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

18911131421

Comments

  • I can't understand why people buy fords. The way they treat customers and the issues they have had in the past, don't people read the posts buy people who have bad experiences. It is not that hard with the internet surceases to research manufactures. Sure every now and then someone will have an issue, but with ford it is quite common. Look at all the issues they have with the diesel engine in their pickups. In my opinion if a manufactures will not improve one product line, then their other lines are bound to have issues. I purchased a Mazda CX 5 and with 2,000 miles and get 28 miles per gallon in mixed driving, and no problems or recalls. The 28 is what is advertised and Mazda's get better consumer ratings than ford. Wise up consumers.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    My wife put in one tank of super, due to the station being out of other grades.
    That tank and several subsequent fill ups have netted a noticeable improvement in mileage. Was it the octane change? I don't know.
    I had asked her to run 3 tanks of super in a row, but I think she forgot, but that's ok.
    Now I'll be able to run my own tests because I picked up my own 2.0 ecoboost, although in a Fusion, and I keep very detailed mileage records.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    Yesterday, I brought my wife's Escape in for the first service @ 5000 miles.
    She has not had one problem with it and it has every option on the menu.
    While there, I didn't see any other plated 2013 Escapes in the yard, so either people are driving them, or they haven't sold any. ;)
    If I wanted to buy a nice underpowered mini ute, I'd pick a CX-5.
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    I bet if you took the time to check, instead of trolling a Ford forum, you would find customer service and vehicle complaints on Mazda, Kia, Toyota and Hyundai forums too. You have the right to post here, but if it's only to bash Ford owners and Ford and to brag about your Mazda, don't bother, I at least could care less about how smart you are and how great your car is.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,049
    edited March 2013
    Actually it's off-topic in an Escape MPG discussion, but I knew you guys would stick up for your rides. :shades:

    Funny that Ford owned a controlling interest in Mazda not too long ago. After reading all the CX-7 engine complaints, I hope the bugs have been worked out of the CX-5.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • wistrodwistrod Posts: 14
    Thanks! Missed your post the first time. I'll try this.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    Actually, using complaints on the Internet as a basis to judge a company is wasting your time. I have yet to read a single forum about fuel economy where there aren't posts complaining that there's something wrong with the car, sue the manufacturer for fraud, yadda, yadda.. The same goes for other topics in general.

    No car is perfect, and every model has a few lemons slip out of the factory. Combine that with the fact that people are much quicker to post about a problem than they are if everything works fine, and you will see overly negative pictures painted fr practically all brands and models, at least if you take what you see on the forums at face value.

    The real benefit of these complaints is to see what problems *are* cropping up, and, if possible, how to deal with them in the case that you experience them. Sometimes, like with this topic, there may not be an answer (or one you want to hear).

    Hope you like your CX-5. I prefer to have more power and a better looking ride, myself, even if, like all things here, that's a subjective determination based on my preferences and taste.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    I thought about mentioning the CX-7, but that would have been too easy and somewhat off topic.
  • escapeismescapeism Posts: 39
    Hey, what a minute. I think the CX-5 is a nice looking ride. And I would of bought one if the manual tranny version actually came with some options. but its a stripped down, bare bones vehicle that doesn't even have bluetooth. So I bought a Titanium instead. I like my Escape, the first American built car I have owned since 1983. Well, mostly American built, minus the Spanish built engine and Lord knows what else was assembled offshore. And the first non-manual tranny I have EVER owned.

    I WANT A TITANIUM WITH A MANUAL TRANSMISSION!!!
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,800
    " Last years model had a 13 gallon tank - almost certain they carried it onto this model as well. "

    I own a 2008 Escape Hybrid. I put in 13.3 gallons last fill up, and the needle was at empty (which means a couple of gallons reserve). The previous generation Escape has a 15 gallon tank.
  • frenifreni Posts: 2
    I have a 2013 Titanium 2.0, my best mileage has been 20.1 (mostly highway) but typically I average not better than 18.1 mpg around town. Very disappointing. David
  • automelon48automelon48 Posts: 102
    David, Is your 2.0 AWD or FWD? What are your highway speeds? There seems to be a bit of a theme with AWD owners struggling more than FWD owners. AWD is rated 28 MPG Hwy and the FWD is rated 30 MPG. I get 30+/- with my 2.0 FWD, but I have to max out at 65 ish or maybe 70MPH to get that.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    The previous Escape model had a 16.5 gallon tank and I was able to get 15.2-15.5 "useable" gallons.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    Was I sticking up for the 04, 09 or 13?
    I can't remember. ;)
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,049
    edited March 2013
    Are we talking the size of your gas tanks or your mpgs?

    :shades: :shades:

    All these reports date from October of last year. I'm hoping we'll start getting some better reports as the weather warms up and some areas switch to "summer" gas.

    We go on daylight savings time in just a week (March 11) and the extra daylight will surely help, lol.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    Add 15, 12 and 9 to those numbers I posted earlier for the average fuel mileage. :)
  • godeacsgodeacs Posts: 481
    edited March 2013
    You must be unaware that the 2014 CX-5 has an optional 2.5L engine with 184 hp - hardly underpowered!

