Impressions from Maverick 2.0L trainer. Legroom tested. 31-35 MPG reported.

[Bushmaster2000]

Not sure why but the thing that jumps out at my with your picture is how low-ish it sits to the ground. I'm coming from an F150 so i think i'm going to need to get used to riding lower to the ground with the common car-folk lol. Wonder if there will be lift kits available? Good 6 inch lift should get me up to where i'm used to ?

Sponsored

 

[STARCOMMTREY1]

Not sure why but the thing that jumps out at my with your picture is how low-ish it sits to the ground. I'm coming from an F150 so i think i'm going to need to get used to riding lower to the ground with the common car-folk lol. Wonder if there will be lift kits available? Good 6 inch lift should get me up to where i'm used to ?

Im coming from a fx4 350......Of course that one is staying....But I drive a min of 120 miles per day....the hybrid will pay for itself every month.

 

[jonathan1994]

Yes, the electric motor is of minimal help at constant highways speeds, but there is virtually zero chance the 2.0 ecoboost is as efficient as the Atkinson cycle at highway speeds. That is literally the purpose of Atkinson cycle engines in hybrids; its expansion ratio is significantly larger than its compression ratio resulting in decreased low speed output (which can be made up by the electric motor) but greater efficiency at higher speeds. Then you have to consider the transmissions.

If you are primarily a highway driver, the efficiency delta will not be as significant, but it will still exist. Considering the data we have for the escape, I'm not buying these ecoboost MPG anecdotes for a second.

Hybrid motor will be more efficient, but it will be turning more rpms at interstate speed and some electric energy has to be transferred from one motor/generator to the other for a slight parasitic interstate loss.

I say at 75mph it will be a wash. Adding weight will favor the EB.

 

[stoptothink]

Hybrid motor will be more efficient, but it will be turning more rpms at interstate speed and some electric energy has to be transferred from one motor/generator to the other for a slight parasitic interstate loss.

I say at 75mph it will be a wash. Adding weight will favor the EB.

Eventually, at some rate of speed it will be a wash. If you are suggesting that threshold is 75mph, I'd take that bet every single day.

 

[jonathan1994]

Eventually, at some rate of speed it will be a wash. If you are suggesting that threshold is 75mph, I'd take that bet every single day.

I don't know if its going to coincide at 75mph or where. Just early EB trainer reports of mid 30's on pure interstate trips knowing that ICE in steady state driving beats EPA ratings with various speeds.

ECVT Hybrids typically beat EPA ratings if hypermiled, but pay a penalty at higher speeds since the eCVT has no 100% direct connection wheels to motor. Here the less thermally efficient EB starts to catch up with his lock up torque converter, fixed gear overdrive, and low rpms to take advantage of its torque.

Since hybrid maverick is rated about 33mpg highway EPA, I'll ASSUME it will get about 35mpg steady speed on the interstate UNLOADED. Which matches the training EB interstate data so far.

IN STEADY STATE, CONSTANT SPEED DRIVING:
Faster than typical interstate speeds should favor EB.
100mph driving should favor EB by a lot.
Trailer frontal area and or more weight will favor EB.

Slower speeds will favor the hybrid, but driven CONSTANT SPEED side by side I bet EB and hybrid are very close mpg from say 40mph up to 80mph empty. Too close to make a difference at the pump.

But the more stops, starts, speed changes, the less appealing the EB.

So I think EB vs hybrid really will boil down to how much city driving you do, how much you tow, initial investment, and do you always have 5 people or hundreds of pounds of stuff in the vehicle.

Hybrid only wins with city driving and initial cost.

 

[mrchips0401]

Right? The more that switch, the closer I'll be to getting scheduled.

But anyone who want's to save money will go with the hybrid. Over the lifetime of the car, if you were to compare both, I'd expect you'd save 20k with the hybrid. ~3500 up front cost, 600/yr fuel savings, that's $10k right there over 12 years (assuming fuel prices don't go up, which they will). Then factor in that the ecoboost will likely have higher maint costs, and likely depreciate quicker, and won't last as long as the hybrid, I really don't think 20k over 15 years is out of the question at all. Invest that money wisely, and you should be able to retire 6 months earlier.

don’t forget brake replacement costs savings on the hybrid with the regen braking system

 

[STARCOMMTREY1]

don’t forget brake replacement costs savings on the hybrid with the regen braking system

The pads and brakes are no different than the EB

 

[stoptothink]

The pads and brakes are no different than the EB

The pads and discs are the same, but the EB does not have regenerative braking. The statement is correct, you should expect longer brake life with the hybrid.

 

[Gmood1]

don’t forget brake replacement costs savings on the hybrid with the regen braking system

Very true! I still haven't replaced any of the brake pads on my 9 year old hybrid with over 170000 miles

 

[mrchips0401]

Very true! I still haven't replaced any of the brake pads on my 9 year old hybrid with over 170000 miles

Wow!

 

[WasChops]

For sure, I'm digging the Hot Pepper Red. I got Area 51 just because it is unique, but I might have to order another one now

I'm liking that red... but mine will be Spark Red - 1st Edition options were limited to 3 choices. The other 2 I felt were boring, in particular to own a Truck that shouts out Living a life and going for it!

 

[ccmjr77]

The red FE Maverick is Rapid Red, not spark red...

Sponsored