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

1235721

Comments

  • escapeismescapeism Posts: 39
    edited December 2012
    No offense, but you must :
    1. Drive like a sissy, or
    2 drive downhill both ways.

    :blush:

    Sorry, but I have to DRIVE here in DC so I don't get run over. Maybe something is wrong with the EPA folks and not the car.
  • No, it's not just that, it's a combination of - 1) Three recalls for ENGINE FIRES, not overheating, BIG difference, which will hurt resale value. 2) Small gas tank which reduced my range from 290-310 with the '10 Escape to 235-260 with '13. 3) Averaging 18.9mpgs in the '13 Escape in mixed driving compared with 23.5mpgs in the '10 Escape with: same driving style, same gas stations, same time of year, same mileage to compare (1st 2,500mi). 4) Four trips to the dealer with MyFordTouch Issues, one of which was sitting at a stop light and having the radio just shut off, then the heat/climate system shutting off, then the radio turning back on and then the heat/climate system coming back on, all by itself. Also, microphone didn't work, had to be fixed, clock will just set itself to any ole' time it wants, now my microphone is working but there is no audio coming back from the system. One annoying problem, no problem, a litany of annoying problems and un-met expectations, not an enjoyable owning experience. Does that meet your approval for my dismissal of this vehicle? Maybe next year they'll get the "bugs" worked out, but there isn't much fun owning something that's nothing but a headache.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    edited December 2012
    XD

    1. Yep, but most of us call it "driving like we want to get decent fuel economy"
    2. Sometimes. It's hard to find areas around here that work for that, but, Mystery Hill Road is great!

    Your final comment pretty much sums up why you don't get the fuel economy that I do- it's okay, too. But you can't blame the car for the results you see when you have to (or feel that you have to) drive that way.

    And, as I've posted many times before, the main problem with windows stickers is that people don't understand what the purpose of those numbers really are, or are just being willfully stupid; The sticker isn't *what you will get*, so much as an index allowing you to compare different vehicles under *similar driving conditions to each other*. In other words, 26 mpg combined for vehicle A versus 21 mpg combined for vehicle B means, NOT that you'll get 26 (or 21) mpg for either in *your* combined driving, but that 'A' will most likely get better fuel economy than 'B' for most people in combined driving situations.

    Maybe they should go straight to a 1-100 scale, without even referencing a mpg number at all, since most people simply can't seem to grasp the real purpose of the sticker anyway.

    Not to say that there isn't other room for improvement in the stickers, but if they try to make sure they fit EVERY driver in EVERY condition, they become useless. Essentially, EVERY car has a range from 0 mpg (if you leave your car idling through a full tank) to some seemingly outrageous (hypermiling) number, depending on who / where / when / how it's driven. This is also why there are some folks who post on forums about not getting the 'advertised' numbers. I'd wager there are plenty who *are* getting those numbers or better, but we never hear about them. Like everything else, the people screaming are usually the people who are unhappy, the rest just go about their business as usual and see no reason to search the internet for topics about 'why am I getting great fuel economy'..

    The EPA tests just standardize two specific types of situation / driving style and post comparative results for all cars. Fairly reasonable, even if you and others don't seem to get it.
  • For most of us this is not our 1st car purchase. Every car that I have owned I have achieved very close to the sticker, some even over the sticker on my scion. however on this car Im not even close. I feel the others are in the same boat.
    How do you explain Hyundai loosing a battle by over inflating the MPG's why didnt they just tell people that they are all lead foots and be done with it.

    "The lawsuit, filed by Seattle law firm Hagens Berman on behalf of 23 plaintiffs, seeks reimbursement for the lost sale value of the vehicles because they have lower fuel economy than advertised. The law firm says damages could reach $775 million."

    People do understand what those numbers mean. Im just waiting to see if they go after Ford for making up numbers not too many people are getting, like they did with Hyundai.
  • mbb21mbb21 Posts: 7
    Reading your postings and comments, it looks like the MPG problems being posted by the users are mostly attributable to user driving habits/style and or conditions and there is nothing wrong with what Ford and the EPA are reporting as the vehicles MPG numbers. Given the number of mileage problem postings on the 2013 Escape I must conclude, no offense intended, that you are the one lucky fellow that ended up with the Escape that was used to compute the EPA mileage figures and your driving style and conditions must match exactly those used in the EPA test.

