Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2013 Ford Escape



  • al63017al63017 Posts: 149
    I have had mine since 24th of August just a few days past 2 weeks and display shows consistently now just over 27 mpg. Titanium 2.0 fwd.
    Lot of local 15-20 mile trips with not much stop and go and 90 % Interstate and the rest suburban driving 40-45 mph. Using a calculator the mpg is a little over 2 mpg less. I have seen the drving style awards on MFT and not sure how they are calculated but have them on my display. I have seen almost 29 mpg on longer Interstate trips. I only have 700 miles on mine so seems like the EPA sticker is pretty accurate. They may be able to put your car on the diagnostic system and tweak a few things that relate to mpg. AWD will be slightly less mpg than fwd. I really like the vehicle more than anything I have owned and I hope your problems are resolved soon and to your satisfaction.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I have always espoused that effective compression ratio is equal to native/base compression ratio at WOT. Otherwise the effective CR is a function of throttle plate position.


    The issue of atmospheric pressure, as even in the vacuum of space, was brung up.

    So what is the effective compression ratio vs native compression at at sea level/WOT vs 1000ft altitude/WOT..??

    It is my opinion that the effective compression ratio does not change as a function of atmospheric pressure. There may be less "air" to compress, but what air there is will be compressed at the sae ratio as at sea level.

  • My brand new 2013 Escape is now in the shop for the second time for a leak somewhere in the roof. It always shows itself on the door pillar head liner just at the top of the driver's side windscreen. Last attempt to fix meant removing and resetting the windshield. It still leaked.
    I have heard of other people with this issue and even my dealer has one on the forecourt with the self same problem. This has to be an issue with these and I suspect there are many more.
    My dealer is trying to help, but Ford are not coming clean with this.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    Wwest, you are being ridiculous.

    I have always espoused that effective compression ratio is equal to native/base compression ratio at WOT. Otherwise the effective CR is a function of throttle plate position.

    You've been spouting off in hundreds of posts on dozens of threads on multiple forums about 'cruising' and now you're backtracking to say WOT? The bottom line is, you've been wrong to criticize boosted engines then.

    It is all over the internet if you'd bothered to comprehend it. At WOT, a N/A engine might approach its Static CR. But a boosted engine will be nearly doubling it. Under 'cruise' conditions, even the most advanced N/A engine will not even approach a dynamic compression ratio of 10:1. There are some 'ram-air' LS-engines that can go over their 10:1 N/A Static CR, because of air movement.

    So thanks for wasting hundreds of peoples' time on dozens of forums for mixing WOT CR with near-idle CR. :mad:

    Look up 'compression ratio calculator'.
    This is not the only one out there, and they use the same formulas. Applicable to ALL OTTO-CYCLES. This one includes altitude, per your request.

    At 1000 ft, and WOT (assuming full cylinder of air, 0 psi = 1 atm) the Effective CR will be 11.8:1 on a 12:1 SCR engine.

    HOWEVER, the Ecoboost delivers 15 PSI to the manifold at full boost.
    Or 1000 ASL:
    You are running 15 PSI of boost at an altitude of 1000 feet. Your motor's static compression is 10.5 :1. At this boost level and altitude your effective compression ratio is 21.01 :1, and without altitude correction your compression ratio would be 21.21 :1

    Again, why the heck have you been using CR's as a measure of 'cruise' efficiency? That's more a factor of transmission, gearing and aerodynamics.

    At 6,000ft (Denver) when the Skyactiv would be besting 10.8:1 CR at WOT adjusted for altitude, it would still get ~40 highway mpg. The power is what gets sapped. Less air available means less fuel burn. So you go slower under accel, but highway doesn't suffer all that much. You can have 40mpg at 160hp available or 40mpg with 140hp available. The effective compression ratio does NOT greatly affect fuel economy on a high plateau (flat ground).

    You are married to compression ratios, which barely make up <1% of any efficiency gains between engines. Going from a 4-speed to a 6-speed to an 8-speed can see 20% fuel efficiency gains at each interval. So Ford should NOT 'abandon the Ecoboost' for some silly Skyactiv technology, because they wouldn't see economy gains like you've been alluding to. They should switch to an 8-speed transmission in their trucks and reap the benefits (like the newfangled Ram).

