Ford November 2023 Sales

[jpd80]

On 12/8/2023 at 6:52 AM, akirby said:

The hybrid is now a $1500 upgrade so we’ll find out.

Maybe Ford is trying to push the 2.0 EB, it still has a big price advantage over BS and Escape which start up near $30,000

[mackinaw]

My first truck was a brand new 1984 Ranger 4x4 with the 2.8L V6 with a 5-speed manual.  Standard cab, dark grey with a red interior.  Locking hubs.  That was one hell of a good truck.  Sorry i ever sold it. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by mackinaw
clarification

[LSchicago]

On 12/7/2023 at 2:43 PM, rmc523 said:

 

As has been stated before, Maverick is hard to peg because of hybrid being standard, AND limited supply.

 

If two equal models hybrid and non-hybrid were on the same lot, for the same price, would hybrid still win?

 

Yes, that is what happened in MY 2023 when Hybrid and Ecoboost cost the same. About 7 out of 10 orders for 2023 were Hybrids. 80% of unscheduled 2024 Maverick orders are for Hybrids. Even though the hybrid is now $1,500 more, Hybrid demand is overwhelming! And Rightfully so. It's a great little truck. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by LSchicago

[Rick73]

37 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

 

Yes, that is what happened in MY 2023 when Hybrid and Ecoboost cost the same. About 7 out of 10 orders for 2023 were Hybrids. 80% of unscheduled 2024 Maverick orders are for Hybrids. Even though the hybrid is now $1,500 more, Hybrid demand is overwhelming! And Rightfully so. It's a great little truck. 

Love the truck, but expect that trailer, though appearing to be very light, likely kills highway fuel economy due to high aerodynamic drag.  I tried pulling a similar light but large trailer once with 4-cylinder Ranger and couldn’t.  The weight was fine but drag at speed was too much for engine.

[LSchicago]

9 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Love the truck, but expect that trailer, though appearing to be very light, likely kills highway fuel economy due to high aerodynamic drag.  I tried pulling a similar light but large trailer once with 4-cylinder Ranger and couldn’t.  The weight was fine but drag at speed was too much for engine.

 

In the process of lowering the trailer 6" now which should help a lot.  Before I start Camping with it, I will add a cap on the bed, or a cab to trailer height air deflector to help with MPG. The truck has plenty of pulling power. 75-80 is no problem and keeps the power meter under 50%. Even passing is good.  Around town you barely know it's there. The MPG penalty is real though. The best I got was 21.6 @ 75mph. 

[DeluxeStang]

47 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

 

In the process of lowering the trailer 6" now which should help a lot.  Before I start Camping with it, I will add a cap on the bed, or a cab to trailer height air deflector to help with MPG. The truck has plenty of pulling power. 75-80 is no problem and keeps the power meter under 50%. Even passing is good.  Around town you barely know it's there. The MPG penalty is real though. The best I got was 21.6 @ 75mph. 

I can't really see us towing with our hybrid. But that's basically what I've heard. The maverick seems overbuilt/overly capable. I almost get the impression Ford engineers knew people would doubt the maverick because it was a small unibody pickup. So they went into the products development with something to prove. 

 

Are you in the maverick forums? I'm on there as OneAlienBoi. You should document your experience towing extensively with the maverick if you haven't already, a lot of the forum members would love it. 

[Rick73]

42 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

 

In the process of lowering the trailer 6" now which should help a lot.  Before I start Camping with it, I will add a cap on the bed, or a cab to trailer height air deflector to help with MPG. The truck has plenty of pulling power. 75-80 is no problem and keeps the power meter under 50%. Even passing is good.  Around town you barely know it's there. The MPG penalty is real though. The best I got was 21.6 @ 75mph. 

A lot of trailer drag is generated at the very back so difficult to make significant aerodynamic improvements.  Slowing down makes a big difference and it’s easy and cheap. ? 

 

Almost 22 MPG is great.  I would be extremely happy with that from my van at 75 MPH.

[HotRunrGuy]

9 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I can't really see us towing with our hybrid.

 

Ahhhh, now I understand why you are so anti-2.0EB, with your claims of how problematic it is.