    If you read my previous posting, I have tried to drive as efficiently as possible in order to maximize my MPG readings without much success. The best gauge that I can use is Ford's own measure of driver efficiency; the Eco Mode rating given on the MPG display sub-menu. Here is what the manual says;

    ECO MODE
    This system assists you in driving more
    efficiently by constantly monitoring
    characteristics of gear changing,
    anticipation of traffic conditions and
    speeds while driving.
    The value of these characteristics is
    represented by petals shown in the display,
    with five petals being the most efficient.
    The more efficiently you drive, the better
    the rating, and the better your overall fuel
    economy.

    Well guess what, I get a five (5) petal rating, the highest rating that you can achieve and consequently I should be getting pretty close to the EPA claimed MPG figure posted by Ford and I am not.

    Also, Consumer Reports is questioning Ford's EPA MPG figures for the Fussion and C3 vehicles. Their tests of these cars are falling way short of the claimed figures posted by Ford. Given these facts I tend to think that Ford has pulled a Hyundai with the mileage numbers on most of their later car offerings.

    Like the saying goes; "where there is smoke, there is fire" and in this case there sure are a lot of smoke signals going up about the under achieving MPG figures on the 2013 Escape.
  • "where there is smoke, there is fire" You got that right, Escapes are catching fire for no reason, oh, I'm sorry, they're "OVERHEATING!"
  • And dont get me wrong, I'm not bust'in on anyone about the great mpg they are getting. I'm just saying why test a car during perfect weather, using 100% gas, no ethanol, going 53 mph on a flat track with no wind, in a stripped down car to lesson the drag, etc, etc, etc.... . Is that what they should post on a window sticker????

    I can get the advertised mpg, its just that I have to drive it so tame to the point of being dangerous and causing traffic to back up behind me. I mean its really ridiculous.

    And again, dont get me wrong. I could give a crap about the money or the gas, I'm having a blast driving this vehicle. Premium gas all the way baby!!
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    edited December 2012
    I'm glad to hear that, on all counts (that you're happy with your car, and not busting on those of us doing well with fuel economy, etc. XD ).

    As I said above, there were probably improvements that can be made to the testing routine, but not what most seem to expect- most people seem to think that the sticker should represent *their* results.

    Exactly which person's daily driving should they model?

    Granted, I'd like to see the tests using "normally" available fuels (10% ethanol blend), highway driving with a speed of 70 mph, and maybe a city cycle that is much harsher (heavier acceleration, more stops, speeds kept no higher than 35 mph, etc.). If they do that, that'll really put a kink in ALL the sticker numbers. And yet there will still be lots of people taking issue with the results of *that* testing too. And many of them will still blame the EPA or the car company for lying. There's no lie in it though. What part of YMMV is so hard to understand?

    Seems to me that the EPA tests aren't too bad now anyway though. If I don't try (really mean that- I drive reasonably, responsibly, don't get run over but don't attempt to win races, at the speed limit, etc.) I get the numbers on the sticker. With THIS car. With EVERY car I've ever had that didn't have a fuel leak, bad carburetor, bad gas, whatever. And I've moved around, lived in many areas (not DC, sorry for you there), Chicago, Hampton Roads, semi-rural NC, western VA, Biloxi MS, etc. At most, different areas generally result in 1-2 mpg difference in my results, from any of those cars.

    At the same time, being an active car and tech nut, I frequent forums for every vehicle I own, and have for the past 20+ years (basically since the internet became widely available). The real common thread in all of them has been this- every model, and I do mean *every* one, has had this exact same type of thing. There are always plenty of posters complaining that the car company is lying, EPA methods suck, my car is defective, nobody can get those numbers, I want my money back, we took it to the dealer 500000 times with no fix, they told us it's normal, I won't ever buy one again.. It just happens that people with issues post about them, after they've hunted to see if they were alone or if there are solutions, but few without problems post. That's also why I post here so much- I'm trying to post my experiences so that many can see that these cars don't all get 2 mpg in daily use. *Some* people get that, many don't, even if only 1 person is here to say that this is true.

    I and many others haven't had issues with the fuel economy (and no, not really granny driving, except to see how far above the sticker I can potentially get). In fact, unless I was having some other problem (which was obvious by other symptoms), fuel economy has always been fine. And, with a bit of effort it's always been possible to beat the EPA sticker numbers, if a bit harder since the last update to their testing methodology..