    Again, the 9.5:1 SCR Fiat Multiair (non-DI) in a Dodge Dart gets 42 highway mpg. Its turbos will operate with the same way, with an effective CR range of about 8.5:1 (slight vacuum at cruise) to ~20:1 (WOT).

    How many posts have you made where you use the WOT CR for Skyactiv, while you saddle the Ecoboost with a 'cruise' CR? That's not really fair argument when the EB peaks at ~20:1 effective CR.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Assuming a throttle setting/opening resulting in equal HP cruise output a SkyActiv CR of 14:1 will result in a higher effective CR vs an Ecoboost starting at 10:1. Quite obviously the Ecoboost would need to operate at a higher RPM, more frictional losses vs the SkyActiv.

    You can only win this arguement by raising the Ecoboost's native CR to 14:1 in order to "equal" the FE of the SkyActiv in simple cruise mode. If you then still wished to add "boost" you would either have to seriously ENRICH (that's what's DONE) the mixture to prevent detonation or maybe even somehow SUPER-COOL the charge airflow.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012

    Everything you just said is based on your own goofy assumptions, and are blatantly false.

    First off, 14:1 is a myth in the United States. Stick with 87 Octane ratings please. Plus, with premium fuel, the EB would allow more boost post-vent valve at all RPMs, as premium fuel resists detonation.

    Second, NO NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE approaches 10:1 effective CR during cruising. 9:1 absolute maximum.

    No, turbo'd engines do not need a higher 'native' CR, they simple run mild boost off the turbos which results in a partial-throttle pressure near 1ATM. When you say 'obviously' you follow it up with a lie. So to correct you : obviously, from the Effective Compression Calculators that take boost into account, all you would need for the EB to run a higher cruise ECR than Skyactive would be to average 1ATM. Which they do. On the highway, the EB averages 1ATM. Sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower depending on wind/terrain.

    NA engines can't come close to 1ATM under anything but WOT and higher rpms.

    That is a fact. You lose, the real world wins.

    Third, ARE YOU KIDDING about higher rpms on a boosted engine? HAHAHA!
    You're ridiculous. Boost is NOT tied to rpms on turbocharged vehicles, and the benefit to boosted engines is more torque at lower rpms due to consistent air supply (turbo's producing 1-5psi under normal driving means the EB is consistently 2-10inHg higher on the vacuum / volumetric efficiency scale).

    Clearly you are ignorant. Have you ever even looked at a dynamometer printout of a turbocharged vehicle? Peak torque arrives at 1500 rpms for the Ecoboost and 4000 rpms for the Skyactiv!!!! You have it absolutely backwards, Willard. In order for a naturally aspirated engine to even exceed 9:1 effective compression, it needs to be at a higher throttle opening, and a higher rpm that a turbocharged one. For any required torque, the EB will be at a LOWER rpm than Skyactiv

    At absolute best, it's a wash between them in terms of efficiency, AS IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE REAL WORLD. You lose on account of NO DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR WILD CLAIMS.

    I'm sorry you're too far gone into your own little world to ever get a handle on engine dynamics. You're hilariously off-base. :P
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    There is more to look at than just peak torque figures, however. For normally-aspirated engines, peak torque is achieved at the engine rpm with the highest volumetric efficiency, which is typically in the 2,200 to 2,600 r.p.m. range. Volumetric efficiency is the percentage of the engine cylinder that is filled with air. Torque will increase as engine rpm goes up and then gradually decrease at higher rpm after peak torque is reached. When graphed, this produces a smooth curve shaped like a mushroom top.

    Turbocharging changes all of that by changing an engine&#146;s volumetric efficiency. Turbochargers can actually pressurize the air in the cylinder above atmospheric pressure, so volumetric efficiency rises even above 100 per cent. This produces more torque and over a longer rpm range. In the EcoBoost engine, the torque curve could more accurately be described as a torque &#147;square.&#148; It climbs rapidly to peak torque at 1,500 rpm and stays there continuously until engine redline. That means performance is strong at any rpm, and especially at common engine speeds. You don&#146;t have to downshift or race the engine to get a lot of torque.


    It is common knowledge that the entire torque range of turbocharging is lower, less friction involved. Because full boost (or any amount in the engine's range ) is available at 1500 rpms.

