Ford Maverick hybrid pickup starts at $20,000

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I agree to some extent, but energy required is energy required. Physics is physics. That Ford Ecoboost is not a thermally efficient engine. The final gearing should have not really come into play as they weren't running in the highest overdrive, nor were they accelerating for more than a few seconds of the overall mountain at the very bottom, the least steep part. So the rest of the way the Ford's 10 speed should have been able to find the right gear for the right RPM even better than the Rams's 8 speed.

Having watched the video I don't think we can get any usefully fuel economy info from this "test"

• They drove different routes
• They drove up the pass in the Ram in the dry and the Ford in the rain
• The Ram was the eTorque hybrid which allowed the engine to turn off on the downhill.
• They drove the Ford in Tow / Haul mode which doesn't let the engine ever turn off
• They made no mention of the state of charge on either hybrid battery
• The driver said he was on and off the throttle a lot in the Ford because it had so much more power while the Ram was easy to stay at a steady 60 mph
• They do full throttle acceleration which wastes a HUGE amount of fuel with a turbo
• They lugged the Ford up the pass at 2300 RPM instead of selecting a lower gear for better fuel economy
• They are going by calculated fuel economy from the gas pump but only putting 3.6 gallons +/- into a 36 gallon tank. That allows for a lot of error in filling.
• They only did one run in each truck which allows traffic to be a pretty big factor.

The Ram's trip computer said 8 mpg and the Ford's said 7.9 mpg

If they wanted to test fuel economy they should should have:
1. Run the same route in similar conditions
2. Run it multiple times to reduce the effects of traffic
3. Drain the tank near empty to reduce fueling variation.


In short this is not a scientific test or repeatable.

[redpoint5]

... not to mention pulling a 7,000 lb load up a hill isn't typical usage. It's like comparing which vehicle is most fuel efficient running a quarter mile drag race; mostly irrelevant.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I would think a 3 cylinder 1L engine could be paired with a plug-in hybrid drivetrain that could be both more efficient, and output more total power over some short period of time; say under 5 minutes. It would be both quicker and more fuel efficient.

This beauty was often fitted with a 1.2L 4-cyl, after this facelift retained that engine mostly for export to Europe and South Africa, and there was not any sort of hybrid setup. It had resorted to a 1.4L engine for local Brazilian market.


Even though the 2nd generation of the Fiat Strada looks quite bolder, it's not effectively too bigger, so maybe that 1.2L could suit it. OTOH there is a 3-cyl 1.0L which shares the same basic architecture of the 1.3L 4-cyl available in the new generation of the Strada (even though the older 1.4L remains for the basic trim). Since the 3-cyl is fitted with a mild-hybrid setup on the Euro-spec 500 with the manual transmission while the ones with the Dualogic AMT retain the 1.2L formerly fitted to export versions of the 1st-gen Strada, and even without any hybrid assist the 3-cyl could do the same job as the 1.2L did, that's something to consider.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by JSH

Having watched the video I don't think we can get any usefully fuel economy info from this "test"

• They drove different routes
• They drove up the pass in the Ram in the dry and the Ford in the rain
• The Ram was the eTorque hybrid which allowed the engine to turn off on the downhill.
• They drove the Ford in Tow / Haul mode which doesn't let the engine ever turn off
• They made no mention of the state of charge on either hybrid battery
• The driver said he was on and off the throttle a lot in the Ford because it had so much more power while the Ram was easy to stay at a steady 60 mph
• They do full throttle acceleration which wastes a HUGE amount of fuel with a turbo
• They lugged the Ford up the pass at 2300 RPM instead of selecting a lower gear for better fuel economy
• They are going by calculated fuel economy from the gas pump but only putting 3.6 gallons +/- into a 36 gallon tank. That allows for a lot of error in filling.
• They only did one run in each truck which allows traffic to be a pretty big factor.

The Ram's trip computer said 8 mpg and the Ford's said 7.9 mpg

If they wanted to test fuel economy they should should have:
1. Run the same route in similar conditions
2. Run it multiple times to reduce the effects of traffic
3. Drain the tank near empty to reduce fueling variation.


In short this is not a scientific test or repeatable.

Any modern car/truck will have DFCO on the downhill and use no feul hybrid, mild hybrid, or just plain old ICE. They drove both trucks as most people would. Towing in tow haul mode, transmission in drive, maintained the speed limit for trucks with trailers. I trust the numbers they got at the pump even if just a small amount, more than anything the trucks were telling them. Why else would everyone call that gauge the "lie O meter?"

