Sponsored

Jasperw229

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Jasper
Joined
Aug 13, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
269
Reaction score
278
Location
Portland oregon usa
Vehicle(s)
Maverick 22, Lariat fx4, 4k tow
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost

JASmith

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Jessica
Joined
Jun 16, 2021
Threads
68
Messages
1,597
Reaction score
3,743
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Dodge Ram 1500
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
It needs to be broken out to its own vehicle though 😂
They separate them by years. Like a Ford Explorer from 1985 is obviously different than one from now, but luckily each year is its own category.
 

2022EOW

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Marty
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
603
Reaction score
1,034
Location
Missouri
Vehicle(s)
2014 Focus
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Really curious to see how much more efficient the Mav is over my F150, for the same type driving.

My F150, a tuned 2.7 SCrew 4x4 ('18), was really impressive. When driven smartly, I would average ~24 mpg in the summer, on 93 gas. Mainly mixed driving with a heavy 2-lane highway bias, some freeway, very little city. I made good use of the select-shift 10AT, which is one thing I wish the Mav had; select-shift. I still think I can be up near 30 in the summer. We'll see....
You paid way more for 93 octane vs 87 octane. Most of the time, the mpg gain does not cover the additionss as k fuel costs.
 

dalola

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2021
Threads
11
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
2,507
Location
Ohio
Website
sunsetridgecabinhockinghills.com
Vehicle(s)
F150
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
See this just doesn't impress me. The Maverick is not a heavy vehicle and it has a small 2 liter engine. you would think that they could squeeze more mpg out of an ICE of that size. In comparison, my 2015 Subie Outback with a 2.5 liter was rated 25/33 back then. I still get the same with it after 269,000 miles.
The addition of a turbo makes a big difference. Stay out of the boost, 30+ should be easy. Trucks are also considerably heavier than cars of a similar size (due to heavier parts to support more payload & towing), and less aerodynamic. I am impressed with the FE some of the reviews are getting, way above EPA ratings.
 

dalola

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2021
Threads
11
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
2,507
Location
Ohio
Website
sunsetridgecabinhockinghills.com
Vehicle(s)
F150
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
You paid way more for 93 octane vs 87 octane. Most of the time, the mpg gain does not cover the additionss as k fuel costs.
I didn't run 93 for the FE, truck was performance tuned for 93. The better FE was a byproduct of the tune when driven smartly. Same truck would also run a 4.6 0-60 when provoked. 👹
 

Sponsored

James St. Patrick

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Threads
9
Messages
850
Reaction score
2,197
Location
MARYLAND
Vehicle(s)
2022 FORD MAVERICK Velocity Blue Ecoboost AWD
See this just doesn't impress me. The Maverick is not a heavy vehicle and it has a small 2 liter engine. you would think that they could squeeze more mpg out of an ICE of that size. In comparison, my 2015 Subie Outback with a 2.5 liter was rated 25/33 back then. I still get the same with it after 269,000 miles.
Apples and Oranges. You are comparing a turbo engine vs a non turbo engine. Your Subaru 2.5 produced 175hp/174 torque vs Maverick‘s 250hp/277torque

My daily driver is a 2.5 turbo CX5 and I average 25mpg; and my wife’s dd is a 2.5 non turbo CX5, and she averages 29mpg. My car is much faster, but she has better MPG.

The Maverick’s combined 25mpg AWD in 2L turbo is respectable. My old WRX 2.5 turbo AWD averaged 23mpg.

If you want better mpg, the hybrid is 40mpg.
 

Rob Cactus Gray

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Robert
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Threads
27
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
4,101
Location
Sierra Vista AZ
Vehicle(s)
11 Prius
Engine
2.5L Hybrid

KeinoDoggy

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Elliot
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Threads
7
Messages
433
Reaction score
588
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2022 Maverick Hybrid and Outback
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
The addition of a turbo makes a big difference. Stay out of the boost, 30+ should be easy. Trucks are also considerably heavier than cars of a similar size (due to heavier parts to support more payload & towing), and less aerodynamic. I am impressed with the FE some of the reviews are getting, way above EPA ratings.
I'll buy 30 on the highway but that 22 city is low. I would be doubtful it was rated 22 while using a turbo by EPA. It should do better. I think most people will drive city/rural most of the time. Which is why the hybrid is the gem. BTW, the Maverick is listed at 3700#, the Outback is 3900.
 

pxpaulx

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Threads
18
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
2,069
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
Ford Maverick
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Those numbers make me happy.

How much for a fill up? It’s $70+ every fill up for me, once a week.
We pay 3.07 for premium at Costco here in Minneapolis. I filled up my first tank, ran it down as far as I was comfortable. 449.9 miles and filled with 14.835 gallons. 45 bucks and 30.3mpg, the gauge wasn't far off at 30.9.
 

TC in MN

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2021
Threads
8
Messages
240
Reaction score
247
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
2022 Ford Mav XLT, CG, 2.0, AWD, Lux, tow, 360
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
You paid way more for 93 octane vs 87 octane. Most of the time, the mpg gain does not cover the additionss as k fuel costs.
The 2.0 eco, because it does not have an exhaust manifold, is known to build up carbon in #4 cylinder (?) so running 93 helps for cleaner burning. Does running one octane vs the other in the long-run make a difference? Don’t know….my Ford mechanic says 93 can’t hurt…….pay your monies and take your chances.
 
Sponsored

KeinoDoggy

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Elliot
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Threads
7
Messages
433
Reaction score
588
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2022 Maverick Hybrid and Outback
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
The 2.0 eco, because it does not have an exhaust manifold, is known to build up carbon in #4 cylinder (?) so running 93 helps for cleaner burning. Does running one octane vs the other in the long-run make a difference? Don’t know….my Ford mechanic says 93 can’t hurt…….pay your monies and take your chances.
Really, no exhaust manifold?? That's wild!
 

pxpaulx

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Threads
18
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
2,069
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
Ford Maverick
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost

Gmood1

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
G-man
Joined
Aug 4, 2021
Threads
3
Messages
217
Reaction score
285
Location
Alabama
Vehicle(s)
Kia Optima
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
If reaching the highest mpg is important to you, running non-ethanol gas whether 87 or higher. Should give the best results. In my area, non-ethanol is really expensive! Which negates using it.
Back when I was a hyper-miler. I easily achieved 2 mpg more using the non-ethanol gasoline.
 

pxpaulx

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Threads
18
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
2,069
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
Ford Maverick
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Was a little shocked :eek: with those numbers until I realized it included the original 1970's Maverick.... :geek:
There are no numbers for the current Maverick showing yet because fuelly only displays runnng averages. That means people need to enter 2 fillups before you'll see the 2022 entries displayed.
 

TC in MN

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2021
Threads
8
Messages
240
Reaction score
247
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
2022 Ford Mav XLT, CG, 2.0, AWD, Lux, tow, 360
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
If reaching the highest mpg is important to you, running non-ethanol gas whether 87 or higher. Should give the best results. In my area, non-ethanol is really expensive! Which negates using it.
Understood! Keep the revs higher than lower….
Sponsored

 
 




Top