    That means, contrary to your highly flawed understanding, the EB can be anywhere from 10.5 to 20.5:1 ECR at 1500 rpms. Whereas the Skyactiv will remain below the EB during cruising (more like 8:1) not even approach 12:1 until WOT and at 4000 rpms (I looked it up) and WOT.

    This is a fact. You lose, reality wins.

    You were as correct about this as you were the rest of your 'guesses'. I.e. completely off.
  • what persons height is the car designed for.
    I am 6'4", 240, and car seats & steering wheels have not changed in 40 years.
    they are designed for much shorter height & weight of men & women.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Have boost pressure in cruise mode, part throttle operation, is like taking a shower while wearing a raincoat.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    Natural aspiration is like taking a shower in a down parka. Feels soggy and slow. ;)

    Have boost pressure in cruise mode, part throttle operation, is like taking a shower while wearing a raincoat.

    Ummm... No. That's like saying there is no point in boosting against 8 closed valves and 4 open. Why not just leave all intake valves open at all times? :P

    It's not a positive displacement compression-ignition turbine. (jet). Appropriate boost can make it past a partially open throttle plate, same as it can await entry into the cylinders sitting in the manifold. The whole journey of airflow doesn't have to be like a hamster in a tube. It is sliced and twisted in every which way.

    These little turbos can't help producing 1-5 psi pre-manifold under cruising. That amount of boost is a biproduct.

    Ford specifically engineered them to be small, so that they would work at low rpms and low levels of exhaust gas pressure.

    The proof is in the size: if these were to be for high-rpm acceleration... Ford would have used huge turbos. Not small ones. Small turbos tell the purpose of boosting low, soon, and often.

    And wouldn't you know it... There is a boosted engine that gets better power, torque, and fuel economy than your beloved Skyactiv. The Fiat multiair with a 9.5:1 static CR. That's reality. My understanding offers a theory of why this is... Yours doesn't. My understanding can be verified in reality... Yours can't.

    So if ECR is as important as you think it is... small engines with tiny turbos must be running at a higher ECR than Skyactiv. Tiny little turbos eliminating the vacuum an allowing the Fiat to run ~atmo on the highway.
  • Hey Shark,
    Did the cause of your leak ever get found? Mine started to leak again after the windshield repair and now they can't find any cause. Just wondering if you ever got told.
  • I just bought my car this past Friday and so haven't driven it much. (Escape 2013 Titanium with 2.0 engine) But the average mpg says between 13 and 15 mpg! That would be all city driving, not going fast but getting stuck at lights. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and so it is hilly. I am really concerned that the either the city mileage given is really overstated or the average mpg meter is off. I will be filling up my tank and logging the miles that way to verify but it has me very concerned.
  • - novascotiaguy

    Sorry about your continued problems. It sounds like Ford has determined that there is a common windshield problem and developed a repair procedure for it. Unfortunately, In your case it wasn't the problem or they didn't fix it right. Or maybe they are completely wrong about the problem. I think we got in there early enough that Ford had not seen the problem, so they just gave us a new car. We picked up our replacement Escape last Thursday. Our sale person said he had no idea what the problem ended up being. He said he didn't keep up with it. We never talked to the manager again. I'm inclined to believe him on this. We went through the NFCU buying service so our salesman was a fleet sales guy. He's sort of off in his own building. Its a good possibility he didn't stay in the loop and didn't really care about that car anyway. As long as we got our car and he could complete the sale and move on he really doesn't a stake in car we brought back. He did think it was still over in the dealerships body shop, which is interesting. I know that's not helpful information.
    Our new car is great except for some continued MFT issues. If those continue we'll be taking it over to the dealership and I'll ask the manager about the windshield.
  • Here are my observations/thoughts on the cars mileage. We've now had two of these cars and both performed exactly the same. We picked up our replacement on Thursday. So far we've put about 1000 miles on it. Ours is also a 2.0 AWD.

