Which do you think will have less problems/ better longevity the hybrid or eco boost?

[Harleystreetbob]

My experience with the borg warner turbos that Ford uses is that they are complete and utter garbage. Compare that to the factory Garrett on my 130k mile WRX which has been tuned and is probably on the very edge of optimal flow characteristics and it's still perfect. All of this is my opinion of course but it's based on my direct experience working on Ford vehicles that my family members have owned but I would definitely put my money on the very proven 2.5L hybrid setup. I tell everyone to avoid ecoboost engines, if I were buying a Maverick instead of leasing it for my side business I would absolutely go with the hybrid.

Had an STI and agree also true with the 2.5 acktinson engine

Sponsored

 

[Maverick2022XL]

I disagree with the way you're calculating. In the same way you're saying that the hybrid battery will need to be replaced you could say it's %100 certain that the Ecoboost will suffer from carbon buildup and need to be cleaned and add that cost to the calculation. It's going to happen, eventually. But predicting failure at 10 years is asinine. The same is true for the battery. Some batteries will probably last a lot longer, some won't.

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2...rid-taxi-review-400000-miles-of-cabbie-farts/

https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/highest-mileage-new-york-city-taxis-arent-what-you-think-255766

I did say that. It is irrelevant to the question at hand because factors that reduce fuel economy weren't considered. I also stated the cost differential without replacing the battery. It wasn't hidden to goal seek or to confirm some predetermined conclusion. You can easily ignore it.

key statement from your article from thetruthaboutcars

" It’s a marketing stunt, to be certain. Ford is using one of its oldest, highest-mileage hybrids to sell journalists and the general public on the durability of this solution to electrified motoring."

How do you know the original battery was in that marketing stunt and Ford didn't put a new one in before they showed it off? You don't, it is a bad example to use.

 

[Maverick2022XL]

Your analysis also held gas as a constant which is erroneous by any reliable standard. Gas will go up as everything else will also. Inflation is a reality in that sector that has to be dealt with.

The human factor that was not considered is, in general, who is buying the ecoboost and how will they use them. They will be driven much harder overall than the hybrid.

I personally am getting a Maverick Hybrid for mostly in town driving. For towing the Ecoboost I ordered will not be enough so I will be getting a Nissan Frontier. A lot of people are going to push the Ecoboost beyond its capability. I am sure Ford is aware of this and has rated it accordingly but it will still be pushed.

The differential as a percentage to run both doesn't regardless of how much gas prices fluctuates. The difference in fuel costs was never meant to be an absolute anymore than EPA MPG ratings are not absolutes. Actual usage of course will differ if you tow then yeah the cost differential will be wider if it is all you do with it. The assumption was combined MPG which covers most everyone except for the 5th dentist that always has a scenario where crest doesn't prevent cavities to argue with.

 

[bombast]

So your car defeated the laws of chemical reactions and physics?

Not likely .

Of course not. But here's the thing - Most hybrids probably never run their battery down because road conditions don't allow for it. And if someone doesn't run the battery down, then the batteries capacity has to drop a lot to actually impact function.

To put it another way, why should anyone care if a battery loses 20% capacity in 10 years if they never use over 70% capacity in the first place?

 

[Mike]

Ecoboost will last longer here. Extreme cold and we get up to 40c in Summer.

 

[numike]

I have never been in let alone driven a hybrid but I want a vehicle that has get up and go and from what I have been told by hybrid users their vehicles start slow and they get up and go TRUE? Also I am not buying a Maverick to drive long distances just an around town vehicle . Decisions decisions what to do??

 

[thevol]

Saying the maveric is like a prius so it will last the same is a bit of a stretch. I do like the simplicity of the ecvt and Im not familiar with this latest rev of the 2.0 turbo. Anyway one thing about hybrids is that you need two systems to function in harmony for it to work correctly ice and electric, while the 2.0 just needs ice.

Obviously the turbo is a question mark as some people dont operate and maintain them properly.

It probably boils down to maintenance and how its driven as to which will last longer, the same as it is for most vehicles.

