When I wrote my 2022 Ford Maverick review a month or so ago, I didn’t know the mpg of the hybrid version.
No one did. Because it wasn’t finalized yet.
Now, it has been.
Ford says that the trucks will have EPA-estimated fuel economy of 42 mpg city, 33 mpg highway, and 37 mpg combined, with a range over 500 miles.
Hybrids are expected to ship in December, with the first customers taking delivery in January of 2022. All hybrid production for 2022 is set to be spoken for by November, according to Ford. Once that happens, orders for hybrids will close until next summer.
Naturally, Ford is tooting its own horn.
“Our team set out to redefine what a truck could be with Maverick, and we’ve done that with an EPA-estimated 42 mpg city that beats the 2022 Honda Civic 1.5-liter 4-cylinder automatic (variable gear ratio) gasoline engine. At the same time, Maverick offers room for five and plenty of towing and hauling for weekend trips or do-it-yourself projects,” said Chris Mazur, Ford Maverick chief engineer, in the press release.
As I said in my review, the hybrid model will be preferable for those looking for a lower MSRP or better fuel economy. If those things don’t matter to you and/or you’re an impatient sort, you can get your grubby mitts on the 2.0-liter four-cylinder version, which is very much not a hybrid, more easily.
[Image: Ford]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
I’m absolutely buying one… but given Ford’s notorious teething problems, I won’t buy one until the 2023 model year.
At the $20k price point, no vehicle for sale today can touch this. If someone misses the Ford sedans of yore, slap a hard tonneau on this thing and you have a decent sedan with a pretty big trunk.
Hopefully any issues have already been ironed out, since this is the same system that is already in the Escape Hybrid.
@dwford – sure, that covers the powertrain… what about the rest of the truck?
I’m also waiting to see if the aftermarket comes up with a solution to “no cruise control available in XL trim”. Aftermarket CC specialist Rostra is alleged to be already working on it.
I would be interested in an AWD hybrid, hopefully that’s coming next
Problem is it’s not $20,000. There a grossly inflated $1500 delivery charge, which is out of line IMO, and an almost $500 acquisition fee, or whatever they’re calling it, and you don’t even get a spare. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t even come with cruise control. This is typical Ford bait and switch. I’d like to have one too but I’m under no illusions that the out the door price will be less than $25,000. Still not bad but not $20k.
To be fair the acquisition fee is only for a lease and this isn’t the sort of car you should be leasing. The whole point is to get a cheap truck which doesn’t happen if you load up a Lariat trim. The cheapest you can get one is $21,490 after destination but before TTL. That is an XL with steel wheels and no cruise control.
And I think it is terrible that they quote MSRP without destination because it absolutely is in the price of every one they sell. I’ve got an XLT with luxury package on order and my OTD before TTL is a shade over $26K.
BTW the ordering guide says if you are a fleet customer you can option an XL with factory cruise control but that is not available to retail shoppers.
“ BTW the ordering guide says if you are a fleet customer you can option an XL with factory cruise control but that is not available to retail shoppers.”
Fords own website still shows a rear window defroster on higher end models (that’s an oxymoron). So Ford could be lying about the cruise on fleet models too.
The Maverick hybrid might be the best all-around vehicle available.
This or the Corolla Cross.
You just named the exact 2 vehicles that I hope to be cross shopping next spring or summer when I can add (hopefully) a new vehicle to our driveway.
The Corolla Cross? I guess there is no accounting for taste. There should be a punishment for buyers who subject other drivers to viewing hideous cars.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is often subjective. For example I hold the 59 Cadillac up as the most beautiful of all domestic cars.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
I thought the quote was, “Beauty is in the eye of the *beer* holder”… “there are no 3’s at closing time.” LOL
@Arther Dailey: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is often subjective. For example I hold the 59 Cadillac up as the most beautiful of all domestic cars.”
— Whereas you’ve got the right year but for me it’s the Impala. Absolutely love those smoothly-arched wings and teardrop tail lights.
“There should be a punishment for buyers who subject other drivers to viewing hideous cars.”
: Thumbs up : : Smiling Fox : : Thumbs up :
I admit this and Corolla Cross are on my shopping list too, as well as CX-30. Expect all to have hybrid availability by MY23.
