Could Our 2025 Ford Maverick Hybrid Replace My Daily Driver?

• My wife and I bought a Kia Niro two years ago, but I really wanted a Ford Maverick.
• Now, Edmunds has a Maverick Hybrid in our One-Year Road Test fleet.
• After spending extended time with the Maverick, am I regretting my Kia purchase?

Let's talk about specs, baby

The 2.5-liter hybrid engine in the Ford Maverick produces 191 horsepower and 155 lb-ft of torque. This truck is not quick by any means, but it doesn't feel sluggish on the road and it's perfectly capable of getting up to highway speeds. Compare that to the Kia Niro's 1.6-liter inline-four and its 139 hp and … well, there's an obvious winner here. 

But if I cared about the Niro's gutless engine, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place. No, this decision was based largely around fuel economy. The Niro gets an EPA-estimated 53 mpg in combined driving compared to 38 mpg for the Maverick. That's a big win for the Niro, but with an important caveat: I've got 20,000 miles on the Niro and am actually averaging closer to 45 mpg. 

Edmunds has put just under 7,000 miles on the Maverick and we're averaging 34 mpg. That's, obviously, still lower than the Niro, but not by quite as much as the EPA's estimates would have you believe. Based on the average price of gas in California ($4.66 at this moment), I've saved around $700 by driving the Niro, or about $30 a month. It's not nothing, but it's not life-changing money. 

Technically speaking

A huge part of the Niro's appeal is that it offers lots of creature comforts that are either more expensive or unavailable on competitors. In this comparison, the Niro beats the Maverick into a pulp while we all look on, shouting, "Stop, stop, he's already dead." 

But let's start with the tech feature the Maverick has that the Niro does not: wireless Apple CarPlay. Yes, the Niro does offer wireless Apple CarPlay, but only on the base trim. Upgrading your vehicle means downgrading your experience. It is very stupid and is something Kia is slowly working out of its system. 

The Maverick gives off the impression of an inexpensive, analog truck, but it isn't. There is a knob to change the volume and some buttons to control the stereo system, but everything else is displayed on the touchscreen, including the climate control. That stinks out loud.

In fairness, the Niro stinks at this too. It has one of those touch bars where you have to toggle between climate and stereo settings, and even after nearly two years of ownership, I still hate it. 

Then there's just about everything else. The XLT trim of the Maverick does not come with adaptive cruise control or cooled seats. You can't get Maverick with cooled seats, which is egregious in the year of our lord 2025. But it's the lack of adaptive cruise control that I found maddening while driving the Maverick up and down Interstate 5. To get adaptive cruise control, you've got to spend another $8,000 to get the Maverick Lariat. It's absurd that a $40,000 vehicle doesn't come with this feature.

Easy come, easy cargo

The Maverick is a pickup truck. That means you've got a truck bed that's 3.5 feet wide and 4.5 feet long. If you've got a lot of gear, or gear that's shaped funny, the Maverick makes a lot of sense. 

On a recent road trip, I had neither. I was only in San Jose for the weekend and didn't bring a stroller for my child. That means my family had a few suitcases, a travel crib, and some other odds and ends. We could have fit all this in the trunk of our Niro, which has 22.8 cubic feet of storage. 

The Maverick does not have a tonneau cover, which meant I needed a way to secure the gear in the back. I picked up an inexpensive ($35) cargo net on Amazon, which did the job just fine. The downside? You can't exactly leave the truck with all your stuff in the middle of a Target parking lot. I mean, you can, but I wouldn't recommend it. 

Now, you could argue that you shouldn't do that in the back of a Niro (fair!), but it's a lot easier to steal stuff out of the back of a pickup than it is to smash a car window. I mean, I assume. 

What if I was going camping? That's a different story. My wife and I have a bunch of large bins that we can get into the back of the Niro if we fold the back seat down. That's no longer an option with the car seat in the back, and I've been told it's frowned upon to strap the baby to the roof. In that scenario, I'd much rather have the Maverick. 

But a camping trip is something I only do two or three times a year. As my ol' grandpappy used to say, buy for the 365 — not the three or five (days you're going to use the features). I think he had a point. 

Where do I go from here?

The Maverick is another vehicle that I wish I had enough disposable income to own but is also flawed in enough small ways that I'll get over it. I'd love to see this version of the Maverick either increase its standard features, or go fully analog and drop the price considerably. But I'm not holding my breath for either.