 

[brnpttmn]

I have never been in let alone driven a hybrid but I want a vehicle that has get up and go and from what I have been told by hybrid users their vehicles start slow and they get up and go TRUE? Also I am not buying a Maverick to drive long distances just an around town vehicle . Decisions decisions what to do??

Depends on what you mean by "get up and go." By all accounts, the hybrid is plenty "fast." The hybrid is slightly slower than the AWD EB off the line, but it's faster from 40-80. I've never had any problems with acceleration in my Maverick, but I also don't care much whether my car can go 0-60 in 6.5 secs versus 7.5 secs.

Here's a video of 0-110 in the hybrid:

 

[bombast]

I have never been in let alone driven a hybrid but I want a vehicle that has get up and go and from what I have been told by hybrid users their vehicles start slow and they get up and go TRUE? Also I am not buying a Maverick to drive long distances just an around town vehicle . Decisions decisions what to do??

If you're racing people at red lights, the Hybrid is probably a bit slow. Also stop doing that.

For regular driving - Whether it be city stop and go or highway onramps and merging - The hybrid has more then enough pep.

 

[KevCuRaoi]

Out of curiosity, where did you come up with $4000 for a battery? I didn't think you could even find a replacement hybrid battery for the Maverick yet.

Current list price for the Maverick battery is 3671.66. Subject to change monthly....and additional parts of other than the battery may be required for the repair. So it does look like a good estimate right now!

 

[mamboman777]

I did say that. It is irrelevant to the question at hand because factors that reduce fuel economy weren't considered. I also stated the cost differential without replacing the battery. It wasn't hidden to goal seek or to confirm some predetermined conclusion. You can easily ignore it.

key statement from your article from thetruthaboutcars

" It’s a marketing stunt, to be certain. Ford is using one of its oldest, highest-mileage hybrids to sell journalists and the general public on the durability of this solution to electrified motoring."

How do you know the original battery was in that marketing stunt and Ford didn't put a new one in before they showed it off? You don't, it is a bad example to use.

The question is why list one item as a guaranteed replacement cost on the 2.5 and not on the 2.0.

Maybe your crystal ball works better than mine.

 

[jmav]

Ironically own a 09 honda ridgeline right now with not a thing wrong with it 300,000 on the odometer. I agree however, have known the troubles associated with turbos (owned one)

No timing belts? Or are you considering that maintenance?

It would seem this doesnt show any down side to the Hybrid. Maybe I can help.

Ford Maverick Hybrid - Clutch Disc instead of Torque Converter like the ones one the Ford Focus that kept failing.
Ford Maverick Hybrid - (1) $4,000 Battery Assy. That will only be replaced if it de-rates far enough to need warranty replacement.
Ford Maverick Hybrid - (1) $2,000 A/C Compressor system, but its driven by the $4,000 battery. In comparison the A/C compressor on the belt system $500

Ford Maverick Eco - No Transmission with CVT Belts? Im not sure where this was going. But its a true 8 speed so it doesnt have that either.

So that leaves the Starter, Alternator, Belts, and Turbo.

Ill take the $1,500 itll cost me to fix all of those at once compared to one A/C.
Turbo $875. Belts $35. Alternator $375. Starter $210

The clutch disc on the hybrid doesn't engage and disengage. It's a failsafe if there's too much differential force for some reason between the transmission and ICE. Different usage than the DCT.

Agree there should be fewer transmission-related issues with the hybrid since it is much simpler than the Ecoboost 8 speed and cannot be compared to the focus DCT. Cannot be compared to other CVT's either.

 

[hcforde]

The differential as a percentage to run both doesn't regardless of how much gas prices fluctuates. The difference in fuel costs was never meant to be an absolute anymore than EPA MPG ratings are not absolutes. Actual usage of course will differ if you tow then yeah the cost differential will be wider if it is all you do with it. The assumption was combined MPG which covers most everyone except for the 5th dentist that always has a scenario where crest doesn't prevent cavities to argue with.

