Ordering experience/please help me decide 2.0 ecoboost vs 2.5 hybrid

[BlueOval5.0]

I am in the same boat as the OP was 6 months ago. I think I am gonna wait for the 2023 model and get a hybrid. As much as I love my Ranger FX4, I never tow and used 4x4 one time. I had. 2017 Escape with the 2.0 and it was solid but the fuel economy sucked worse than my Ranger does. I didn’t realize the 8 speed was related to the joint venture with GM until reading this three, which is even more reason to stay away from it. I’d love a Maverick Lariat Lux FX4 with 4K tow but the reality is that it would be overkill and a more expensive vehicle. Thanks for the good read in this thread even though it has aged a bit. I hope you all enjoy your Mavs.

Sponsored

 

[Ronaldo]

I have had my hybrid for two months now, my son and many others want to buy it. I can't afford to let it go, it saves way too much money per month. Also You will save way more on gas than you think, it gets way more than 33 on the highway. My mpg gauge goes up every time I hit the freeway and as gas prices raise the advantage increases. I would never go back and order a 2.0.

 

[Sgthell]

I went with AWD because I wanted an independent rear suspension for a comfy ride and more traction. If you drive sensibly, 28-30 mpg is easy to achieve with the 2.0 ECO and 8 speed automatic. I’d say go with the hybrid if you’re looking for a commuter type vehicle and mpg is important over performance. My other vehicle is a Toyota Corolla hybrid.

 

[Brett3550]

I have to periodically tow 3,000 lbs so I don't get an option. If I didn't tow, it would be a Hybrid, as this is my daily driver and the most adventure I see is gravel driveways.

 

[727223]

I own 2 mavericks currently. One 2022 xlt 2.0. My second is a Lariat hybrid. The rubber seats suck. I wish there was an option for fabric. The hybrid lariat is my second one. The first one didn’t have adaptive cruise. I will not buy another vehicle without adaptive cruise. Way to much traffic in South Florida. I consistently get 40-45 mpg with the hybrid. 2.0 is consistently 29 mpg.

 

[canuckford]

My reasons for choosing 2.0L ECO, I typically keep a car until it croaks, or is not worth fixing anymore, or is totalled by a drunk driver while it's parked (happened to my car a couple of months ago and hence why I got a new car).

I don't drive the MAV that much, pretty much just weekends and the odd trip during the week because I have a work truck, therefore the MPG doesn't make a lot of difference for me. One thing I was told is the hybrid has a timing belt, where the ECO has a timing chain, and if there's a leak in there, the belt won't shrug that off like a chain. Battery price in 10 years, who knows, they could go sky high, at least with an ICE you kind of know what you're up against in 10 years time, we've all had ICE cars. Then the sales guy said to me (he sees more hybrids coming into the shop for service than ICE), and he said the ratio of sales, hybrid vs ICE, he sells more hybrids, so common sense would dictate, yes of course you're going to see more coming in for service, but it's not proportional, hence his opinion that ICE are less problematic. Then he said, if you're planning on keeping it until it doesn't go anymore, you might be better off with an ICE, otherwise you might be better off with a hybrid.

Then there's the climate, I'm in Canada, and although it's not terribly cold where I am, because I don't drive the MAV much, it's just sitting there throughout the week in the cold, the battery is impacted.

Hope that helps

 

[heady]

My reasons for choosing 2.0L ECO, I typically keep a car until it croaks, or is not worth fixing anymore, or is totalled by a drunk driver while it's parked (happened to my car a couple of months ago and hence why I got a new car).

I don't drive the MAV that much, pretty much just weekends and the odd trip during the week because I have a work truck, therefore the MPG doesn't make a lot of difference for me. One thing I was told is the hybrid has a timing belt, where the ECO has a timing chain, and if there's a leak in there, the belt won't shrug that off like a chain. Battery price in 10 years, who knows, they could go sky high, at least with an ICE you kind of know what you're up against in 10 years time, we've all had ICE cars. Then the sales guy said to me (he sees more hybrids coming into the shop for service than ICE), and he said the ratio of sales, hybrid vs ICE, he sells more hybrids, so common sense would dictate, yes of course you're going to see more coming in for service, but it's not proportional, hence his opinion that ICE are less problematic. Then he said, if you're planning on keeping it until it doesn't go anymore, you might be better off with an ICE, otherwise you might be better off with a hybrid.

Then there's the climate, I'm in Canada, and although it's not terribly cold where I am, because I don't drive the MAV much, it's just sitting there throughout the week in the cold, the battery is impacted.

Hope that helps

The 2.5 has a timing chain. The batteries are cheap as chips and unlikely to need replacement for a long, long time, battery cell price for 1.1kWh of lithium is around $100 these days and dropping. Batteries last longer the colder they are stored, this is true of most chemical compounds, many people get confused because batteries produce less current when they are cold and need to warm up before they can be charged at higher C rates. The engine is an old, proven design, and uses far simpler multiport fuel injection instead of a high pressure fuel pump and direct injection, has no turbo, and so on - which I've had my fair share of on modern diesels and I'm not much of a fan - at least not when something inevitably goes wrong down the line and you have to pay to fix it. The hybrid transmission is likewise far simpler and, in my opinion, likely significantly more robust than the 8F35.