    I refuse to believe that all of my cars have been special (they haven't- I've had my share of "lemons" too).

    I guess what really irks me in all this isn't just that people place the blame on the car when there's really nothing wrong, though that stands out too, it's that they complain about fuel economy and yet make excuses for why it's not *their* fault. Somehow everyone thinks that cars should return maximum fuel economy with minimum effort. If you want good gas mileage, you've got to make a personal adjustment. If you don't care, great! Drive it like you stole it, and ignore how much fuel it burnt beating Joe from one light to the next or staying ahead of all the traffic on 395.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,786
    "Also, Consumer Reports is questioning Ford's EPA MPG figures for the Fussion and C3 vehicles. Their tests of these cars are falling way short of the claimed figures posted by Ford. Given these facts I tend to think that Ford has pulled a Hyundai with the mileage numbers on most of their later car offerings. "

    This issue is specific to hybrid vehicles. They are discussing if the EPA testing is really appropriate for hybrid vehicles. It has nothing to do with ICE only vehicles.
  • Good posts. It's nice to see some thought put into the discussion.

    One of the things I find interesting is the display which shows all of the greenery, as an indication of "best possible" driving habits. Regardless of what the owners manual says, there is a "window" or range of driving habits and speeds which the computer will deem as efficient.

    For example, speed. Let's pick a number out of the air and say that 60Mph is the most economical speed to cruise at.
    It would be unrealistic for the computer to start docking you "leafs" if you drove 59Mph or 61Mph. (or 55 or 65) Obviously there is a "window" that is built around the ideal cruising speed.

    Another leafy area is "anticipation".
    Again, the same priniple applies. It would be great if we all had a crystal ball and could anticipate every red-light before it changed and were able to coast from 40Mph to a stop without hardly touching the brakes. Obviously this is unrealistic, but it would be the most efficient way to drive.
    Again I think there is a "window" here which will allow a variety of driving styles and traffic conditions, while still yielding a good "score".

    Clearly the people who routinely go from acceleration to braking with little or no coasting, will be docked leafs.

    In my experience, you do not need to be a super-hero or hyper-miler to get all the leafs green. It does seem to leave room for improvement, even when your tree looks nice and leafy.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,627
    Sorry have had such a bad experience.
    My wife's Escape has every option and no problems.
    it's her 3rd Escape and we still have the other 2.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,627
    If I lived in the DC area, I'd try to structure my commute around public transportation.
    Since you have a problem withe EPA, just head over their building with the gold plated fixtures and fill out a complaint form.
    Good luck with that. :lemon:
  • escapeismescapeism Posts: 39
    edited December 2012
    No public transportation for me. Been there, done that. I start work at 6:00am and leave at 2:30pm. So traffic isn't too bad. Actually, the only reason traffic is bad most of the time is all the road construction, which is winding down on my side of the beltway.

    Maybe the EPA figures on the window stickers (Titanium, this is about what I'm getting)could post numbers like:
    @ 50 mph = 28 mpg
    @ 60 mph = 26.5 mpg
    @ 70 mph = 24 mpg

    Then foks would not be shocked. I personally get 22 - 24 average per tank with my Titanium, and thats with mixed driving with crushed egg under the gas pedal. So all-in-all I'm happy, considering I'm using winter blend, 10% ethanol crap, still have my cross bars on, and go through at least a dozen crushed eggs per tank. :D
  • Went to the Subaru dealership last night to get a quote on my Escape, ready for this..................$17,000!!! 17 thousand for a vehicle that's MSRP was $27,025, so what's that, 2 goezinta 4, 4 goezinta 8, 37%, that Escape has lost 37% of its' value in just under 5 months. Lovely, I guess I'm over reacting to the "over heating problem?" My only hope now is that a Mayan Asteroid hits my car out in the parking lot
  • That's actually an interesting idea for EPA ratings, but with it being hard to get testing accomplished just using the current standards (2 tests, right?), more tests per car are even more unlikely. They could always extrapolate from the results they have now, but that makes the numbers less realistic, since things like gearing and whether or not the turbo is actually creating boost (not to mention how much boost) at any given speed can greatly change the real world vs expected numbers.