 

HRG

[LSchicago]

15 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I can't really see us towing with our hybrid. But that's basically what I've heard. The maverick seems overbuilt/overly capable. I almost get the impression Ford engineers knew people would doubt the maverick because it was a small unibody pickup. So they went into the products development with something to prove. 

 

Are you in the maverick forums? I'm on there as OneAlienBoi. You should document your experience towing extensively with the maverick if you haven't already, a lot of the forum members would love it. 

 

 

Yes, I am on MTC under the same user name. I posted after I picked the trailer up. I see you on there, you have an Area 51 right? 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

A lot of trailer drag is generated at the very back so difficult to make significant aerodynamic improvements.  Slowing down makes a big difference and it’s easy and cheap. ? 

 

Almost 22 MPG is great.  I would be extremely happy with that from my van at 75 MPH.

 

Most of the trip was closer to 17MPG. It was very windy though Nebraska and Iowa.  My E150 van got 16 on the highway, so still not bad. But it will be better, once I lower the trailer and improve air flow. Agreed that slowing down would be much better for MPG. I needed to make it back on the same day after picking it up. Most trips won't be rushed. 

[LSchicago]

16 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

Ahhhh, now I understand why you are so anti-2.0EB, with your claims of how problematic it is.

 

HRG

 

Honestly, the Hybrid tows much better than I thought. This trailer is pretty light at about 1100# empty, but has a big front surface area. Never once did it slow down on a hill. 

[LSchicago]

20 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Maybe Ford is trying to push the 2.0 EB, it still has a big price advantage over BS and Escape which start up near $30,000

 

Ford has always pushed the EB in everything. I never buy the EB though. Give me the 5.0 in the F150 or Mustang, and the Hybrid in the Maverick!

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, LSchicago said:

 

 

Yes, I am on MTC under the same user name. I posted after I picked the trailer up. I see you on there, you have an Area 51 right?

Ah, I see you now, very cool. Yep, area 51 XLT trim. I actually hated that color until I saw it in person because all of the promo material made Area seem very flat and gray, with hardly any color to it. Whereas IRL, it tends to adopt this rich teal, or light blue look depending on the lighting. Had it just over a year, loving it so far, have averaged 43 mpg over 6,500 miles. 

 

2 hours ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

Ahhhh, now I understand why you are so anti-2.0EB, with your claims of how problematic it is.

 

HRG

I don't hate the 2.0, it's just the hybrid is very clearly the better powertrain in the maverick. Far more reliable and efficient, basically the same level of pep at lower speeds, and a more refined driving experience.

 

Sure, it can't tow 4k lbs like the Ecoboost can, but I went into it knowing we wouldn't be towing much, if ever, with our maverick. Not to mention LS just proved the maverick hybrid can still tow quite well, so if I ever need to, it'll be up to the task. Sure, the 2.0 has optional AWD, but I don't need it. I like in Utah, a state literally marketed for it's snow, and I've never had an issue with FWD, especially considering the mavericks AWD system is basically acting as FWD anyways unless you start to lose traction. 

 

What I needed, was an affordable, fuel efficient truck that was capable enough to occasionally handle so furniture or groceries in the bed. The maverick has been excellent there. 

[Rick73]

44 minutes ago, LSchicago said:

Ford has always pushed the EB in everything.

It will be very interesting to see if Ford backs off that position as (or if) hybrids become much more common.  To combine the very best of ICE and electrification, I believe vehicles will rely more on high-power electric motors for performance, with ICE needing to contribute less of peak power and torque, hence making EcoBoost less of an added value.

[DeluxeStang]

19 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

It will be very interesting to see if Ford backs off that position as (or if) hybrids become much more common.  To combine the very best of ICE and electrification, I believe vehicles will rely more on high-power electric motors for performance, with ICE needing to contribute less of peak power and torque, hence making EcoBoost less of an added value.

Not to mention if they're trying to improve their quality/reliability, moving away from ecoboost would certainly help. I've always admired the power of ecoboost motors, but doubt I'll ever own one. I don't know if there are any EB motors that have a reputation for being rock solid, I've heard the 2.7 is generally pretty solid, I haven't heard really anything about the 3.0, good or bad. Everything else seems to be riddled with long term reliability concerns. 

