Howdy, Stranger!

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





2013 Ford Escape Gas Mileage

Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,058
edited October 2012 in Ford
Talk about your mpg for your 2013 and newer Ford Escape here.

For First and Second Generation Escapes, please check out the Ford Escape Real World MPG discussion here.

It helps if you note the engine, AWD/FWD, type of gas you buy, and something about the type of driver you are and your driving conditions (city/highway, commuting).
«13456731

Comments

  • jrock83jrock83 Posts: 10
    Only 200 miles so not broken in yet. Mileage should increase once broken in. I'm averaging 25mpg combined. About 45/50/5 interstate/highway/city. Type of gas - whatever it was filled up with at delivery.
  • rpmurarpmura Posts: 9
    I'm only getting about 13 mpg city. Maybe 21 highway. Combined 15.2. Actually, worse mileage of any car I've had. Shouldn't be the case for "Eco" boost engine. Transmission has a serious lag. May be related. Taking it back tomorrow to have it checked. Have only had it 2 weeks.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    edited October 2012
    Getting anywhere between 23.5 and 28 so far, 40 / 60 city / highway, speeds between 35 and 70, right at 1000 miles in two weeks since buying (unusual for us, but busy time lately..). The easier I take it (cruise at 65, baby the throttle at takeoff, etc) the closer to 28 I get. This is in western VA, Harrisonburg to Staunton area, mild hills. Not too shabby for an AWD vehicle- within about 1 mpg of the 2008 Chevy Malibu V6 we had.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,058
    edited October 2012
    Thanks for mentioning how many miles your Escape has.

    Seems like it often takes anywhere from 3 to 5,000 miles or more for mpg to start approaching the EPA estimates for most drivers. My last new car kept getting (slightly) better mph even after I passed 10,000 miles on the odometer.
  • I have about 1,400 miles on my 1.6 SEL with 4WD. So far I'm very pleased with my mileage. Locally I use 87 octane regular without ethanol. My mileage with about 50/50 city/highway driving is around 26.5. Recently I took a 150 mile round trip on a state highway driving about 58 most of the time. I was at 31 mpg going there and about 30 returning into a head wind. As many have noted in other posts, unless you have an unusual mechanical issue, mpg is really a function of driving habits. Especially speed. If I want or need to get somewhere a little quicker and drive 70 or more, I expect that my mileage will drop off and don't agonize over it. Great vehicle....so far.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    Please let us know how it turns out! I have a similar situation with mine, which is 1.6L AWD. I'm at 1900 miles right now, doing apprx. 80% city and 20% highway, and my last 4 tanks average to 18 mpg.
    http://www.fuelly.com/driver/H3ll3r/escape

    This is really disappointing with an "Ecoboost" engine... When I talked with the Service department, I was told to expect better mileage later due to the auto tranny being in learning mode, as well as the engine not being broken in yet. I was told to keep tracking until the first service maintenance.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    EcoBoost engines sacrifice cruise mode FE in favor of matching the HP of a larger displacement engine. N/A DFI engines typically have a compression ratio of 12:1, some even 14:1.

    Mazda's SkyActiv engines, for instance.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited October 2012
    Willard,

    I will be in Washington next weekend, enjoying the scenery after a business conference.

    i can very easily bring an analog boost gauge, if you have the inkling to borrow for a quick spin in an Ecoboost modern boosted vehicle if a dealer was found to allow it to be quickly hooked up.

    It would take less than a minute behind the wheel for ALL of your 'guesses' about turbocharging to be PROVEN FALSE.

    Come join the real world, won't you?

    Static compression ratios are bogus measures of fuel efficiency. Transmissions play 10x the role in fuel economy as compression ratios do. Note that Mazda has a Skyactiv transmission, which if not utilized, all applications of the pathetic Skyactiv engine would be hardly better on the highway than a naturally aspirated engine of 9:1 CR.

    The Skyactiv has a dynamic CR of around 9:1. The EB has a range of dynamic compression from above that to 20:1. This is verifiable by watching the boost gauge at anything above an idle or coast-down.

