0rtranz]

So now that there's a hybrid that is cheaper than an ICE, we'll just throw out the old total cost #s and go back to tree hugger argument.

Very well played.

 

[stoptothink]

I just paid $3.96/gallon, the hybrid will save us over $1k/yr in gas alone; that's hardly virtue signaling. We have no functional need whatsoever for 4k towing and AWD although we live in a mountainous area that snows 6 months a year (and I'd bet that at least 3/4 buyers are realistically in the same boat, although it makes them feel cool to have more towing capacity and AWD). If you legitimately have the need to tow something large and serious AWD/4WD capability, have no idea why a compact pickup would even be on your list of considerations.

 

[Zepper]

If Maverick had a supercharged 5.0 Coyote w/AWD and got 10mpg for $6K, I’d be all over it. If it’s fun to drive and puts a smile on my face, it’s worth it.

Realistically that isn't ever going to be an option. Hold your breath for the 2.3L EB or 2.7EB - though i'm not sure the v6 would fit.

 

[vap0rtranz]

I just paid $3.96/gallon, the hybrid will save us over $1k/yr in gas alone; that's hardly virtue signaling.

Ditto. My partner and I have considered the Ecoboost a couple of times. Yes, for AWD. But then we run the #s. And I don't mean carbon footprint, or # of trees saved; no I mean gas $ + purchase $. It just doesn't add up. Snow tires will be cheaper to run than the few times we (may) need AWD.

The Maverick order sample on this site puts 1/4 Ecoboost to about 3/4 Hybrid and I really doubt 3 out of 4 Americans are tree hugging virtue signalers, even if Canadians are thrown into the pool.

 

[rclee]

My parents had a Honda Element. It was literally the worst handling/driving car i have ever driven. The only thing i could compare it to was driving my uncles H1 hummer - not the fake GM ones, but a real hummer. The element drove like it was a vehicle 4 times its size in every direction.

I always wonder about people who drive Elements.

Man that kind of hurts, especially since I am still driving my 06 Element. It is my daily driver until the Maverick gets here.

 

[JamesHenry]

Absolutely wrong. A hybrid does not get a LOT worse mileage on the freeway than it does in city. Its just because it gets "better AT ALL" (which has never been the case with ICE vehicles) that this even gets so much attention in the first place. My Prius was supposed to get 52 city, and 48 highway. Instead, its gotten 53 for its entire lifetime of 53K miles, and it has been driven 80% freeway.
Now, I understand this is a truck... kind of. But I suspect that this 40 mpg was obtained two ways 1) by making it a hybrid. 2) by gearing it more like a car, than a truck.

I never said it gets a lot worse mileage on the freeway. I very clearly said it wouldn't do much for me as my time spent driving is mostly highway at 75mph+. As I also said in my comment, I had a 2015 Prius. It got awesome fuel economy on the highway, but hybrids really shine the best at around town use. Most hybrids get better fuel economy with city over highway. The Prius, despite having one of the lowest cd of 0.24, gets 5mpg less on the highway than it does city. Thats not a negative ding towards hybrids as fuel economy is still better than ICE. For $800-$900/year in fuel savings... I'd rather drive something that I really want than sacrificing what I want to save some money.

Also, the number that Ford keeps throwing around (40mpg combined) is their TARGET for the hybrid. They have yet to release any official numbers for hybrid, 2wd ecoboost, and awd ecoboost.

Keep in mind you're trying to compare a Prius, which has a drag coefficient of 0.24 vs something that will have a drag coefficient of 0.32+. The Ford Escape has an estimated cd of 0.32 and the Bronco Sport has an estimated cd of .35. The plus is that the Maverick comes standard with 225/65R17 Continental ProContact tires, which are low rolling resistance and should help with fuel economy estimates. Right from this article:

"For a full-size truck, a change in drag coefficient of 0.01 is approximately equal to an improvement in fuel economy of 0.1 mpg on the combined city/highway driving cycle," says GM's Schenkel. "The same drag coefficient reduction can improve a car's fuel economy by approximately 0.2 mpg."​

​

Volvo's Frasher says the force acting against a car by the air it moves is a function of: Cd x Frontal Area x Density of Air x Speed SquaredSpeed clearly is an important part of the equation. At stop and-go speeds, drag isn't a big deal, but the faster you go, the more it matters. At 70 mph, you've got four times the force working against your vehicle that you have at 35 mph."​

​

To put Cd changes in perspective, Frasher put some numbers to a hypothetical sedan. Our imaginary car has a curb weight of 3,527 pounds, a Cd of 0.30, a frontal area of 23.7 square feet and 9 pounds of rolling resistance for every 1,000 pounds of weight. According to Frasher, "If we put a gas-burning engine in this car, expect reasonable performance and drive it on a combined driving cycle, we can expect to get 23.8 mpg…. Add 10 percent to the drag coefficient, we'll now get 23.3 mpg…. Take 10 percent from the drag coefficient, we'll now get 24.3 mpg."​

​

There is nothing wrong with hybrids and I champion for them as much as possible. I also very clearly mentioned I wish Ford had an AWD hybrid option for the Maverick as I would've ordered it. But please, continue to ignore my experience when commuting with a Prius and why I opted for the AWD Ecoboost.

