Why the ecoboost?

[VicRattlehead]

There’s no way I’d get an eco Maverick. Never. Get a ranger if you going that route.

Sponsored

 

[Zoggynog]

Knew the EcoBoost would be more reliable.

I bought EcoBoost with no AWD or 4K Tow for this reason alone. I don't trust batteries with prolonged exposure to the hot sun.

 

[Montana]

There’s no way I’d get an eco Maverick. Never. Get a ranger if you going that route.

What route are you even referring to?

There are massive differences between a Maverick and a Ranger. One specific reason that is a huge factor - beit EB or Hybrid - is MPG. Both are better than anything the Ranger has to offer. The Tremor is close to the average reports of what Ranger owners say they get in terms of MPG but even on this forum most people with Tremors report above window sticker MPG's. Also, an XLT 4x4 basic Ranger starts at $40k... what does a Maverick Lariat start at? $36K.

So... you buying? You paying for the fuel?

Also, up until 2024 the 5th gen rangers were ugly AF... hard pass.

Have you ever torn apart an automatic transmission? And all of the newer ones have an electronic component to them too.

Compared to what? (e)CVT's? I was unaware they were any easier (or cheaper for that matter) to repair... I believe the quote was for the engine, not the transmission. Personally I like the eCVT's but I'm not comparing them to engines either...

 

[NoVaJimmy]

There’s no way I’d get an eco Maverick. Never. Get a ranger if you going that route.

Pretty ignorant statement to be honest. 90% plus of my driving is highway where I usually do about 35mpg calculated. Never going to get close to that in a Ranger and you'll probably do very close to that on the highway in your hybrid. Plus I want AWD for overlanding. They both have their place and not everyone has the same driving needs etc. You should be more open minded.

 

[clos0791]

Because the Ecoboost in sport mode is awesome.

 

[Maverickman74]

 

[45caldan]

There’s no way I’d get an eco Maverick. Never. Get a ranger if you going that route.

So this thread was never for you.
I was asking why you chose the ecoboost maverick.
You did not choose one…
Please move along.

 

[Baily2000]

Availability

 

[Snox801]

There’s no way I’d get an eco Maverick. Never. Get a ranger if you going that route.

lol no way I would ever get a hybrid, get a Prius if your going that route.
this logic is about the worst I could think of. Very few situations I think the hybrid would be better. For some people it is but to suggest stepping to a ranger? If that why not a f-150 I think you missed the point of what this truck is meant for. To me it’s more a jump to a ranger from the ecoboost than your hybrid to a Prius.

 

[sprubs]

This thread is something else. Both options have thier pros and cons. It is possible to both think you made the right choice for you and that someone else made the right choice for them.

But if I see conjecture masquerading as fact I'll likely mention something. Maybe that's a problem I have? On the flip side it looks like bias confirmation seeking behavior is real.

And the insults say more about the people slinging them than anyone else.

 

[Robert C]

I think for a lot of people it's because they gave it a proper name - "Ecoboost".
If they called it a "tiny 2.0 4 cylinder stressed by a turbocharger" no one would buy it.

 

[stoptothink]

lol no way I would ever get a hybrid, get a Prius if your going that route.
this logic is about the worst I could think of. Very few situations I think the hybrid would be better. For some people it is but to suggest stepping to a ranger? If that why not a f-150 I think you missed the point of what this truck is meant for. To me it’s more a jump to a ranger from the ecoboost than your hybrid to a Prius.

For our situation, the hybrid was a unicorn vehicle. A truck certainly offers some utility as we camp and mountain bike a ton (with a family of 4), but it wasn't a necessity. We managed to do it in small sedans for the previous decade. If the hybrid didn't exist, we weren't even considering a truck. The fact that the hybrid was cheaper (when we ordered) and likely would have at least comparable (if not less) overall cost of ownership was a bonus, as I am one cheap MF'er who prefers to spend as little as possible on vehicles despite having the resources to drive whatever the heck we want.

As sales numbers show, there were a heck of a lot of buyers in a similar situation: where a truck (and/or vehicle with AWD) isn't necessarily a need, but offers a lot of utility. The market talks, clearly there are more than "very few situations" where the hybrid would be better, or at least deemed so by those in the market.

This is not to say the hybrid is superior, you buy the best tool for the job you will be doing and the ecoboost is superior for specific situations (any off-roading, towing, any form of racing, etc.). I have come to notice that this is a trend: posters, on forums of all kinds, speak in broad generalizations as if everybody is in the exact same situation as them. These threads always turn out silly; we don't all have the same needs so they just become pissing contests.

 

[Dueces]

I think for a lot of people it's because they gave it a proper name - "Ecoboost".
If they called it a "tiny 2.0 4 cylinder stressed by a turbocharger" no one would buy it.

They are not "stressed" by any stretch of the imagination, they are built for it. I Stress my ecoboost, lol.

I heavily debated the Hybrid vs the Ecoboost, but being as my driving is about 85% highway, I went with the Eco so I could still get good mileage, but have awd for the snow and any overlanding situation I may find myself in.

In 2024, it's cheaper for the Ecoboost as well.

If we talk reliability, I "feel" the Eco has the upper hand here due to the block redesign with the cross-drilled holes, instead of the headgasket warping slots that were in the earlier Eco's.

Also, I have proven the reliability of both the engine and transmission, with 41,000 miles of use, with 700+ 1/4 mile passes. Now this only proves how strong the engine/trans is while referring to reliability, it should speak volumes to how well they are built if I can put them through this type of torture, and still see 30+mpg's on my 87 tune.

My buddy really likes his hybrid as well, and I think I would have enjoyed either one really, but the "car guy" in me is glad I went this route, as I have shown these things can run 11's down the track on Friday, and get building supplies on Saturday!

John

 

[Robert C]

They are not "stressed" by any stretch of the imagination, they are built for it. I Stress my ecoboost, lol.

I heavily debated the Hybrid vs the Ecoboost, but being as my driving is about 85% highway, I went with the Eco so I could still get good mileage, but have awd for the snow and any overlanding situation I may find myself in.

In 2024, it's cheaper for the Ecoboost as well.

If we talk reliability, I "feel" the Eco has the upper hand here due to the block redesign with the cross-drilled holes, instead of the headgasket warping slots that were in the earlier Eco's.

Also, I have proven the reliability of both the engine and transmission, with 41,000 miles of use, with 700+ 1/4 mile passes. Now this only proves how strong the engine/trans is while referring to reliability, it should speak volumes to how well they are built if I can put them through this type of torture, and still see 30+mpg's on my 87 tune.

My buddy really likes his hybrid as well, and I think I would have enjoyed either one really, but the "car guy" in me is glad I went this route, as I have shown these things can run 11's down the track on Friday, and get building supplies on Saturday!

John

"run 11's down the track" - we sure were looking for two completely different kind of vehicles.

 

[Mav_RICK]

There are lots of good reasons to go eco boost. I just didn't happen to have one.

Sponsored