    ***These are all averages over a number of miles. All with the AC on and with regular gas****
    - On the interstate going less than 70 I can easily get 28 ~ 31 MPG.
    - In the rolling foothills on route 29 between Lynchburg and Charlottesville I got around 25 ~ 26 MPG at 60 ~ 65 MPH.
    - On the Colonial Parkway in Williamsburg (Very flat), cruising at 50 MPH, I got 33 MPG.
    - Over 70 (the speed limit in Virginia is 70) the mileage drops off to about 27 MPG
    - My wife is a Sysco rep and drives around all day in town, easily putting 50 miles a day on the car. The average mileage after several days of that is 24 MPG. For comparisons sake, she drove and Explorer rental for about a month and put about 1200 miles on it. Its mileage was pegged at 20.5.

    Here are my thoughts after a week.

    - The cars sweet spot like most cars is around 55 - 65 MPH.
    - If you leave it in S mode it will never shift into 6th gear. I usually accelerated in S mode and then shift into D.
    - Above 75 MPG the mileage really drops off.
    - I tend to accelerate fairly quick off the line and then settle in to a constant speed about 5 MPH over the speed limit, but I don't tailgate, so I keep my speed consistent and I use the cruise control. However, according to my wife I drive like an aggressive a-hole. I still average about 26 in the car overall.

    The MPG is very dependent on driving style and conditions. I know that people do not want to hear that. I would look at the cars Eco driving score and see what it says about your driving. I've been breaking this thing in so I've been driving conservatively. And I've actually been making a conscious effort to maximize the mileage(despite what my wife thinks). I think that if I just zoned out and drove like my natural inclination as a lead foot, my mileage would certainly be worse, but not anywhere near 15 MPG's. My G37 was rated at 18/23 I was able to get 29 MPG out of it but I also got as low as 5 MPG. Going 140 or redlining it at every stoplight will do that.
    This issue puts me in mind of a Top Gear episode where they test drove an M3 against an Prius. They drove the Prius like a bat out of h311 and the M3 just had to keep up. They got better mileage out of the M3.
    How you accelerate, how you brake and how close you follow the car in front of you makes a huge difference.

    I'm not trying discount other peoples experiences. I'm not walking in anyone else's shoes, and I'm on my second Escape because of problems myself. However, In my experience with 2 examples of this model I can easily achieve or exceed the advertised mileage.

    It does have an annoyingly tiny gas tank though. 15 gallons? Come on Ford!
  • Have you driven to E & filled up? I just did, needle at E & 8mi to empty on computer readout, got 13.3 gallons into a 15.1 gallon tank. My old escape got 15.5 to 15.7 gallons at E on a 16.5 gallon tank. That's almost an extra useable gallon on the old model, ridiculous. :mad:
  • Yeah. It gets better mileage than any other car we've had, but we have to stop for gas more often. I've run it down to about 16 miles to empty. 13 gallons is sad. 18 gallons would have been fine. Oh well, I didn't engineer it, so who knows what precipitated spec'ing such a small tank. Maybe they found it acceptable on the "volume" 1.6 liter engine.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706

    Each gallon of gasoline weighs...7(?)lbs....
  • al63017al63017 Posts: 149
    Titanium 2.0 fwd. Just filled up and using a calculator my mpg was 26.642 over 232 miles of 80-90% highway driving. Display in car shows over 27 mpg and close to 28 so seems to be about 2 mpg off on my car. I hope things improve for you and have very little consistent city driving in my routine. When I do I try to anticipate when practical and safe a way to adjust to the flow of traffic so I do not have to accelerate very hard and fast to change lanes and or get to where I am going. Not something that can be done in all cities or all of my situations during rush hour. Safety is first concern and mpg next when rating only those two things. I too have had a few pure Interstate trips where I have seen just over 30mpg and just under 30mpg depending on if I am driving below or above 70.
  • Thanks for sharing the MPG folks. Info is much appreciated. Mine should be here any day now. And I could care less about my compression ratio. No offense guys, just say'in.
  • Thanks for the detailed information. Sounds like you do a lot of highway driving. Mine is all city and I live in hills so go up and down a lot. I just drove my 2001 Volvo wagon on the same course and it got 10% better mileage than the Escape. Don't think that should be the case since its mileage is not rated even as high as the Escape by the EPA. So I am at less than 13 mpg for driving around the city, without steep acceleration or idling in traffic, but there are hills. Anybody have any experience like that?
Sign In or Register to comment.