Window Stickers show 22/29 MPG for Maverick 2.0L EcoBoost AWD 4K Tow

[WesM]

i never really thought about that. It does have a little chamfer at the transition, guessing that might help out structurally…

I would bet there is triangular bracing built into the bed/body connection point on the unibody frame of the maverick. Its probably not providing as much strength as it would if it were higher up like the SC. I'm guessing ford designers/engineers felt that the Maverick would not be accepted as a truck if it had the exposed flying buttress design of the SC... and they were probably right.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the FEA analysis they did on the Maverick designs and I kind of wonder if the lack of a flying buttress design is one of the reasons for the lower towing capacity of the Maverick.

Sponsored

 

[Maintman]

All good news ! Thanks for the support.

 

[mamboman777]

See 7:33

I would bet there is triangular bracing built into the bed/body connection point on the unibody frame of the maverick. Its probably not providing as much strength as it would if it were higher up like the SC. I'm guessing ford designers/engineers felt that the Maverick would not be accepted as a truck if it had the exposed flying buttress design of the SC... and they were probably right.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the FEA analysis they did on the Maverick designs and I kind of wonder if thats one of the reasons for the lower towing capacity of the Maverick.

I think it may be one of the reasons that the Santa Cruz can handle more weight in general. However, I'm no engineer and that's just a guess.

Myself, the hybrid Mav offers enough truck for me. I like the appearance and price is the Mav much more. Towing/payload capacity is not gonna sway me. Economy/overall cost will. However, a poor crash rating would, also. Time shall tell, but I'm sure they did their homework.

 

[CASD57]

Ford has already stated they are targeting 40 MPG for Hybrid. You're not saying you don't believe it until you see it are you?

I believe it..just want to see it on paper ...

 

[rightmuch]

And something that I'm slightly concerned about. The other unibody trucks have had flying buttress designs. Now, the latest Ridgeline and Maverick will be without. Great for looks and visibility, I hope not a detriment to rigidity.

I currently drive a 2017 Ridgeline (2 generation) and it has the best crash test #'s. Given how much people pay attention to that metric, I can't imagine Ford would drop the ball on something that critical. But I want to see it. But if they whiff, it will cost them sales. Mine included.

 

[GaMaverick]

I would bet there is triangular bracing built into the bed/body connection point on the unibody frame of the maverick. Its probably not providing as much strength as it would if it were higher up like the SC. I'm guessing ford designers/engineers felt that the Maverick would not be accepted as a truck if it had the exposed flying buttress design of the SC... and they were probably right.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the FEA analysis they did on the Maverick designs and I kind of wonder if the lack of a flying buttress design is one of the reasons for the lower towing capacity of the Maverick.

4K lbs. in a truck that small is low towing?

 

[GaMaverick]

I think it may be one of the reasons that the Santa Cruz can handle more weight in general. However, I'm no engineer and that's just a guess.

Myself, the hybrid Mav offers enough truck for me. I like the appearance and price is the Mav much more. Towing/payload capacity is not gonna sway me. Economy/overall cost will. However, a poor crash rating would, also. Time shall tell, but I'm sure they did their homework.

But it can’t the max payload is 600ish lbs in the bed says so right in the Santa Cruz literature.
Maverick payload is 1500 lbs. payload and 2000 lbs. towing for the bade model.

 

[Equipenquin]

Isn't Maverick heavier than the bronco sport with the same configuration? Shouldn't the maverick get worse EPA numbers?

 

[mamboman777]

But it can’t the max payload is 600ish lbs in the bed says so right in the Santa Cruz literature.
Maverick payload is 1500 lbs. payload and 2000 lbs. towing for the bade model.

I wasn't trying to say anything different, just that I don't care. Both trucks have enough capacity for me. On the other hand, Ford wins hands down on economy and cost

 

[BDennis]

Expect a non tow package 2.0 EC to get slightly better gas mileage. This unit has the 4K tow package which has a final drive ratio of 3.81. The standard 2.0 EC has a final drive ratio of 3.63.

 

[jtpc2021]

That fuel economy estimate can’t be right. Everyone on this forum kept telling me the 2.0 would get 35+mpg hwy! (beating the hybrid efficiency)
I feel so misled.

 

[Deleted member 1370]

Those numbers seem fair to me. And accurate as well given the ecoboost , AWD and tow package. I bet you can still break 30 if not a tad more on highway mileage even in that configuration if youre ginger with the throttle. Im not saying 38 or anything but maybe 32 highway and such if you can go easy on it unladen. But either way for the torque and nice and taller diff ratio with the tow package those are good numbers.

 

[Old Ranchero]

I would bet there is triangular bracing built into the bed/body connection point on the unibody frame of the maverick. Its probably not providing as much strength as it would if it were higher up like the SC. I'm guessing ford designers/engineers felt that the Maverick would not be accepted as a truck if it had the exposed flying buttress design of the SC... and they were probably right.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the FEA analysis they did on the Maverick designs and I kind of wonder if the lack of a flying buttress design is one of the reasons for the lower towing capacity of the Maverick.

Go back and review the earliest leaked photos of the bare tubs at Hermosillo factory and that should answer your question of what type of reinforcement is built into design.

 

[SgtLip]

I get 21 mpg average in my 2016 f150 supercrew 4X4 with a 2.7 EB. The 2.0 EB in a smaller vehicle should be a lot better then that.

I had the F150 EB and got the same. I expected more as well. Glad I ordered the Hybrid.

 

[Xtreme Thunder]

But it can’t the max payload is 600ish lbs in the bed says so right in the Santa Cruz literature.
Maverick payload is 1500 lbs. payload and 2000 lbs. towing for the bade model.

Alex on Autos, on YouTube, recently did a first test drive review and reached out to Hyundai for clarification. That’s what was initially interpreted for their press release. It actually can handle all weight in the bed, sans driver, like any other truck’s payload. The 660 lbs was with 4 average adults in the cab and that’s what was remaining. Not the best initial marketing language and may have hurt many initial impressions, but Hyundai did clarify. Curious if they will update their User Manual as I thought I saw someone post that the other day as well.

Sponsored