These are just educated guesses based on previous ownership of both types of engines and transmissions, but I came the the exact opposite conclusions as you did based on my experience - horses for courses I suppose.

 

[Charlie Daubitz]

The hybrid requires midgrade gasoline, just saying. this might help?

 

[Maverick123]

The hybrid requires midgrade gasoline, just saying.

Where do you live? 87 octane is regular here, 89 is mid grade

Do you have 85 octane as regular?

 

[heady]

afaik there are only three states where 87 octane is the "mid grade" and can be labeled as either midgrade or regular in the latter two - that's Colorado, Idaho, and South Dakota. 87 is regular unleaded everywhere else that I've seen. High altitude and low air pressure prevents knocking by retarding engine power, so they still sell the super low octane stuff in the Rockies. (Both engines spec 87 iirc)

 

[canuckford]

The 2.5 has a timing chain. The batteries are cheap as chips and unlikely to need replacement for a long, long time, battery cell price for 1.1kWh of lithium is around $100 these days and dropping. Batteries last longer the colder they are stored, this is true of most chemical compounds, many people get confused because batteries produce less current when they are cold and need to warm up before they can be charged at higher C rates. The engine is an old, proven design, and uses far simpler multiport fuel injection instead of a high pressure fuel pump and direct injection, has no turbo, and so on - which I've had my fair share of on modern diesels and I'm not much of a fan - at least not when something inevitably goes wrong down the line and you have to pay to fix it. The hybrid transmission is likewise far simpler and, in my opinion, likely significantly more robust than the 8F35.

These are just educated guesses based on previous ownership of both types of engines and transmissions, but I came the the exact opposite conclusions as you did based on my experience - horses for courses I suppose.

thanks for correcting me , looked it up and you're right, the hybrid has a timing chain too.
Re: battery lasting and cost, I'm not so sure about that, but time will tell.

 

[hdave]

Here's my simplified take on it:

Tow often? Ecoboost.
Mostly highway/country driving? Ecoboost.
Mostly city driving? Hybrid.

Edit: The hybrid absolutely shines when you are driving slow (less than 45mph.) Anything outside of that, it'll be about the same as the ecoboost since the ICE is running.

 

[Maverick123]

Edit: The hybrid absolutely shines when you are driving slow (less than 45mph.) Anything outside of that, it'll be about the same as the ecoboost since the ICE is running.

Gotta disagree, the hybrid can also return great mileage at faster speeds

My (not yet broken in) AWD hybrid recently returned 42 MPG on 3.5 hour drive that was a mix of country roads and highway. And I was driving totally normal, not hypermiling

On a typical commute (mix of 60 MPH country roads and a bit of city), I usually see 42 - 55 MPG depending on traffic, etc

 

[heady]

Yeah, while the differential in economy will shrink at higher loads and speeds between the two power plants, it still will exist in most every case. Back when this thread was started, the engine choice was coupled with better capabilities on one side of the equation, which is no longer the case. Now, you can get AWD and 4k towing on either so there's a shrinking set of reasons to tip the scales outside of special models like Tremor or Lobo - both of which I'd like to see with a PHEV drivetrain that performs similar to the upcoming RAV4 w/ 320hp and massive electric torque.

Personally I bought the hybrid mostly for long trips, winter capabilities, and lots of towing as there was no spec increase or advantage for the 2.0, and the extra HP didn't appeal to me vs. the hybrid advantages, as I've been towing with ~200hp rigs for so long I already know what I need for comfortable freeway speeds at my planned loads. It's just personal choice with a smaller set of differences than their used to be at the same purchase price, is all.

 

[hdave]

Gotta disagree, the hybrid can also return great mileage at faster speeds

My (not yet broken in) AWD hybrid recently returned 42 MPG on 3.5 hour drive that was a mix of country roads and highway. And I was driving totally normal, not hypermiling

On a typical commute (mix of 60 MPH country roads and a bit of city), I usually see 42 - 55 MPG depending on traffic, etc

Yeah, the hybrid mileage is better than ecoboost at higher speeds as well, but it diminishes the faster you go to the point that it might not make sense to pay extra for the hybrid and lose out on power.
Most people also tend to drive faster than the speed limit on highways.

Yeah, while the differential in economy will shrink at higher loads and speeds between the two power plants, it still will exist in most every case. Back when this thread was started, the engine choice was coupled with better capabilities on one side of the equation, which is no longer the case. Now, you can get AWD and 4k towing on either so there's a shrinking set of reasons to tip the scales outside of special models like Tremor or Lobo - both of which I'd like to see with a PHEV drivetrain that performs similar to the upcoming RAV4 w/ 320hp and massive electric torque.

Personally I bought the hybrid mostly for long trips, winter capabilities, and lots of towing as there was no spec increase or advantage for the 2.0, and the extra HP didn't appeal to me vs. the hybrid advantages, as I've been towing with ~200hp rigs for so long I already know what I need for comfortable freeway speeds at my planned loads. It's just personal choice with a smaller set of differences than their used to be at the same purchase price, is all.

Yeah, AWD and 4k tow available on the hybrid definitely closes the gap a lot.
I've personally got a hybrid and I do about 70/30 city/hwy. If I was to buy again, I'd do a 4k AWD hybrid.

Sponsored