Seems kind of a bold comparison statement about a truck nobody has driven? The power to weight of the Santa Cruz is 4164lbs/281hp = 14.8lb/hp. The Maverick is 3750lbs/250hp = 15lb/hp. That is comparing AWD numbers - FWD maverick will be better than the Santa Cruz. I highly doubt Hyundai will be making any FWD Turbos...and apparently their ordering process is really just wait and see if the dealer gets one that might sorta fit what you like? They are not doing the full exact spec build process that Ford is doing for us, which is a HUGE plus to get exactly what you're looking for!
The reason they aren't doing full "to spec" builds is because that's not what hyundai or many other makers do. They just offer trim levels that have everything bundled, like it or not, and you take it or leave it. Makes for more efficient manufacturing, generally better quality control, but less personalisation.
23 mpg though, oof! That's what kills it for me on the SE and SEL trims of the SC.
The and mav still drinks less fuel than the sc23 mpg though, oof! That's what kills it for me on the SE and SEL trims of the SC.
Its only 190hp and yet only 1mpg better than the 280hp turbo version of itself. In fact, if you get the FWD SE or SEL, its actually 1mpg worse on the highway than the AWD SEL Premium or Limited.
Only way I could really justify a Santa Cruz SE or SEL trim is if you know you're going to be driving pretty chill anyway and need AWD. Bumping to AWD on the Maverick increases the fuel consumption and price quite a bit, especially if you pick a trim and options that are similar to the rather long list of standard features on the SE and SEL. I don't really need AWD though.
How do you figure? Ecoboost AWD should get the same or maybe a tick worse fuel economy than the Bronco Sport, which is the same weight, frontal profile, glass angle, mirrors, powertrain, etc. just because a crossover shape usually helps aerodynamics a bit over the bed of a pickup (same reason the Tucson gets a bit better mileage than the Santa Cruz with the same engine):
The dealer demo ones? Of course, if you reset the MPG reader and record pure highway 60mph cruising for miles and miles, you can get crazy good fuel economy with a little turbo engine, but that doesn't represent what most will get in typical mixed driving. Here's the Bronco Sport from fuelly, spot on for its advertised mixed fuel economy:
Bronco sport has full 4x4, I'd expect it to be higher than the Bronco Sport Badlands but less than the Escape 2.0 AWDHow do you figure? Ecoboost AWD should get the same or maybe a tick worse fuel economy than the Bronco Sport, which is the same weight, frontal profile, glass angle, mirrors, powertrain, etc. just because a crossover shape usually helps aerodynamics a bit over the bed of a pickup (same reason the Tucson gets a bit better mileage than the Santa Cruz with the same engine):
Nope, no difference economy wise with the way the transmission works.