Other then that they do all the Ike Gauntlet testing similar although they do bigger loads for the bigger trucks, but at least it's a way to compare. They are in no way biased toward Dodge as a few years back they made a run in 2500 with the 6.4 Hemi and it was embarrassingly terrible using their methods. It slowed to under 25 mph under full throttle. This is just what they got but I have heard form many Ford EcoBoost owners, feul economy is not the strong suit on a 3.5 EcoBoost, the most common bread and butter F150 engine.

PS, if I were buying a new 1500 pickup today or for the last 7 years 100% I would buy a F150 with the 3.5 EcoBoost. I just am not going to have any illusions about getting good feul economy.

[JSH]

I trust calculated fuel economy more than a computer over long periods of time and lots of fill ups. I trust the trip computer more than the fuel pump on a single fill-up. I've had 4 vehicles now with trip computers that show fuel economy and they have all be very constant. Yes, they might be a little off from the long term calculated fuel economy but they are constant. It is very common for my fuel logs to show the calculated fuel economy high on one tank then low on the next tank. I use calculated fuel economy to know the correction factor for the computer.

I'm not saying they are biased - I'm saying their method isn't scientific or repeatable.

I have a 2014 Jetta TDI. On long uphills I don't just let the computer do it's thing and select the gear. Not only does it hunt back and forth between gear which is annoying but it selects one gear too high. Looking at the instantaneous fuel economy it is more efficient to manually select a gear lower and raise the RPM near peak torque instead of lugging the engine and relying on more boost and fuel.

I've driven plenty of turbo engines and have had no issue beating EPA numbers. Accelerate up to speed with moderate throttle then stay out of the boost. Look ahead and adjust accordingly. That is all it takes.

People that complain about fuel economy with turbo engines are likely on / off / on / off / on / off the throttle. SO many people don't look past the car in front of them and just ride their bumper and are constantly braking and accelerating.

[redpoint5]

I know at least 2 people who will use the throttle like an on/off button even if there isn't another person on the highway. They'll accelerate hard up to a certain speed, with the transmission downshifting to give them more power, then let off completely and coast until they realize they are going slower than they want to be going, then repeat the whole process over again.

Don't know how they figure that is an enjoyable way to travel. Maybe they just like the feeling of acceleration because it feels like you're going somewhere whereas maintaining speed feels like you aren't moving at all.

Both of them can give me a list of auto manufacturers that make crappy transmissions.

[Hersbird]

And to be fair to TFL truck they weren't using the throttle as an on off switch. Thet accelerate at full throttle on the on ramp to the freeway until they reach the speed limit. That's pretty common towing so you aren't trying to merge with 65 mph traffic only going 30. Then when they reach the speed limit they just try and hold exactly that number, not on and off. They just let the transmission shift however the transmission is programmed to shift.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

And to be fair to TFL truck they weren't using the throttle as an on off switch. Thet accelerate at full throttle on the on ramp to the freeway until they reach the speed limit. That's pretty common towing so you aren't trying to merge with 65 mph traffic only going 30. Then when they reach the speed limit they just try and hold exactly that number, not on and off. They just let the transmission shift however the transmission is programmed to shift.

The driver said he was on / off the throttle trying to maintain 60 mph. He said it was "either eco or boost" and he was "bouncing between 6th and 7th"

Curious - did you watch the 30 minute video?

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by JSH

The driver said he was on / off the throttle trying to maintain 60 mph. He said it was "either eco or boost" and he was "bouncing between 6th and 7th"

Curious - did you watch the 30 minute video?

Yes I watched it. There is a certain drama Andre try's to add, and he wants to be clever. The truck was keeping a constant speed so ge wasn't completely letting off then completely flooring it. I can imagine what it was doing was shifting up then starting to lose speed requiring more throttle which causes a downshift and then picking up speed requiring letting off, repeat. That's still on Ford for not programming it better to just hold the lower gear. On the 6 4 Hemi I referenced before it was exactly the opposite, the computer refused to downshift. Ram actually adjusted the programming just because of that TFL video. Maybe Ford will look into it now as well after their special truck unexpectedly got spanked. These kinds of tests are great IMO to shed some light that gets things changed sometimes.

[squirrl22]

Cheaper than a Prius! Able to haul all kinds of stuff! Wider back seat than my current cars! I might be able to fit 2car seats back there!