 

[spyderman01]

Interesting thread. I owned a Gen2 Prius and over 7 years and 120k miles I averaged 50 MPG, but did I hate driving that thing. Better tires improved the ride but hurt the fuel economy.

I have a 2k camper that I will tow and need the extra margin to do it safely, by the time there is propone, water, supplies onboard I am easily over 2k. I want AWD, not for snow, but to drive on the beach if they'll let me, up here they require 4x4, but they let some AWD vehicles slip through.

The Maverick is $6k+ over the Ranger, but it has more interior space so a better daily driver, a lower load in height for all those trips to Lowe's, plus will be easier to park around here and while the F150 is nice, I have no interest in driving that around town at all!

Other people have their reasons for choice of Hybrid over 2.0 EB, in fact my sister is getting a Lariat Hybrid as she wanted the economy and nicer features over the AWD and towing! So we'll get to compare both and maybe I can talk her into driving over here and swapping for a while!

 

[CatsupGladiator]

I went with the AWD Ecoboost, because I'm in WI and have concerns with traction, I have driven the last 20 Years with only 2WD mostly FWD but had a RWD Ranger too. While good snow tires and weight on the drive axel help a lot, the extra traction when needed will be nice I.E. when there are black ice patches or that first quarter inch of the slipperiest snow on the HWY / Interstate. It is an uneasy feeling having the back end start fishtailing on you at 55 mph it is certainly an adrenalin rush I'd rather avoid. There are idiots out there with 4x4 or AWD that drive like maniacs because they can, buy often I will see them in the ditch 5 miles up the road because they were going too fast and the drive train they have doesn't help them stop any better than anyone else.

If a Hybrid AWD was available I may have went that way, but I'm a bit of a luddite in not trusting the batteries in the annual deep freeze where there is generally a week where we don't break 0 in January or the August heat waves in the upper 90's, I realize there is liquid cooling for the battery pack that may temper the battery pack, but I would expect the engine would need to be running to offer any temperature conditioning to the pack, I can't see this being done via the pack itself as running the battery dead to cool or warm seems counter productive. I realize there have been hybrid vehicles for 20+ years, but I generally run my vehicles to their grave, and I'm not sold on the long term life of the battery back look how quickly the packs in phones degrade.

Hybrid may still win out on MPG, I'm personally okay giving up some MPG for what I want out of a vehicle. If getting 36+ MPG is what makes you happy no judgement from me on you happy you found what works for you, just realize those that went the other way put thought into their decisions to and had to weigh pros and cons and came up with a different answer than you.

 

[Scooter66]

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)

I’m in Jacksonville totally flat.

 

[Scooter66]

Interesting thread. I owned a Gen2 Prius and over 7 years and 120k miles I averaged 50 MPG, but did I hate driving that thing. Better tires improved the ride but hurt the fuel economy.

I have a 2k camper that I will tow and need the extra margin to do it safely, by the time there is propone, water, supplies onboard I am easily over 2k. I want AWD, not for snow, but to drive on the beach if they'll let me, up here they require 4x4, but they let some AWD vehicles slip through.

The Maverick is $6k+ over the Ranger, but it has more interior space so a better daily driver, a lower load in height for all those trips to Lowe's, plus will be easier to park around here and while the F150 is nice, I have no interest in driving that around town at all!

Other people have their reasons for choice of Hybrid over 2.0 EB, in fact my sister is getting a Lariat Hybrid as she wanted the economy and nicer features over the AWD and towing! So we'll get to compare both and maybe I can talk her into driving over here and swapping for a while!

Awesome post! Bottom line is different strokes for different folks. So hybrid or 2.0 there is no wrong choice!

 

[Zepper]

Man that kind of hurts, especially since I am still driving my 06 Element. It is my daily driver until the Maverick gets here.

You're going to be so happy with this truck man. I'm so proud of you for givin the Element the heave ho!

 

[ReddWulf]

Awesome post! Bottom line is different strokes for different folks. So hybrid or 2.0 there is no wrong choice!

Agreed. This is the Maverick Truck Club, so buy the Maverick model you like and best suits your needs. Who cares what anybody else thinks and there's no need to validate your purchase over someone else's choice. I'm glad we have the choices....let's just enjoy the Mavericks (whenever we get them)!!

 

[H0pelessOpus]

I’m in Jacksonville totally flat.

Forced induction is a god send at elevation. More than willing to take the fuel economy hit for the 2.0.

 

[Scooter66]

Forced induction is a god send at elevation. More than willing to take the fuel economy hit for the 2.0.

It’s called fun!

Sponsored