    BTW, your numbers don't sound bad at all, based on those driving conditions, and are definitely in line with EPA estimates.
  • I also think that Ford made a mistake not putting in a "instant" mpg display versus the "average". I think if folks saw their instant readings we would alleviate many of the posts on this site because they would instantly know whether it was the driving habits or the mechanics/software of the vehicle that is to blame.
  • There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about how the EPA tests vehicles. It has changed over the years. Below is the link to see the current procedures.
    link title">link title
  • 100% agree about the "instant" mpg display.
  • SEL with the 1.6 engine, with 2700 miles. Best mileage was 33.9 with a bit of tailwind on highway. I don't creep away from stops, but also don't floor it either. Generally get 30-31 mpg on open road/22-24 in local city driving. This is much better city mpg than the 2011 Limited with the V6 and a couple better on the highway.
  • mck588mck588 Posts: 12
    Sold my 2003 Chrysler T&C Limited minivan to buy a 2013 Escape Titanium 2.0.

    I was getting 13.8 mpg on the minivan...always with a mix of local and highway. I was excited to finally get rid of it for something more fuel efficient.

    After 3 months, I have been able to reach 14.8 mpg on my Escape. Woohoo!

    I am hoping that as the car breaks in I will see an improvement in mpg.
  • First tank of Gas only 175 miles in my SEL FWD 1.6

    getting 21 around town and about 30 or so on the Hwy, :)

    although only had it on Hwy for about 35 miles.

    During the recall I drove and SEL 2.0 4wd for 2 weeks about 4oo miles
    in that I only got 18 around town and 24 hwy
  • drjjjjdrjjjj Posts: 14
    To maximize MPG rating from Feds, design max mpg @ 50 mph for freeway mpg rating! The domestic manufactures don't seem to have the same sense of ownership when designing new rigs like the Japanese-perhaps a culture issue! I won't touch a domestic vehicle any more-too many bad experiences! Wish it weren't so!
  • Read posting #150 and go to the link and read that as well. Your 50Mph notion is out of date.

    There is no doubt that an SUV (or similar shape) will get better mileage at lower speeds. This being said, the EPA ratings are done at a variety of speeds, not 50Mph.
    If I drove at 50 Mph in my Escape, I would exceed the EPA ratings.
    For people who are wanting to drive 70 + Mph and not see their mileage drop off a cliff, they need to look at a vehicle which is much more aerodynamic.
    ( ie, cars )
  • dizneydizney Posts: 19
    I had the AWD 2.0 for a loaner for the recall !
    It was a PIG on gas........
    Glad I bought the 1.6 L FWD. Great gas mieage! :) :) :)
  • dizney... I have put about 10 tanks of gas through my 2.0 FWD. It is getting the EPA numbers. It's all in how the vehicle is driven. The AWD does take about 7% more fuel than the FWD, and if you are using the power that the 2.0T can put out, then you will burn the proportionate amound of fuel.
    If I had a loaner, I might be a little more lead-footed as well.
    This may not apply to you, but I find it humerous when people rent a 2.0 AWD, "drive it like a rental" and then are surprised at how much fuel it uses.