    You know nothing about compression ratios, and yet are obsessed. It's funny :D
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,058
    Why don't y'all take this to email so the rest of us can stick to reading about the topic. Thanks.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    edited October 2012
    I've noticed that ours seems to be getting a little better with every fill up. Of course, I can't say for certain it's break in that's causing the improvement, as I intentionally drove 'normally' (that is, like everyone else) for the first two tanks, where I average around 24.6 and 25.5 mpg respectively. The past two tanks were both with me attempting to keep my speed at or under 65 (despite the 70 mph interstate limits around here), though my off-highway driving is pretty much the same as the other two, and my fuel economy was 26.3 for one and 27.4 for the other. The latest tank (as in now) is showing signs of hitting 29 (DIC indicated), and will most likely be around 28 when I get to filling it up (1/4 into the tank right now). I reset the primary trip (trip 1) each fill up, but have left the second trip meter alone, so that I could get a feel for the overall fuel economy too, and it was reading 25.7 at last glance.

    Granted, all of these numbers are from the car. I have actually hand calculated twice, to find that it was around .5 mpg optimistic each time, but that could as easily be ascribed to it 'lying' to me as to differences in the fill up itself. Even using the same pump every time, I really don't think that the auto cutoff is perfectly accurate. How many times have you had a pump cut off mid-fill and had to start it again, sometimes needing to hold it just to get it to keep going?

    At any rate, I noticed one other thing today, right after filling up. It reminded me of another post over in the main 2013 forum. A poster there mentioned driving all slow speed stop and go, and getting teens for fuel economy. Without beating them up too bad, that's to be expected. I drove around in downtown Harrisonburg (read: JMUville) for about two hours, at speeds no greater than 35, and with LOTS of stopping for lights, stop signs, and general parking lot traffic (both cars and pedestrians), and my readout hung out between 14.6 and 15.3 until I got out where I could get a continuous cruise going (45+), at which point it picked up quickly. My point being, if you're driving slow speed, stop-and-go, the numbers WILL be lower than the EPA numbers. That's where a hybrid (true hybrid, Prius, Ford C-Max, etc.) shines, since it will run all electric. There's most likely nothing wrong with the car.

    Results are largely dependent on where you drive, how fast you take off, how fast you go, and all the other driver-determined quirks. It isn't too hard to suck the economy down to the low-20's, even for me, and if you live in some areas, it might be hard to get above that, based on traffic and terrain.
  • There's most likely nothing wrong with the car.

    Results are largely dependent on where you drive, how fast you take off, how fast you go, and all the other driver-determined quirks. It isn't too hard to suck the economy down to the low-20's, even for me, and if you live in some areas, it might be hard to get above that, based on traffic and terrain.


    Amen to that.

    For S's and G's I actually went back to the Ford dealership (pretending I didn't own one) and drove another Ecoboost.

    It got better mileage than mine for the short drive, and I seem to be one of the 'lucky' ones blessed with good mileage in my Ecoboost.

    The Ford folks got the EPA numbers because the EPA number are achievable, otherwise the EPA would not give it to them. Key point is the text they are required to include with these figures:

    YOUR MILEAGE WILL VARY :D
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    Thanks for your comments. Yeah, it really seems to be the stop and go at low speeds (traffic) that kills the mileage for me. I baby the throttle like there's no tomorrow, in an effort to get more decent numbers. Very smooth takeoffs, try to brake as little as possible, etc... If I can drive without traffic in the city, going a steady 35mph, then I can get around 20-22 mpg... but as soon as there's stop and go traffic, it's nearly impossible to get close to decent mileage. I don't do much highway, but when I did, it seemed to hover around 24-26 mpg.

    I do exactly like you, reset Trip1 on each drive, but use Trip2 for tanks. I've also recently starting using Fuelly to track accurately (although like you say, really hard to trust the auto-cutoff!!)