OH PLEASE!!!! Gas is a variable cost and variable cost have to be included in any valid analysis. This pandemic has lead to shortages. We are in an arena now of increasing demand, and supply side inflation and you want others to believe in the analysis you have presented. Ther are so many human variables you have over looked. The main one being the level of use of the Hybrid VS the Ecoboost. In general, the Ecoboost will be taxed with a greater workload which will also use more gas and more strain will be placed on the engine. Maybe you are not aware of how quickly the gas mileage goes down when a turbo engine is put under strain. The Maverick gets between 11-15MPG from different youtube videos when towing.

I understand that the Crest remark is simply you trying to deflect from the weak argument you are trying to sustain. People are buying the Hybrid for light use, those that are buying the Ecoboost want a heavier duty vehicle for heavier duty use. They will be driven differently, gas consumption will take a greater hit in the Ecoboost and you wish to leave it out of a "Total Cost of Ownership" equation. LOL!!!

Answer if you wish or not, but I am done responding to this discussion with you.

 

[MLA62563]

I have never been in let alone driven a hybrid but I want a vehicle that has get up and go and from what I have been told by hybrid users their vehicles start slow and they get up and go TRUE? Also I am not buying a Maverick to drive long distances just an around town vehicle . Decisions decisions what to do??

I can't speak to the longevity question, or about other hybrid models. But I can say with authority that there is nothing sluggish about this particular hybrid. My Maverick has PLENTY of get up and go. Also, I have driven the turbo model a coworker picked up a couple of months ago. And I've gotta say it seems to me there is only a modest difference in acceleration between the two at best. And if you wonder if a bit of bias on my part may be at play (as is reasonable...), the same coworker drove mine yesterday....and his conclusion was the same. As someone who drives almost exclusively in the city, I cannot imagine filling up nearly twice as often for such a meager payoff. Just my two cents.

 

[fbov]

Hybrid wins every time in a reliability/longevity discussion vs. a turbo. All those who disagree are failing to understand that how a hybrid vehicle works.

The HVB in a hybrid is not a SOURCE of power, it's a BUFFER for power. Specifics below.

So your car defeated the laws of chemical reactions and physics?

No need to.

In a BUFFER application, the loss of capacity is irrelevant. Hybrids don't plug in, they just store excess ICE energy. Hybrids work really well using ~30% of absolute capacity, so loss of absolute capacity has negligible impact. Too many C-Max Hybrid drivers beyond 200K miles with undiminished fuel economy. (Note I didn't say C-Max Energi drivers....)

Ecoboost will last longer here. Extreme cold and we get up to 40c in Summer.

The stresses from extreme cold and heat are well known problems for ICE engines, so you make a good argument why the EcoBoost will fail sooner.

40C is no problem for a hybrid. Remember, it's an energy BUFFER, so likely near 50% SOC. Storage temperature interacts with high state of charge to kill a battery. Storage at 50% SOC is a non-issue, in an application that's insensitive to capacity loss.

Anyway one thing about hybrids is that you need two systems to function in harmony for it to work correctly ice and electric, while the 2.0 just needs ice.

True, but compared with the 2.0, the 2.5L lives on easy street, and no ICE can match the electric side's reliability. Plus, they only run ~60% of the time. More complex to build, but more reliable once you do.
- the 2.5L has 13:1 geometric compression ratio, but Atkinsons underfill the intake charge by 10% to 50%, so achieved compression ratio is as low as half the geometric ratio. Very different from turbo engine operation.
- the 2.5L's run mode is either constant RPM or 0 RPM. No high-torque stress at low RPM, no running up and down the RPM range, no drastic changes in load when changing gears.
- and then there's the ~40% time off, when the ICE is cargo. No ICE can match EV reliability because there's no sliding contact, so no wear areas beyond gear mesh, where any multi-speed transmission is at great disadvantage.

The fact is that either drivetrain can give you many years of reliable service. In one case, it's inherent. In the other, it's the result of decades of engineering advancements.

Sponsored