The base with the hybrid powertrain will supposedly get very good gas mileage (40 MPG city is all Ford claims). It will also not be frequently found . Fuel efficiency data for the one you can expect to see in stock, with the 2.0-liter Ecoboost turbo making 250 horsepower, has been a secret known only to Ford. Until now, perhaps.

A pair of have wound up on the Maverick Truck Club forum showing EPA estimates for the all-wheel drive, 2.0-liter model with the 4K tow package equipped. The stickers all show 22 MPG city and 29 MPG highway, for a combined 25 MPG. There’s no information on the front-wheel drive models, those without the tow package or even what the hybrid is expected to get on the highway, for what it’s worth. We’ve reached out to Ford to confirm the documents’ legitimacy.

The Ecoboost Maverick is the one Ford evidently expects to sell more of. While it won’t match the hybrid’s thriftiness, it would still compare favorably if these estimates bear out.

The , which is significantly more expensive, sits at 18/24 MPG city/highway. The nabs 21/27 with the base engine equipped, or 19/27 with the optional turbo upgrade (add AWD, and those numbers drop a bit). The Ecoboost Maverick’s 22/29 — with AWD, no less — isn’t too shabby against those claims.

It also highlights why someone might actually choose a Maverick instead of, say, a Ranger or an F-150, if they’re truly interested in sacrificing utility and space to save money at the pump.

The 2WD Ranger is listed at 21/26 MPG city/highway, while the F-150 starts at 20/24 MPG before you reach for more powerful engines and four-wheel drive. , the Ranger bests the Ridgeline across the board and is nearly even with the Santa Cruz despite its size advantage and the fact it’s objectively the best truck of the three, with superior towing capacity and off-road capability. Hell, even the lower-end F-150s aren’t terribly far off from that lot, fuel economy wise. What’s the point of a smaller unibody pickup if it’s barely any cheaper to gas up?

As fun as it is to stack up all these EPA numbers against each other, it’s not a replacement for real-world experience. Once again, the Maverick looks very promising on paper. Soon, we’ll know how efficient it really is when the rubber meets the road.