    When driven equally, the 2.0 should be using about 8% more fuel than the 1.6.
    That's a pretty good offset, considering that the 2.0 makes 35% more HP and 46% more Torque. :)
  • I have to jump in here. Purchased a 2013 Escape- SEL- 4wd on Sept 11, and have over 9800 miles on it already and I haven't seen anything better that 22 mpg with this car. I fill my car min 3 x's a week so this gas milage issue startes me in the face all the time. Went to my dealer 3 weeks after I got the car to complain about my TERRIBLE gas milage and they replied "oh don't worry, it takes it about 4-5000 miles for it to break in and it will be fine'. Well I have been in there 2-3 times since questioning this with no luck. I have even been in touch with Ford Customer Care, registering a complaint about this, hoping that dealing with them would lead me to some answers, again, with no luck. I had told the woman I spoke to about this, and while she was sympathetic to my issue, really did not help. But I did tell her that I was going to the dealer again, and she said that she would reach out to them as well before my appmt. So I set one last appmt with my dealer to discuss this and the other issue I'v been having, the supposed 15 gallon gas tank, which when I fill it up, it only takes 12.5 gallons or so. Get back to that later. I met with their customer service person I had been designated and basically was dismissed with my problem here, saying that there is nothing they can do about the gas milage or the fuel tank. The conversation lasted maybe 3-5 mins, mostly me complaining that this is not exceptable. VERY frustrated at this point and I want to pursue this further. When I purchased this car the 'blend' of gas milage on the sticker read 25mpg, and with a 15 gallon tank, I was expecting at least 375 miles per tank, but now I get about 21mpg, times the 12.5 gallons I get whe I fill it up when it gets to empty, or 262 miles, times 3x's a week, that's a difference of 337 miles short ! I'd love to get some direction here- this is totally unfair and I am willing to take this as far as I can.
  • wistrodwistrod Posts: 14
    Agree 100%. As previously stated, I also contacted Ford complaining about my mpg and the tank size. They told me the same thing - it is an issue for the dealer to handle! I didn't waste my time with the dealer, as I know how that would result. I now have about 2,000 miles on the vehicle. My mpg for these 2,000 miles is 22.1. About 75% of my driving is interstate, and the rest in populated areas (city). I always use cruise control. If the speed limit is 35, my cruise is set to 35. On the interstates my cruise is set to 55 or 65, per posted speed limits (yeah I am constantly getting passes as I putz along in the slow lane)! The highest "real time" mpg my readout ever registered was 25.1 mpg. I fill up when the light goes on,usually telling me that I have about 45 miles remaining to empty. It has never taken more than 11.5 gallons! I truly believe there s no way this tank is bigger than 13 gallons. I would really like to hear from someone that ran out of gas, and find out exactly how many gallons it took to refuel. I lie the vehicle, but I didn't get what I paid for or what I was led to believe I was getting. Pure and simply, fraud! Keeping my eyes open for a class action suit, or someone to come out wit an aftermarket 19 gallon gas tank!!!!!
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    I HAD the 1.6L se Fwd for 4 months, most I was able to put in the tank was 13.3 gallons and it said I had 8 miles of range left. Luckily my dealership had a Ford/Subaru combo in another location & I was able to get them to give me 21k for mine & bought the new Subaru Crosstrek. Took a 2.5k loss on the Escape, but I call it money well spent, I'm already averaging 27mpgs in the Subaru and have put in 13.9 gallons without the fuel light even coming on. Best decision ever!!!
  • frank181, I presume you have a 2.0 AWD? If so, the EPA average is posted at 24MPG.
    I too have noticed that the range seems pretty short. I have put as much as 12.9 gallons in the tank, and that took me less than 300 miles. I do find the gas guage and "distance to empty" display are very conservative. I have read the fuel tank level from the OBD-II port before filling up, and it showed a higher number than the guage. (I will document that info and share it with you the next time I fill up)
    Having said that, it is not generally a good idea to run a tank completely empty. Fuel pumps are cooled by gas, sloshing around them. A 13 gallon fillup should be about right for this 15 gallon tank. (yes, 13 gallons is not much)

    I would also add, as many have in the past, that the EPA numbers are a guide and there are many variables to gas mileage. Driving habits, Ethanol content tire pressure, terrain, speed etc etc.
    I have only used Ethanol free gas in my SEL 2.0 FWD,. (not an option for everyone) I have 17" snow tires mounted on steel rims and I have been in winter driving conditions for most if not all of my first 10 tanks. My 10 tank average is 24.3 MPG. Best was 27.6 which was mostly highway.

    I find that cruise control is less efficient. Cruise control has one mandate and that is to maintain a constant speed. It will not anticpate hills approaching and will apply lots of throttle (turbo-boost) when it hits the hill. This is normal cruise control operation.

    I hear your frustration with mileage, but there are so many variables in this eqation that it is a very difficult topic to address. If you look around any forum from any manufacturer, you will find people unhappy with their mileage.

    If you look at fuelly.com you can browse through a large database of drivers who report each and every fillup. Apply the filter to show 4-cylinder gas engines on vehicles like the Toyota RAV-4, VW-Tiguan, Honda CR-V etc, and you will see that the average 2013 Escape owner is right in line. (yet the Escape offers significantly more performance if you have the 2.0)
  • tinycadon, From everything I see on the web, the Crosstrek is smaller and 500 lbs lighter than the Escape and has significantly less torque and HP than the Escape. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
    In addition, the little 148 Hp engine should be getting an average of 28Mpg according to the EPA, so you are falling short of the EPA combined average.

    Difficult to slam Ford based on this criteria.
Sign In or Register to comment.