    On this tank, I've put premium (91 octane) without ethanol (previous tanks were regular with up to 10% ethanol, which is pretty much the norm here in Ontario). So far the results seem a bit better... I'll report at the end of this tank.
  • dizneydizney Posts: 19
    edited October 2012
    Ford Escape 2013 1.6 L Eco boost FWD

    I am getting great mileage after 800 miles. Have gone on two trips that were both a little over 200 miles each round trip. First averaged 35.5 mpg
    Second 35.8 MPG !!!! Much better than my 2009 ford Edge !!!
    Lots of power at highway speeds . On trips as above I used cruise control most of the time at 55 mph. When doing a combo city highway with more city driving my average is 26.8 mpg> Very pleased and will take those numbers any day !!
  • jrock83jrock83 Posts: 10
    500 miles in. Filled up with 87 octane. MPG up to 26.1 as of this morning.

    I see a lot of people complaining about the mileage (here and elsewhere). Try staying out of the throttle. That will probably help. You have to remember that the ecoboost engines are designed to give you good fuel economy because it combines a small displacement engine for better mileage and a turbocharger for extra power when you need it. So if you drive it properly, keep the tachometer under 2000 rpm, you will see better economy than if you race from stop light to stop light. I say 2000 rpm because I noticed that cruising down the interstate at 65 mph the tach was settled in at about 1500 rpm and while accelerating calmly the transmission seems to shift around 1800. Yeah its fun and the engines are pretty responsive, but doing it will not save gas. Keep in mind you're trying to move 3500-3700 pounds. No easy feat for a small displacement engine. That's where the turbo helps out when its necessary to move the extra bulk at an increased rate. Economy is also highly dependent upon WHERE you live. Higher elevations won't get as good of mileage as someone at sea level. Point is, drive like a formula 1 driver and you'll see bad mileage. Drive calmly and you'll see better mileage.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    Like I said in my previous post, these days, to try to see better results, I'm driving extremely lightly, probably to the point sometimes where it pisses off people behind me. It doesn't seem to be that simple of an explanation.

    To compare, previous car was a 2010 Kia Soul with the 2.0L, 142hp engine, 5sp manual. I was driving it a lot harder (basically not paying attention to fuel economy and rowing the gears with enthusiasm...)
    - Kia: I was getting about 260 miles out of tank of 12.7 gallons
    - Ford: I am getting about 235 miles out of tank of 15.1 gallons
    Same kind of commute (80% city).

    Official fuel economy ratings for city driving were:
    Kia: 24 mpg
    Ford: 22 mpg
    (Hwy is 30 mpg for both)

    Observed:
    Kia: 20.5 mpg (I thought it wasn't so great but was OK with it...)
    Ford: 15.5 mpg (this is appalling but I'll give it a bit more time)

    So on paper according to fueleconomy.gov, it's pretty close... but not in real life. Yes I know the Kia was smaller and less powerful and 2WD all but it was rated almost the same, probably due to non-aerodynamic blocky shape, antiquated engine, 5spd tranny. And that doesn't factor in my much more relaxed driving in the Ford.

    In closing, I'm mid-way with my current tank (no-ethanol 91 octane) and the trip computer projects at apprx 250 miles.....
  • jrock83jrock83 Posts: 10
    First things first, your engine is not yet broken in. Once it is broken in you will see an increse in fuel economy.

    Break it down a little bit for you:

    Curb weight:
    Kia: 2,800 lbs (less weight requires less energy to move)
    Ford: 3,645 lbs (heavier vehicle requires more energy to move)

    Engine:
    Kia: 2.0L natually aspirated, 142 HP @ 6000 rpm
    Ford: 1.6L ecoboost (Turbo - forced induction) 172 HP @ 5700 rpm (Generates greater horsepower than a naturally aspirated engine by forcing air into the intake)

    Transmission:
    Kia: 5sp Manual (control shift point, can get better mileage or worse depending on when you shift)
    Ford: 6sp Auto (promotes incresed economy due to shorter gearing thereby decreasing time in higher RPM)

    Drive:
    Kia: FWD
    Ford: AWD (typically decreases MPG)

    Point is, you're moving more weight, nearly 900 lbs more weight. It's going to take more fuel to move it. And taking into consideration your driving style/location, it seems you do more stop and go which will negatively affect your economy even more considering more fuel is consumed when you accelerate from a stop. You also enjoy a more spirited driving style so that will use more fuel.