“with a range over 500 miles”
Well done, Ford.
I love hearing efficiency measured by range… cause the size of fuel tank has *nothing* to do with it, right?
I remember ads for some vehicle a decade ago, saying how efficient it was, it could go 900km on a tank. My first thought was ‘Well, my commercial truck can go 1500km on a tank, so does that mean my truck is more efficient?’
Anyway, we’ll see how the Maverick shakes out – fully expect trim pieces to fall off and Ford to rebuild all of them like the ’19 Explorers
I believe a lot of fuel tanks are too small (regardless of ‘efficiency’). So it is good to see a 500-ish mile stated range.
But since you brought it up, Real-World Highway Range™ of this vehicle is (13.8-1.5)*33 = 406 miles. Which is better than many.
Real-World City Range™ = 517, which offers very real advantages in the real world. (Fueling up less often = better, even around town.)
[Why do we include 1.5 gallons in reserve? Because the low fuel light will likely come on before that, and not all drivers are as bold as my dad, who as a young married man would regularly go *all* the way to E. As in, on more than one occasion the vehicle would run out of fuel and coast to the pump. No, he didn’t drive a diesel.]
“ But since you brought it up, Real-World Highway Range™ of this vehicle is (13.8-1.5)*33 = 406 miles.”
We also can’t forget how Ford misleads with their fuel economy numbers. Is this going to be a case where they use the Escape algorithm to determine the fuel economy of this fake truck?
Thats what they did when they used the C-Max algorithm to figure out the fuel economy of the much larger Fusion/Lincoln Fusion hybrids.
“ Anyway, we’ll see how the Maverick shakes out – fully expect trim pieces to fall off and Ford to rebuild all of them like the ’19 Explorers”
That’s a given at this point. The best we can hope for is that the roof actually works in this unlike the overrated and problematic Ranger SUV.
@millerluke – That is true. My F150 is good for 800 plus kilometers (500 miles) if not worked too hard but has a 136 litre fuel tank (35 US gallons).
14 miles per gallon is horrible. But then I wouldn’t expect anything less from that boat anchor V8.
Granted I average that with my larger and more powerful V8….while towing my 3800 pound boat.
/wonders if that crate engine from 2 articles ago could be shoehorned into this engine bay? I kid. Just wish you could get hybrid+awd. Seems like a winner.
@MrIcky – 632 crate swap a Tesla. That would give Tesla fans indigestion and treehugger types conniption fits. Oh, if only I could win the big lottery. LOL
If I win the big lottery shoot me a grant proposal, I would LOL at all the conniptions.
“Just wish you could get hybrid+awd. Seems like a winner.”
You can get it in the Escape which is what this is. Ford is incredibly stupid for choosing not to offer this so-called truck with a hybrid and AWD.
HWY MPGs are a bit low for a Hybrid but keeping in mind the boxy shape and weight this is not bad. And MPG city exceeded my expectations by 2 MPG.
I see a clear winner here. Hope Ford doesn’t mess up with the roll out
I echo the calls for AWD plus hybrid in the Mav.
Ford can do it they just choose not to. Someone in a focus group must have thought people don’t want an AWD truck.
But yet seeing as this is just an Escape with a bed and the Escape DOES offer AWD with thy hybrid powertrain, this is just another shining example of Fords stupidity.
Also, not offering the hybrid with the 2.0L gas is a mistake too. Towing ability and (somewhat decent) fuel economy? People would be all over that.
42mpg in town; Good
33 mpg highway; Good
37 mpg combined; Good
With all that, what’s not to like?
•
•
•
How about the fact that it’s a Ford?
@Vulpine Sir, could it meet your towing needs?
@ el scotto: “could it meet your towing needs?”
— To be honest, I don’t know. It might have more than I need, or it might fall far short; my wife still hasn’t decided on what trailer she wants and I just found her a couple new ones, one at 2000# and another at 4000#. My current Colorado can handle 7000# but I intend to limit it to 6000# GVWR if she wants bigger. Yet… she loves the lightweight teardrops. At this rate, I may never tow anything larger than a U-haul auto carrier.
Maybe I will get my hybrid Maverick XLT early next year.
What good are these numbers if you can’t actually buy one?
