Sponsored

Why is the Hybrid 2.5L

MR.Means

Member
First Name
Nathan
Joined
Jan 30, 2022
Threads
3
Messages
16
Reaction score
20
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2022 Ford Maverick
So here is possibly a dumb question why is the hybrid a 2.5L but the gas is a 2.0
Sponsored

 

fbov

Well-known member
First Name
Frank
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
452
Reaction score
490
Location
Bushnell's Basin
Vehicle(s)
2020 Escape Hybrid
The turbo effectively raises the displacement of the engine
Yep! When I was racing, the turbo rule as to add 40% displacement if classifying by engine size. We know the Atkinson uses a reduced intake stroke, so as a result....
- 2.0L EcoBoost is equivalent to a 2.8L normally aspirated engine
- 2.5L Atkinson is equivalent to no more than a 2.25L normally aspirated engine, going as low as 1.25L at minimum intake volume (and greatest thermal efficiency).

There is a certain irony that the prior HF35 hybrid used a 2.0L Atkinson, and got most of the power and torque of the 2.5L. My perception is that the 2.5L is more efficient, because I'm getting better mileage than the C-Max, with a larger car that has more aerodynamic drag.
 

Randy H.

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Randy
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Threads
44
Messages
606
Reaction score
923
Location
Bristol, CT
Vehicle(s)
Maverick & Civic
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Everything said above is 100% correct.
In addition, Ford already had the 2.5L Atkinson available from other vehicles; they did not have to develop a new engine for the Maverick hybrid.
 

Sponsored

Criss944

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Criss
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Threads
5
Messages
284
Reaction score
302
Location
Horry County, SC
Vehicle(s)
Silverodo
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Clubs
 
The Atkinson Cycle needs to be larger to get the desired power. The ECO Boost needs to be smaller to get the desired gas mileage.
 

jsus

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
3,649
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2022 Ford Escape Hybrid AWD 😉
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Old post, but...

It's actually a good question. The most recent prior iteration of this hybrid powertrain had a 2.0L engine, from 2013 until its retirement with 2020 Fusion. 2020 Escape and forward saw a return to 2.5L, which Fusion and Escape had prior to 2013. This revised version of the platform saw more changes than the engine size - the HVB actually shrunk and gained liquid cooling.

The combined effect of these (and other unspecified) changes was an overall increase in efficiency. So, it would seem reasonable to conclude that's the main reason. A 2020 Escape Hybrid is more efficient in city driving than a 2020 Fusion Hybrid, despite being 10.5" taller. As drag is proportional to the square of speed, the extra height is the key factor that keeps Escape Hybrid less efficient in highway driving.

Meanwhile, the 2.0L EcoBoost, being an EB, has a turbo that means that 2.0L is more capable than it might otherwise sound. For comparison, a 2012-2018 Focus came standard with a 2.0L engine only capable of 160 HP, vs. the ~250 HP out of the 2.0L EB. This hybrid platform seeks to do the opposite of an EB, though - it wants to extract more fuel efficiency rather than performance out of a given engine size.

2020 Fusion Hybrid
58.1" tall
2.0L FHEV
188 HP combined
42 mpg city
41 mpg highway
42 mpg combined
1.4 kWh air-cooled HVB

2020 Escape Hybrid
68.6" tall
2.5L FHEV
200 HP combined
44 mpg city
37 highway
41 mpg combined
1.1 kWh liquid-cooled HVB

Official fuel economy data: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42253&id=42258&id=41802

2020 Fusion Tech Specs: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/product/2020/fusion/2020-Fusion-Tech-Specs.pdf

2020 Escape Tech Specs: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/product/2020/escape/2020-Ford-Escape-Tech-Specs.pdf
 

Retired

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2022
Threads
10
Messages
146
Reaction score
170
Location
Southern Tier NY
Vehicle(s)
2023 Maverick Hybrid, 2012 focus
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
My old Allis Chalmers D-17 tractor had a 3.7 liter engine and made 63 HP at 1650 RPM. But it pulled trees out of the ground. Young people put too much emphasis on HP.
 

raymaines

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Ray
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Threads
29
Messages
592
Reaction score
882
Location
Tacoma, Washington
Vehicle(s)
Alto Blue Lariat Lux Hybrid
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
So here is possibly a dumb question why is the hybrid a 2.5L but the gas is a 2.0
Because those are the engines Ford had available and the Mav is a parts-bin kind of truck.