 

I tend to stick with duratec, those engines always seem solid. Both our 3.5, and the 2.5 in our maverick. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by DeluxeStang

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, LSchicago said:

 

Ford has always pushed the EB in everything. I never buy the EB though. Give me the 5.0 in the F150 or Mustang, and the Hybrid in the Maverick!

Of course but my point was the amazingly low price of Maverick compared to Bronco Sport and Escape,

the EB is replaces larger atmo engine like a V6 /V8 that’s impractical under CAFE  /C2 design/ just don’t want to do.

 

Not apologising for Ford here - I’m shocked that it took them so long to figure out an affordable compact pickup,

that everything doesn’t have to be an either/or choice, they forgot all about how to make affordable derivatives……

[silvrsvt]

On 12/9/2023 at 1:49 PM, Rick73 said:

It will be very interesting to see if Ford backs off that position as (or if) hybrids become much more common.  To combine the very best of ICE and electrification, I believe vehicles will rely more on high-power electric motors for performance, with ICE needing to contribute less of peak power and torque, hence making EcoBoost less of an added value.

 

But your not going to see a huge improvement in MPGs...just look at the F-150 Powerboost and well most buyers don't care either. 

 

While smaller cars see better gains due to many different reasons, they also give up a lot of what a bigger vehicle owner wants, so they'll live with the extra $10-20 bucks a week it costs to fuel it up. 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

But your not going to see a huge improvement in MPGs...just look at the F-150 Powerboost and well most buyers don't care either. 

 

What do you consider huge?  Atkinson-cycle engines are typically more efficient than EcoBoost, but “huge” is subjective.  With gas presently under $3.00/gallon it’s very possible buyers don’t care much anyway.  Having said that, hybrids with Atkinson like Maverick and cars from Toyota and Honda are selling over 50% of their model’s total volume, so buyers apparently are starting to care some about saving fuel and or reducing GHGs.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

What do you consider huge?  Atkinson-cycle engines are typically more efficient than EcoBoost, but “huge” is subjective.  With gas presently under $3.00/gallon it’s very possible buyers don’t care much anyway.  Having said that, hybrids with Atkinson like Maverick and cars from Toyota and Honda are selling over 50% of their model’s total volume, so buyers apparently are starting to care some about saving fuel and or reducing GHGs.

I tend to see good fuel economy as something that hedges my bet in case fuel prices spike in the future, which they've been known to do. I shit you not when I say this, I've genuinely met people who bought gas guzzling suvs because gas was cheap at the time, and who later screwed themselves when prices shot up, complaining about how they were now struggling to afford that vehicle. Yes, some people really are that stupid commiting to a long term major purchase without factoring in simple things like fuel price fluctuations. 

[silvrsvt]

8 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

What do you consider huge?  Atkinson-cycle engines are typically more efficient than EcoBoost, but “huge” is subjective.  With gas presently under $3.00/gallon it’s very possible buyers don’t care much anyway.  Having said that, hybrids with Atkinson like Maverick and cars from Toyota and Honda are selling over 50% of their model’s total volume, so buyers apparently are starting to care some about saving fuel and or reducing GHGs.

 

Your completely missing the point once again...Atkinson style engines give up 30% of their power when compared to Otto cycle engines of equivalent size for that additional efficiency they make, which in smaller cars is made up by the electric motor of the hybrid system. 

 

Midsized and larger CUV/SUV and Trucks would be completely compromised by using an eCVT and Atkinson ICE because it wouldn't meet the needs or wants of the typical buyer of those products

 

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I tend to see good fuel economy as something that hedges my bet in case fuel prices spike in the future, which they've been known to do. I shit you not when I say this, I've genuinely met people who bought gas guzzling suvs because gas was cheap at the time, and who later screwed themselves when prices shot up, complaining about how they were now struggling to afford that vehicle. Yes, some people really are that stupid commiting to a long term major purchase without factoring in simple things like fuel price fluctuations. 