1000 pounds lighter than a sienna, and 1 mpg more efficient. Good job Ford!
A hybrid Maverick gets literally twice the MPG of a Taco. Not sure you want to bring Toyota into this lol
The Sienna is a much more expensive vehicle.
It is a good retirement vehicle for those of us who want an open bed but in a smaller package and more efficiency. Also it is not as high to get into and you can actually reach in the bed without a ladder. I could care less if it is unibody and front wheel drive because I do not need a big truck with a big payload or large towing capacity. Ford advertises the Maverick as a vehicle for young urbanites but there are many of us who are older who want a smaller more affordable truck that is easier to handle and less expensive to operate. Some call those of us who want a less expensive alternative cheapskates but for many this is all they need in a truck and all many will use.
As for beauty is in the eye of the beholder I hold the 1955-56 Continental Mark II as one the most beautiful and timeless cars ever made. I have many other favorites like the 63 Buick Riviera, 63 Pontiac Grand Prix, 1955 thru 57 T Birds, 1961 thru 1969 Lincoln Continental and bubble top 1961 Chevrolet Impala but I would have to say the Continental Mark II is my all time favorite.
“for those of us who want an open bed but… a smaller package”
That description sounds an awful lot like the ex-wife of someone who will not be named here…
That’s it? For a hybrid? How pathetic is that?
And it’s still puzzling that Ford flat out refuses to offer the hybrid powertrain with AWD. This “truck” is nothing more than an Escape with a bed and the Escape, despite is many faults, offers the hybrid with AWD.
This mileage would be decent for an AWD model but for a FWD model and considering the super cheap build quality and interior (but hey saving weight right) the fuel economy is unfortunate.
But this is to be expected when you have the absolute worst engineers in the industry designing the worst vehicles in the industry.
@EBFlex, some life advice (even if you don’t listen, someone else might – lol):
At my first ‘real’ job (at an automotive OEM), I complained a lot (there was a lot to complain about).
But if all you ever do is complain, and if the only tone you ever take is super-negative ultra-sarcastic, people tend to tune you out. And then they dismiss the Very Valid Points that might be buried in all that negativity.
So there you go – this was free.
ToolGuy – counterpoint:
I no longer tune out EBFlex. I actually seek out his comments for comical relief. It tells me “all is well with the world today.” If he stopped complaining about a Ford vehicle, something would be really off. Like the time when he slipped and intimated being impressed by the small Lincoln CUV, whatever it’s called. A moment I cherish.
“But if all you ever do is complain, and if the only tone you ever take is super-negative ultra-sarcastic, people tend to tune you out. And then they dismiss the Very Valid Points that might be buried in all that negativity.”
Thing is, nothing I post is negative. It’s simply the truth. Those who view it as negative are simply biased and the truth bothers them. They can’t handle it. Therefore they try and silence it. Sounds exactly like our current, installed administration.
40 mpg is good for any truck even if it is based on an Escape. A truck is not as aerodynamic as a car especially when compared to a Prius. The boxy shape of the Maverick takes away from the efficiency but if you want a truck then you are not going to have the most aerodynamic design. 40 mpgs at a little over 20k MSRP starting price is very good for a new vehicle in today’s market.
Unless Subaru “hybridizes” the Outback in the next 18 months, the Maverick hybrid is on my very short list for a 2023 purchase.
022 Ford Maverick Hybrid EPA Fuel Economy Ratings
City Highway Combined
2022 Ford Maverick 2.5L Hybrid FWD 42 MPG 33 MPG 37 MPG
2022 Ford Maverick 2.0L EcoBoost I-4 FWD 23 MPG 30 MPG 26 MPG
2022 Ford Maverick 2.0L EcoBoost I-4 AWD 22 MPG 29 MPG 25 MPG
The hybrid Maverick is officially rated to return 42 miles-per-gallon in the city, 33 on the highway, and 37 combined. Unsurprisingly, that makes it the most fuel-efficient hybrid pickup on sale today, one that will travel over 500 miles on a single tank of gas. It’s capable of achieving these impressive numbers thanks to Ford’s 2.5-liter Atkinson cycle hybrid engine, electronic continuously variable transmission, and a liquid-cooled lithium-ion battery, with a combined output of 191 horsepower and 155 pound-feet of torque.