    BTW, I am considering both the Escape SE and the CX-5 (but only w/184 hp engine)...tough choice.
  • automelon48automelon48 Posts: 102
    edited March 2013
    Looks like the CX-5, 2.5 has similar power figures to the 1.6 Ecoboost, although the Ecoboost has more pull at lower RPM's.
    The 2.5 should be a much better engine than the 2.0 in the CX-5. It should now be very adequate. (by many reports the 2.0 was/is not enough)

    However, for a difference of just 2 MPG I will keep my 2.0 Ecoboost FWD with 46% more torque, 30% more Hp and 75% more towing capacity.

    If I didn't need the extra power and towing capacity and the CX-5, 2.5 was available with a manual transmission, then I would be a lot more interested.
    Did I mention diesel? When that is available, lots of people will flock to it !
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    Choice is good- to each his own. I personally find it looks a bit long in the hood outside, and I dislike the screen area of the dash, otherwise the CX-5 is okay.

    Steve- I can't wait to see if warmer months actually do make much difference with my 2.0l. We bought ours in early October, so all of my numbers are pretty decent, IMO.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,800
    "The previous Escape model had a 16.5 gallon tank and I was able to get 15.2-15.5 "useable" gallons. "

    I'm not sure what year you are referring to, page 291 of my 2008 owners manual says 15 gallons.

    Like I said, mine gets about 13 gallons at the "E" marker.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,797
    I know the CX-5 is now available with a 2.5 engine, but that's not the one the other poster has.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    MY2010, the Escape got a refresh in 2009 with a bump in HP.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,800
    edited March 2013
    "MY2010, the Escape got a refresh in 2009 with a bump in HP. "

    I looked it up, and the 2010 Escape hybrid has a 15 gallon tank. The 2010 ICE Escape has a 17.5 gallon tank.

    Actually, my 2008 FEH has the new body style, and it too has a 15 gallon tank. I can go well over 450 miles (many hypermilers get 500-600 per tank).

    They really should have stayed with the 17.5 gallon tank - even if the new Ecoboost gets the advertised MPG, one can never have too much range. Maybe there wasn't room for the larger tank...
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Ok, first of all, you never said you had the HYBRID Escape, yes, it has a 15gal tank, you might want throw that out so you're not comparing apples & oranges. Secondly, it may say "17.5g" in the manual, but it's wrong, it's 16.5g, it said it on the Ford website, it says it HERE ON EDMUNDS research for the 2010 Escape AND according to Ford customer service, which I called, they confirmed it was a 16.5g tank. Anything else???
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,800
    edited March 2013
    "Ok, first of all, you never said you had the HYBRID Escape, yes, it has a 15gal tank, you might want throw that out so you're not comparing apples & oranges. Secondly, it may say "17.5g" in the manual, but it's wrong, it's 16.5g, it said it on the Ford website, it says it HERE ON EDMUNDS research for the 2010 Escape AND according to Ford customer service, which I called, they confirmed it was a 16.5g tank. Anything else??? "

    Yup, forgot to mention it was FEH. I did not realize the ICE and FEH were different fuel tank sizes, although it makes sense. Maybe they used the extra space for the traction battery?

    However, the 2010 Ford Owners manual, available on the web from the Ford maintenance site, still says 17.5. I accessed it from their site, and that is what I quoted. I don't question your personal knowledge on the issue.

    In any case, they should have stayed with the larger size.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    I absolutely agree they should've stayed with a larger tank, but it seems most car companies are shrinking their tanks for whatever reason, save weight I guess???
  • izedamanizedaman Posts: 16
    they drop 2 gallons, that saves 16 lb's big deal... Id rather be able to go 40-50 more miles
    but the drivers are getting fatter if there counting down to the precise pound of the car..
    MPG if your 300lb = 17 city, 23 HW
    MPG if your 120lb = 23 city, 26 HW
    and EPA MPG there is no driver so thats why the numbers are higher.. I get it now
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,049
    The EPA test does require a driver; have to wonder if only skinny ones are hired. More likely there's a standard and weights are added to bring the total vehicle weight up to par.

    When you're trying to meet CAFE regs across your entire fleet, every ounce counts.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • automelon48automelon48 Posts: 102
    I would like to know where those numbers came from, for the drivers weight affecting mileage that much.
    If anything, I can see this amount of weight difference having a small effect in the city and a negligible effect on the highway.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,049
    All the little things add up over time (I tossed a row of seats from my minivan when it was new for example; didn't need it and that weight savings helped offset the additional weight of the full sized spare I got).

    Here's yet another factor:

    "Most gasoline in the U.S. today is 8-10 percent ethanol, but the EPA does its tests with 100 percent gasoline in the tank."

    Here's Why Real-World MPG Doesn't Match EPA Ratings

    This Car and Driver story is a good overview of the testing required by the EPA.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

Sign In or Register to comment.