 

In the grand scheme of things, using fuel economy.gov as a tool to compare, most of the time the difference is only about $10-20 bucks a week over the year in fuel savings. Maybe they shouldn't be taking out a $800 a month car note if they can't afford an extra $20 in gas. 

[Rick73]

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I tend to see good fuel economy as something that hedges my bet in case fuel prices spike in the future, which they've been known to do.

Very true, and I also like knowing I’m contributing less to overall waste and pollution, though there is a lot more I can do to reduce energy use.

 

One of the features I like best regarding highly-efficient hybrids is that they “may” make e-Fuels (gasoline?) affordable/practical in the future, and that’s a good additional option to have.  E-Fuel costs are way too high presently, but hybrids that get around 4 times the MPG as my dad’s first new car would allow for fuel cost in range of $12/gallon and still cost the same per mile, after adjusting for inflation of course.  He got about 1/4 the MPG of a new Accord or Camry hybrid, and paid $3/gallon adjusted for inflation.  Obviously no one wants to pay around $10 per gallon or more, but if cars are fuel efficient enough, it will offset much of the higher fuel cost.

 

Anyway, I saw data for November sales in UK that show hybrids increased their market share considerably, at expense of both ICE and BEV compared to 2022, and that Ford was leader.  That’s a great sign for Ford.  Not certain of data accuracy, but like the way it’s presented.

 

 

 

[Rick73]

30 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Your completely missing the point once again...Atkinson style engines give up 30% of their power when compared to Otto cycle engines of equivalent size for that additional efficiency they make, which in smaller cars is made up by the electric motor of the hybrid system. 

 

Midsized and larger CUV/SUV and Trucks would be completely compromised by using an eCVT and Atkinson ICE because it wouldn't meet the needs or wants of the typical buyer of those products

No, you don’t know what you think you’re talking about.

[silvrsvt]

9 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

No, you don’t know what you think you’re talking about.

 

Just like your ranting about "efficiency"

[akirby]

24 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

No, you don’t know what you think you’re talking about.

 

22 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Just like your ranting about "efficiency"

When it comes to sales buyers have proven they want and will pay for hybrids in cars and small to midsized crossovers.  Larger SUV and truck buyers seem to generally prefer power and capability over fuel savings and it’s harder to get big mpg improvements on large heavy boxy vehicles even with Atkinson cycle and more powerful motors.  Those are simple facts.

 

Now can we drop the Groundhog Day routine?

[Rick73]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

When it comes to sales buyers have proven they want and will pay for hybrids in cars and small to midsized crossovers.  Larger SUV and truck buyers seem to generally prefer power and capability over fuel savings and it’s harder to get big mpg improvements on large heavy boxy vehicles even with Atkinson cycle and more powerful motors.  Those are simple facts.

 

Now can we drop the Groundhog Day routine?

You’re partly correct, but I’m not aware of any real attempt to design a large vehicle yet using Atkinson engine, so does that prove it won’t deliver improved fuel economy, or only that it hasn’t been tried yet?  One of the largest I’m aware of is Stellantis minivan with 3.6L V6.  Obviously they also have plans to manufacture a PHEV pickup with Atkinson as a range extender, but we will have to see how that works out.  I’m guessing pretty good in city due to large battery capacity, but not great on highway or towing due to series inefficiency (there’s that word again).

 

Regardless, that wasn’t the point I made originally which silvrsvt took completely out of context just to argue.  At least I have the education and professional work experience to discuss efficiency and know what I’m talking about.  My original point was whether Ford will use EcoBoost in conjunction with hybrid.  Some companies do, like Hyundai, but most successful hybrids today use Atkinson because electrification takes on a larger role than ICE towards performance.  There are many pros and cons to both.  I personally prefer Atkinson over EcoBoost or Miller.  Just my preference.

[LSchicago]

12 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But your not going to see a huge improvement in MPGs...just look at the F-150 Powerboost and well most buyers don't care either. 

 

While smaller cars see better gains due to many different reasons, they also give up a lot of what a bigger vehicle owner wants, so they'll live with the extra $10-20 bucks a week it costs to fuel it up. 

Funny you mention per week fill ups. Now that I have the Maverick Hybrid, I fill up about every 6 weeks when road tripping.