TFL tests Hybrid vs. LOBO Maverick

[Cherokee]

Try that race again with the hybrid battery at a lower state of charge like after three minutes of battery use.

Sponsored

 

[heady]

That's like saying to try racing without using any good features that help your car performance though! No launch control/sport mode/etc. You could, but why, that's no fun! In both racing and road use little hybrid systems are used for performance gains, because brief peak power availability is often more important than continuous power, like in a drag race, formula one, or just passing or going up a hill or jumping from a light. It's more or less just an on road version of a KERS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_recovery_system

 

[AutobahnSHO]

Try that race again with the hybrid battery at a lower state of charge like after three minutes of battery use.

Don't even need that- if I mash the pedal to max electric only it runs out under a minute.

 

[LSchicago]

Try that race again with the hybrid battery at a lower state of charge like after three minutes of battery use.

Wouldn't matter. Hybrids reduce electric power at 20mph anyway.

 

[colinl]

So where is this mile high track at ???

beats me... bandimere is closed, but it's still in much better/newer shape than the surface shown, and of course, you have grandstands and tower which we don't see.

[email protected] for the Lobo is absolutely the slowest time I've ever seen from a stock ecoboost awd Maverick. likewise, I would assume [email protected] is slow for '25 hybrid awd.

no idea what this looks like at a more normal altitude. or, honestly, what it looks like going even higher, as 5k is just getting started in the rockies.

 

[710-oil-614]

beats me... bandimere is closed, but it's still in much better/newer shape than the surface shown, and of course, you have grandstands and tower which we don't see.

[email protected] for the Lobo is absolutely the slowest time I've ever seen from a stock ecoboost awd Maverick. likewise, I would assume [email protected] is slow for '25 hybrid awd.

no idea what this looks like at a more normal altitude. or, honestly, what it looks like going even higher, as 5k is just getting started in the rockies.

I can see the hybrid keeping pace 0-60 (while still losing) but by around 35-40mph I can tell my hybrid has had enough and starts to become anemic where the EB hits 30-40 and she's all spooled up ready to go.

 

[Cherokee]

I can see the hybrid keeping pace 0-60 (while still losing) but by around 35-40mph I can tell my hybrid has had enough and starts to become anemic where the EB hits 30-40 and she's all spooled up ready to go.

Yep the EB gives me that 277 ft pounds of torque at 3,000 rpm and my eight speed gear box keeps the engine tight around three grand at or near mid throttle.
It’s pretty cool watching the speedo climb steady as 60, 70, 80 mph effortlessly slides under the needle.
It truly feels like the old V-8’s.
If I lived in a metro I’d want the Mavbrid without a doubt.

 

[colinl]

Octane makes significantly less difference at elevation, engines don't knock as readily with a lighter air charge in the cylinders, which is why they still sell ultra low 85 octane up there in the nose bleed states Doubtful the Lobo was pulling timing at a mile high, but they didn't say what fuel was in it. Either way, 87 is basically 91 in those conditions, and 91, 93.

this is ridiculously wrong. no idea if you're ignoring me, heady, but everyone else will see this and you don't have an ecoboost anyway, so..


DO NOT use fuel lower than 87 in an ecoboost, ever. you will most definitely have detonation and you will damage the engine. it's right there in the owner's manual, specifically says do not use gas lower than 87 which can be found in high altitude areas.

you actually need octane more than ever at higher altitudes because the turbocharger is less efficient but it's definitely still going to make the requested boost - it's just going to be HOT doing it, so your intake charge temp will be higher.

 

[The Real Maverick]

Wouldn't matter. Hybrids reduce electric power at 20mph anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Peak combined torque of 267 lb-ft occurs at 20 mph with foot to the floor.

Above this, yes, electric torque starts to go down as engine torque starts to go up.

Making the torque "curve" a little flatter than one might expect as you accelerate. Which is why I like the hybrid for towing. Up to 65 MPH anyway.

 

[The Real Maverick]

The ONLY reason the "manual" (which is a generalized document over simplified for the general public) says not to use lower than 87 octane in "mountain states" is....

Due to the exceptional range these trucks get, up to 750 miles per tank in the hybrids.... many people may start at high elevation and drive to a lower elevation, even close to sea-level on the same tank of fuel.

Will you remember to "add mid-grade" or better before driving downhill? Probably not.

However, using 85 octane at above 4500 feet or 86 octane at above 3500 feet is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE as long as you consume all the fuel at those higher elevations and do not ever take trips into the lower elevations.

"Never use less than 87" is the safe bet.

It is not technically correct though.

 

[Scott Asheville]

There are zero facts in what I'm about to say.

