Ford Maverick Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This site seems to be scooped so reposting a link here to the pics


Very curious to see how AWD on the hybrid affects MPGs, might have a big drop given the height increase

My hope is the PHEV Maverick will be a surprise next year.

Feel free to link to other stories on this topic in this thread.


I did not order last August for 2 reasons

1. 1 year wait
2. No PHEV option

Will see if I’m in for my next plug in now that my Volt is crashed :0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
This site seems to be scooped so reposting a link here to the pics


Very curious to see how AWD on the hybrid affects MPGs, might have a big drop given the height increase

My hope is the PHEV Maverick will be a surprise next year.

Feel free to link to other stories on this topic in this thread.


I did not order last August for 2 reasons

1. 1 year wait
2. No PHEV option

Will see if I’m in for my next plug in now that my Volt is crashed :0
phev will be less mpg on its own due to the larger battery ...yeah awd is always less mpg than fwd due to added weight of additional drivetrain parts ...that lofty 40 mpg will likely go down substantially.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
phev will be less mpg on its own due to the larger battery ...yeah awd is always less mpg than fwd due to added weight of additional drivetrain parts ...that lofty 40 mpg will likely go down substantially.
This isn’t necessarily substantial, it really depends how they implement.

As an example see Prius Prime and the Prius AWD.

Very small impact, I have a feeling though Ford is leaning monster truck over the Prius method

Even their own Escape PHEV has minimal negative mpg impact, hoping they stay the coarse on efficiency given the gas prices
 

·
Registered
Area 51 XLT hybrid ordered 11/9/21
Joined
·
272 Posts
I hope they add the AWD to the Hybrid option. That should be the best of both worlds? :unsure:
I hope they add a diesel option to the hybrid. THAT would be the best of both worlds. My '98 VW Jetta TDI routinely got 55 MPG going back & forth to work. A diesel hybrid Maverick should do about the same or better. There is a reason railroad locomotives and ocean liners have hybrid systems - better MPG!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I hope they add a diesel option to the hybrid. THAT would be the best of both worlds. My '98 VW Jetta TDI routinely got 55 MPG going back & forth to work. A diesel hybrid Maverick should do about the same or better. There is a reason railroad locomotives and ocean liners have hybrid systems - better MPG!
My 2000 Honda Insight manual transmission was modded to plug in.

A naturally aspirated diesel manual transmission PHEV would be the best for efficiency.

My Honda can turn over 80mpg on strictly gas, over 150mpg running on a combination of gas+elec
An antique VW Rabbit diesel pickup can turn over 50mpg although underpowered.

Using the 50mpg VW Diesel pickup concept combined with a PHEV would give you something that isn’t expensive to manufacture and would have a big power boost from the PHEV (hybrid) system

Nobody is willing to make a naturally aspirated diesel anymore, despite the fact that the pollution controls are 1/10th the price to meet regulations, hybridization would remove the underpowered excuse
 

·
Registered
Area 51 XLT hybrid ordered 11/9/21
Joined
·
272 Posts
A naturally aspirated diesel manual transmission PHEV would be the best for efficiency.
Turbos are more efficient. This is why ALL big rigs have them. Without them, displacement would have to be a LOT more, which increases fuel consumption.

You would not need a manual transmission; a dual clutch automatic has exactly the same efficiency, as it is basically a manual transmission auto shifted. My 2005 Volvo truck had an auto shift transmission (but with a clutch just for starting out from a dead stop), but my 2010 Volvo auto shift truck did not. Both were as fuel efficient as an old fashioned manual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
Turbos are more efficient. This is why ALL big rigs have them. Without them, displacement would have to be a LOT more, which increases fuel consumption.