The discussion can get more technical and if Ford were starting from scratch everything might be different, but we aren't starting from scratch and those are the engines Ford has available.
 

Scupking

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Matt
Joined
Aug 13, 2021
Threads
14
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
1,535
Location
CT
Vehicle(s)
2022 Ford Maverick Hybrid
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
And it’s basically a tweaked version of the Mazda Miata engine. Any auto enthusiast will know how awesome the Miata is!
 
Sponsored

JimParker256

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 9, 2022
Threads
5
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
2,025
Location
Cedar Park, TX
Vehicle(s)
'22 Area 51 Hybrid FE, 2014 Impala
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Clubs
 
My old Allis Chalmers D-17 tractor had a 3.7 liter engine and made 63 HP at 1650 RPM. But it pulled trees out of the ground. Young people put too much emphasis on HP.
Not a young person here (and driven plenty of tractors myself), but...

I believe it's also true that your Allis Chalmers D-17 tractor had a top "ground speed" (in "high" range, no less) of 11.9 mph, versus the Maverick's "governed" 108-110 mph. The old saying "torque for work, horsepower for play" still holds true for me.
 

Retired

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2022
Threads
10
Messages
146
Reaction score
170
Location
Southern Tier NY
Vehicle(s)
2023 Maverick Hybrid, 2012 focus
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Not a young person here (and driven plenty of tractors myself), but...

I believe it's also true that your Allis Chalmers D-17 tractor had a top "ground speed" (in "high" range, no less) of 11.9 mph, versus the Maverick's "governed" 108-110 mph. The old saying "torque for work, horsepower for play" still holds true for me.
Yes, but my point is it's in the configuration and tuning. As to why the 2.5 makes less horsepower than a 2.0,lLike that 3.7 Allis making only 63. HP is mostly a function of RPM.
 

realshelby

2.5L Hybrid
Well-known member
First Name
Terry
Joined
Nov 20, 2022
Threads
5
Messages
533
Reaction score
695
Location
Houston
Vehicle(s)
1969 GT 500, 1965 Mustang GT,
Engine
2.5L Hybrid
Yes, but my point is it's in the configuration and tuning. As to why the 2.5 makes less horsepower than a 2.0,lLike that 3.7 Allis making only 63. HP is mostly a function of RPM.
One overlooked factor is gearing! Put the 63 hp Allis Chalmers engine in the 2.0 maverick and it won't impress you the same way.
HP is simply a calculation based on the torque output. At 5252 rpm horsepower is always higher than torque ( if engine will pass that rpm).
The Allis engine will never be used at that rpm. So it needs cubic inches to make enough torque to work in the range a tractor engine is run in.
That is where the the 2.5 liter Atkinson is better than the 2.0 Atkinson ( found in older Ford Hybrids). It has more torque at lower rpm which can make it more efficient than the 2.0 Atkinson at higher rpm.
The 2.0 ecoboost has good torque...but has a lot more parts to make that happen. The Hybrid needs instant torque to keep power seamless, the turbo ecoboost would have a bit of lag every time it engaged.
 

BlueSnake77

2.0L EcoBoost
Well-known member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Oct 28, 2021
Threads
9
Messages
489
Reaction score
456
Location
Rochester NY
Vehicle(s)
2022 Ford Maverick XLT Ecoboost
Engine
2.0L EcoBoost
Clubs
 
For comparison, a 2012-2018 Focus came standard with a 2.0L engine only capable of 160 HP, vs. the ~250 HP out of the 2.0L EB.
My 2012 Focus hatchback was no slouch even with the base engine. I had the DCT so 0-60 mph in 7.6 secs vs the manual's 7.3 secs. At highway speeds it had plenty of passing power. I could pass cars up steep mountainous hills no problem. Sure the "regular" Focus had 160 hp, but it weighed like 800lbs less than an eco boost AWD, had no torque converter using up hp and was a helluva lot more aerodynamic than the Maverick.

But on topic, I'm guessing that Ford went with a 2.5L over a 2.0L for the extra torque in a larger naturally aspirated engine.
Sponsored

 
 




Top