The Lobo is a head scratcher. Put all kinds of performance stuff in it but a totally stock engine. My theory is that the Lobo was gonna be a real performance package with a lot more power. Then at the last minute it didn't clear some hurdle. EPA? If I'm right, come the 2026 or 2027 model year, we'll see a Lobo with a lot more power.

There are zero facts in what I just said.

 

[colinl]

There are zero facts in what I'm about to say.

The Lobo is a head scratcher. Put all kinds of performance stuff in it but a totally stock engine. My theory is that the Lobo was gonna be a real performance package with a lot more power. Then at the last minute it didn't clear some hurdle. EPA? If I'm right, come the 2026 or 2027 model year, we'll see a Lobo with a lot more power.

There are zero facts in what I just said.

to me it makes sense that Ford would think they might have trouble selling a Maverick ST at an even higher price than the Lobo, because the Tremor has not sold well.

so, they didn't just give it badges. the Lobo has real handling chops, but it just doesn't have horsepower. Ford could just tune it and require 91+, instead of giving us the 250hp tune that survives on 87 octane. that would be CHEAP.

but, no. I don't see it happening. if they release a Maverick ecoboost with more horsepower, it'll either be a 2.3 or it'll be a different 2.0.

 

[The Real Maverick]

As good of a theory as any.

 

[heady]

this is ridiculously wrong. no idea if you're ignoring me, heady, but everyone else will see this and you don't have an ecoboost anyway, so..


DO NOT use fuel lower than 87 in an ecoboost, ever. you will most definitely have detonation and you will damage the engine. it's right there in the owner's manual, specifically says do not use gas lower than 87 which can be found in high altitude areas.

you actually need octane more than ever at higher altitudes because the turbocharger is less efficient but it's definitely still going to make the requested boost - it's just going to be HOT doing it, so your intake charge temp will be higher.

I would suggest reading Methodology for Determining Octane Response at Different Altitudes for Vehicles Equipped with Knock Sensors, Andy D. B. Yates, Samson Mkwanazi, SAE Transactions, Vol. 111, Section 4: JOURNAL OF FUELS AND LUBRICANTS (2002), pp. 583-591 for a more thorough treatment, but I can summarize for you.

- 18% of the test vehicles were turbocharged in the study
- All vehicles exhibited reduced thrust at altitude
- "In terms of the difference in altitude between the two test sites (418 meters and 1485 meters respectively), the altitude correction factor was therefore -1.8 R0N/300m (octane), which was in good agreement with the previously published values."

This is known as the altitude-octane effect in most papers and books I've seen on the subject.

Here's a representative sample of one of the turbo cars thrust at two elevations plotted against RON (octane):

Sasolburg is the high altitude site, and Durban the sea level site. The flat plot of the square sample values shows the impact of increased octane at high elevations on vehicle thrust. There isn't any. There is a difference at sea level, higher octane is of more value there. This is not new or surprising information, published octane studies on cars both NA and FI reach back over a hundred years or more. Don't get confused by the "higher" octane numbers, RON is calculated differently than US pump numbers and are numerically larger.

The minimum suggested octane for an EcoBoost is indeed 87, at any altitude.

 

[colinl]

I would suggest reading Methodology for Determining Octane Response at Different Altitudes for Vehicles Equipped with Knock Sensors, Andy D. B. Yates, Samson Mkwanazi, SAE Transactions, Vol. 111, Section 4: JOURNAL OF FUELS AND LUBRICANTS (2002), pp. 583-591 for a more thorough treatment, but I can summarize for you.

- 18% of the test vehicles were turbocharged in the study
- All vehicles exhibited reduced thrust at altitude
- "In terms of the difference in altitude between the two test sites (418 meters and 1485 meters respectively), the altitude correction factor was therefore -1.8 R0N/300m (octane), which was in good agreement with the previously published values."

This is known as the altitude-octane effect in most papers and books I've seen on the subject.

Here's a representative sample of one of the turbo cars thrust at two elevations plotted against RON (octane):

Sasolburg is the high altitude site, and Durban the sea level site. The flat plot of the square sample values shows the impact of increased octane at high elevations on vehicle thrust. There isn't any. There is a difference at sea level, higher octane is of more value there. This is not new or surprising information, published octane studies on cars both NA and FI reach back over a hundred years or more. Don't get confused by the "higher" octane numbers, RON is calculated differently than US pump numbers and are numerically larger.

The minimum suggested octane for an EcoBoost is indeed 87, at any altitude.

ah. so you magically went from not realizing 85 was a death sentence for an ecoboost, to now being fully read on this subject? so was it google or chatgpt that educated you?

do you even know what a compressor map is? do you know how the ecoboost manages different octane fuels, what it's doing? I'll give you a hint for your research: perhaps you should not rely on data published in 2002.

Sponsored