    I traded a 2010 Kia Forte Ex Sedan for my Escape. I saw 30 mpg on average. Same engine and only 100 lbs lighter. So far I'm averaging only 4 MPG less than that. Driving style has a LOT to do with what kind of MPG you get. Before my Kia, I drove a 1991 Chevy C1500 with a 5.7L EFI V8. I routinely averaged 20-22 MPG out of that. Alternatively, I owned a 1995 Jeep Wrangler 2.5L I4 with a 5 spd manual. I averaged 17 MPG out of that.

    I'm not trying to be negative here, only trying to give you some idea of why it may be possible you are getting such low numbers. An alternative may be a bad sensor. If you haven't taken it to the dealer yet, I'd suggest taking it in and have them run a diagnostic. Good luck, I hope you get it figured out.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    Yeah the dealership said that we should wait until the first service, since it will be fully broken in. Then if it's still so high, it'd be looked into a bit more... They also gave me those comments about the transmission being in learning mode, which I'm not sure if it's true, can't seem to find much on the web about this.

    In the meantime I've purchased a little bluetooth obd2 device to monitor stuff, which I'll link to my android phone and hopefully get all kinds of neat stats. I'm looking forward to receiving that... wondering if there could be something like the Turbo kicking in too easily or something.

    I understand that there's a lot more mass to move around vs. the Kia, but there are also other things that come in play... my friend drives a Panamera which is 200 pounds heavier than my Escape, it's got a much larger, 300hp engine and despite that he gets 18-20 mpg in the same kind of commute than me, which is better than me... and he doesn't baby the throttle like I do these days (who would in a Porsche!). They got all kinds of fuel saving technologies put into their cars...

    Maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with mine and it's just not the greatest powertrain for city driving in traffic.

    Still I can't be the only one who drives through traffic in a gridlocked city and yet most people online seem to get mid-20s.

    Your Forte engine was more technically advanced than the one on my Kia: yours was the Theta engine, mine the Beta... following model year on the Soul they got rid of it (I think it was their last car still on that crappy engine) and put in a newer, more efficient engine.

    Thanks for your comments...
  • jrock83jrock83 Posts: 10
    Gotcha... Yeah I don't know about that whole "transmission learning" thing either. I've got less than 600 miles on mine and it's doing fine. And I can't see the AWD making THAT much of a difference... Maybe a couple MPG less than FWD... I'm pretty well out of ideas then lol. Be interested to see what results you get from your obd2 thing too... Well... one more idea... not sure if the ecoboost does this, but it is common for turbo engines to add more fuel enriching the air/fuel mixture as rpm (and therefore air) increases. IF the ecoboosts follow this, then could it be that the computer is sending too much fuel too soon? Or even too much fuel altogether?
  • as I was told by the sale & service guy, its the computer in your car that 'learns', your driving habits. You just drive the car.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,058
    edited October 2012
    There's a ton of theories about how much "learning" the engine and drivetrain do and how many drive cycles it takes. I've read that it only takes a couple of minutes for the computers in a brand new engine to calibrate stuff so that the engine runs smoothly. Other people say if you change your driving style it may take 40 driving cycles or 500 miles or some other criteria for the computer(s) to adapt, change the transmission shift points, etc.

    My wife and I share our cars although I do most of the driving. But there's no appreciable difference in mpg or performance when she drives them. The computers supposedly compensate for that.

    Edmunds has a long term fleet of test cars that a bunch of different people get to take home. Editors use them for commuting or on vacation trips and they rarely drive the same car more than a few days at a time before someone new grabs the keys. And yet when you read the blogs and follow the mpg reports, there doesn't seem to be a lot of variation between one driver and the next.

    So while I don't think your sales guy is wrong, but it may not be the main factor in getting better mileage. Getting better mileage mostly boils down to not driving aggressively. And while some people get great mpg right from the start, it seems that most of us find our mpg gets better over time, and that seems to be a function of the car breaking in as much as anything.

    Plenty of people swear that their car either got peppier or better mpg after having their computer(s) reflashed. Some of that may just be the seat of the pants placebo effect though.
«13456731
Sign In or Register to comment.