Ford Maverick Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
2017 Focus ST
Joined
·
13 Posts
Assuming not with the ecoboost package huh :(
 

·
Registered
2017 Focus ST
Joined
·
13 Posts
Figured as much, my "stg 3" Jstuned st barely does 25. It'd be worth sacrificing the power for some good mpgs, save the smiles per gallon for the focus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
It isn't all roses...

*Actual mileage will vary. Final EPA-estimated ratings available later in the 2021 calendar year.
**Range calculation based on 13.8-gallon tank and a targeted EPA-estimated rating of 37 mpg combined. Actual mileage will vary.
***2.5-liter hybrid powertrain. Actual mileage will vary. Final EPA-estimated ratings available later in the 2021 calendar year.
Ɨ Calculated via combined performance of the engine and electric motor(s) with peak battery power. The calculations utilize SAE J1349 engine results and Ford electric motor dyno testing. Your results may vary.

ƗƗ Targets achieved with premium fuel per SAE J1349 standard.

ƗƗƗ Don’t drive distracted or while using hand-held devices. Use voice controls.
 

·
Registered
2017 Focus ST
Joined
·
13 Posts
Even 35 would be a massive jump, the 25mpg I get is from taking it easy on an entire tank. I do a lot of driving too so it'd be nice not stacking up milage on my car.
Mavericks are fwd correct?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Even 35 would be a massive jump, the 25mpg I get is from taking it easy on an entire tank. I do a lot of driving too so it'd be nice not stacking up milage on my car.
Mavericks are fwd correct?
The Hybrid is FWD only. to get AWD you need to first select the 2.0EB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
It isn't all roses...

*Actual mileage will vary. Final EPA-estimated ratings available later in the 2021 calendar year.
**Range calculation based on 13.8-gallon tank and a targeted EPA-estimated rating of 37 mpg combined. Actual mileage will vary.
***2.5-liter hybrid powertrain. Actual mileage will vary. Final EPA-estimated ratings available later in the 2021 calendar year.
Ɨ Calculated via combined performance of the engine and electric motor(s) with peak battery power. The calculations utilize SAE J1349 engine results and Ford electric motor dyno testing. Your results may vary.

ƗƗ Targets achieved with premium fuel per SAE J1349 standard.

ƗƗƗ Don’t drive distracted or while using hand-held devices. Use voice controls.
Its pretty rosy to me...I currently have an 2019 F150 4x4 crew cab, gets 23 hwy, 18/19 city...not bad for as big as it is...but, I've been looking for a nice 40ish MPG daily driver, and this seems to fit the bill. I just sold my ford ecosport, disappointed with the 28 mpg avg for as small as it was (was AWD). I have a full size bronco on order, that will be my gas hog/cruiser...need something to balance out the mpg's. I am a native Granite stater! grew up around Rochester area. Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
It isn't all roses...

*Actual mileage will vary. Final EPA-estimated ratings available later in the 2021 calendar year.
**Range calculation based on 13.8-gallon tank and a targeted EPA-estimated rating of 37 mpg combined. Actual mileage will vary.
***2.5-liter hybrid powertrain. Actual mileage will vary. Final EPA-estimated ratings available later in the 2021 calendar year.
Ɨ Calculated via combined performance of the engine and electric motor(s) with peak battery power. The calculations utilize SAE J1349 engine results and Ford electric motor dyno testing. Your results may vary.

ƗƗ Targets achieved with premium fuel per SAE J1349 standard.

ƗƗƗ Don’t drive distracted or while using hand-held devices. Use voice controls.
The premium fuel doesn't really make sense, but I mean isn't this more or less the same powertrain as we've had on the Escape for a while now?

Most people are getting 37/38mpg combined on their 2.5 hybrid Escapes: 2020 Ford Escape MPG - Actual MPG from 70 2020 Ford Escape owners

Factor in the worse aerodynamics and higher weight of the Maverick, and I'm guessing 34mpg combined is realistic. Still pretty amazing considering that's what little Fiat 500 Turbos get, and those have tiny profiles and weigh only 2.5K lbs on skinny tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Regular should be fine in both motors
Well, all modern engines can run on 87 octane, as knock sensors are quite advanced now. So if we say that, then technically there are no engines that require 93 octane, since the engine will automatically richen fuel mixtures and retard ignition and do other tricks to compensate at a cost of fuel economy and peak horsepower. Some manufacturers like Mazda are nice in that they even advertise what the horsepower and/or fuel economy loss will be on lower octane for their turbo engines. The Skyactive 2.5T for example loses 23 horsepower going 87 min vs 93 recommended.

Since its pretty much the same as the powertrains on the Escape, you can just look at what Ford recommends: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/product/2020/escape/2020-Ford-Escape-Tech-Specs.pdf

Hybrid = 87 octane and 2.0 Ecoboost = 91+ octane
440
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top