You would not need a manual transmission; a dual clutch automatic has exactly the same efficiency, as it is basically a manual transmission auto shifted. My 2005 Volvo truck had an auto shift transmission (but with a clutch just for starting out from a dead stop), but my 2010 Volvo auto shift truck did not. Both were as fuel efficient as an old fashioned manual.
More power efficient, not necessarily more fuel efficient.
The whole reason to hybridize is to make up for lack of power, a hybrid diesel would have no need of a turbo or being upsized significantly because a PHEV can make virtually unlimited electrical power.

also displacement does not necessarily have as much effect on economy as you would think, my ancient c-code 6.2lt diesel suburban with a 5 speed stick and a 2.8 rear could get around 30mpg if I kept my speed down on the highway , the modern 3.3l Turbo Diesel suburban does not get close to that despite 40 years of improvements

Another Example
The most efficient LUPO was available with a naturally aspirated diesel motor

This motor emitted the lowest pollution (real world not cheating) and had the best fuel economy of the “traditional “ Lupos

Non-turbo diesels cost no more than a gasoline engine, require more simplistic emissions and can be much more reliable especially in cold climates.

They also start easily and are much more tolerant to on off cycles thaneven a gas engine

All in all a good case for a cheap hybrid powerplant, and if power is lacking a “dual fuel” dual injector diesel + e85 motor can turn equal horsepower ratings naturally aspired as compared to a typical turbo diesel, the late injected ethanol is for power, runs straight diesel on the flat.

Many technologies just sit at the wayside
 

·
Registered
Area 51 XLT hybrid ordered 11/9/21
Joined
·
272 Posts
More power efficient, not necessarily more fuel efficient.
The whole reason to hybridize is to make up for lack of power, a hybrid diesel would have no need of a turbo or being upsized significantly because a PHEV can make virtually unlimited electrical power.

also displacement does not necessarily have as much effect on economy as you would think, my ancient c-code 6.2lt diesel suburban with a 5 speed stick and a 2.8 rear could get around 30mpg if I kept my speed down on the highway , the modern 3.3l Turbo Diesel suburban does not get close to that despite 40 years of improvements
Our 1994 motorhome with 7.3L V-8 NON-turbo, 175 HP diesel averaged 10.5 MPG. Our slightly lighter (about 10%) 2018 motorhome with 3.2L I-5 TURBO, 285 HP diesel gets 17-18 MPG. A remarkable improvement! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Our 1994 motorhome with 7.3L V-8 NON-turbo, 175 HP diesel averaged 10.5 MPG. Our slightly lighter (about 10%) 2018 motorhome with 3.2L I-5 TURBO, 285 HP diesel gets 17-18 MPG. A remarkable improvement! :D
Our 1994 Cummins Turbo motor home got 8-11mpg

this moving guy got 25mpg with his 1983 manual transmission 1 ton 6.9 idi diesel Ford pickup


Admittedly theFord 7.3 was built for reliability over fuel economy

All antidotal, the reality is that modern technology can improve any engine type turbo or not, the goals aren’t always fuel economy so you get different results.

Akin to the @$$ fuel economy you can get with Chevies turbo 4 banger Silverados (if you accidentally touch the gas pedal)
On paper the 4 banger has better city but in reality you need to drive quite carefully not to get worse economy than the larger displacement truck.
 

·
Registered
Area 51 XLT hybrid ordered 11/9/21
Joined
·
272 Posts
Our 1994 Cummins Turbo motor home got 8-11mpg

this moving guy got 25mpg with his 1983 manual transmission 1 ton 6.9 idi diesel Ford pickup
My 1984 Isuzu P'up with 2.2L non-turbo diesel got 33 MPG, but my '98 Jetta TDI turbo-diesel got over 50.

Admittedly theFord 7.3 was built for reliability over fuel economy
Indeed! At a fuel pump circa Y2K, I once ran into a guy filling up his former ambulance van, that happened to be the same year (1994) as our old RV and had same 7.3L non-turbo Ford/International diesel engine. It had 750,000 miles, and still ran great, but and he said it still ran great, but was starting to burn a little oil. :D
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top