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

1568101121

Comments

  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    edited February 2013
    I drove mine hard over the past tank, in colder weather, just to see what the effect would be. That means I accelerated briskly (racing from light to light), and in general drove like an impatient roadrunner. Highway speeds were 8 over the limit everywhere I could manage it (traffic letting me by having a large effect). The only think I didn't change was where I drive, so this was still maybe 70-30 hwy / cty. The overall came out to just over 22 mpg.

    Still not too bad.

    Interestingly, I evidently can't help myself about anticipating stops and such, because the green display for anticipation still had all 5 leaves. On the other hand, I had no leaves on the trip meter for speed (and a warning lecture to slow down to improve fuel economy). The overall trip meter (never reset) had 1 leaf, but the same warning.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,114
    and a warning lecture to slow down to improve fuel economy

    LOL, I'm old enough to remember when the only nag was "your door is ajar".

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • Hehe. I remember when cars that did that were 'high tech'. This was along about the time that Night Rider originally aired on TV. When that show first came on, most cars still just dinged at you or something, so a car actually talking was amazing! Now they not only talk, they analyze our behavior.

    The worst part is that it agrees with my wife. :P
  • Consumer Reports JUST came out with a report about Turbochargers & their Real World power/mpg claims, they tested a Ford Fusion with the 1.6L engine. Game Day Bucket Go BOOM!!!!

    "the magazine singled out turbocharged versions of the Chevrolet Cruze and Ford Fusion, which it says don't boast the real-world performance or fuel economy figures their makers have suggested. Instead, Consumer Reports seems to be indicating that the engines have been tweaked specifically to perform well in the EPA-mandated fuel economy tests."

    http://www.leftlanenews.com/consumer-reports-lambasts-underperforming-turbo-engi- nes.html
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,114
    That's the rap against Hyundai/Kia and they have suffered (a bit anyway) when real world reports didn't match the EPA ratings. Kind of a risky strategy if it's true.

    You see this with crash test results; after the IIHS or NHTSA adds or changes how they crash test, the engineers design cars to get 5 star ratings on those tests. So we see added tests to address other shortcomings, like the new frontal offset crash test, aka "small overlap test".

    If they made the automakers test with E-10 gas, you'd see an immediate drop in EPA ratings. :P

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • I guess my point is that we now have some real world confirmation that people who are experiencing terrible gas mileage aren't just getting it because they "don't know how to drive" their vehicles properly. It's a shame because the vehicle itself is great, comfortable and handles like a car, unfortunately the mpgs don't come close to the EPA ratings & the small gas tank leaves a lot to be desired on the driving range front. A shame really, I could've lived with the lower mpgs with an 18 even 17 gallon tank, but the aggrevation definately was not worth it.
  • woodinvawoodinva Posts: 17
    edited February 2013
    UNFORTUNATELY..the EPA doesn't do mileage tests with ethanol gas; they report their tests using 100 percent gasoline. Yet 95 percent of the buying public can only get gas with ethanol in it. Gasoline without ethanol is priced above that of diesel in most places where you can get it..[near marinas] check out website pure .org for availability. So everyone take a 20 percent reduction off of what dealer invoices say. IF YOUR IN AN AREA THAT USES e15 gasoline take 30 percent off the mileage estimates that are reported. e15 gasoline has been legal for sale in the USA SINCE JUNE 2012. Most sellers are supposed to tell you before selling it. However I would NOT be surprised is some gasoline retailers are bending the rules.

    Another thing I did notice on the invoices of some TITANIUM suv's some of them have been ordered to meet CALIFORNIA emissions then they are shipped and sold on the EAST coast. California emissions are MORE stringent then what the epa requires in other areas; wonder if this is also affecting some of your reported gas mileages; especially those not living in California. JMHO ...an Explorer 4wd owner [20mpg and 335k miles] wondering whether we should wait for a diesel engine or something better before upgrading into this situation...yikes.
  • I've NEVER owned a vehicle that didn't come within 1-2mpg of the EPA figure, WITH ethanol gas! My 2010 Escape gets better mpgs than the 2013 Escape with that "ECO"boost fuel saving engine, right on par with what CONSUMER REPORTS tested. PLUS who says Consumer Reports tested with E-10 gasoline??? I never saw it mentioned in their report???
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,114
    I don't see it mentioned in their blurb on how they test cars.

    A while back they compared E15 to gasoline*.

    The asterisk indicated that the gas they used in the comparison was a 10% ethanol blend.

    The great ethanol debate

    Maybe a subscriber can find the footnotes or can contact them.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • I traded in my Jeep Wrangler for the 2013 Ford Escape Titanium 2.0 ecoboost titanium. I wanted something nicer, better ride and better mpg. I'm happy with everything BUT the mpg. I have just over 5000 miles on it so it's pretty well broke in at this point. My daily commute is a little over 17 miles, about 15 miles of that are freeway and rarely stop and go. The freeway speed here is 60, I usually drive slightly over that, maybe 63-64. My mpg average is 22. not even close to what Ford is touting in their adds...seems more than misleading. BTW I use mid-grade gas ( or plus ) seems that premium gas shouldn't be a mandate for what's considered an economy, small sized SUV.
  • Boy, these numbers seem to be all over the place!
    Consumer Reports is showing the 2.0 Escape, 0-60 time at 8.2 seconds, which is OK, but not great. Motortrend tested the Escape 2.0 and timed it, 0-60 in 6.8 and the 1/4 mile at 15.2 which is VERY respectable up against ANY V6.
    CR also reports an observed Fuel Economy at 22MPG combined, when it is EPA rated 24 combined.
    Well with my 2.0FWD I have put 14 tanks through it and have a lifetime average to date of 24.1 MPG with winter tires, winter gas, cold tempertaures etc. (approx 50/50 driving)
    I realize this is not everyone's experience, but I am reporting on my experience.
    Yesterday while on a 4 hour highway trip I did some mileage monitoring. I found at;
    60Mph I was at 31MPG.
    At 65Mph, 30MPG (this is EPA for 2.0 FWD)
    At 70Mph, 28.5MPG
    and finally at 75Mph, 27MPG.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    I live about hour from CR HQ and we have E-10 all year long. Now we have winter formulation on top of that.
    We have an '09 Escape WAD V6, in addition to the '13AWD 2.0. By the 3rd year it matched what the new is getting already.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    I've tried doing some tests like that, i.e trying to see the difference between 105 km/h, 110, 115, 120, etc. On a long trip, I was doing runs of 20km at each speed, on cruise. It was largely inconclusive, it just varied too much. In my own test, I did the best "score" at 120 km/h. Probably due to the incline where I was doing it, or some tail wind, or whatever. Also, on these short runs, the mpg was very good, but it just doesn't live up to the tank. By that I mean, even though I could do very good "short stints" like that, over the entire tank, my results would be nowhere near as good.

    Essentially, this car is very good on gas, unless you're accelerating. LOL I know, it sounds silly, but it's particularly true with this engine. Anytime you're coasting (i.e. constant hwy speeds), it does really well, but as soon as you have to accelerate (city), it just totally wrecks the fuel economy.

    My last 2 tanks were exactly 14.0 L/100km (16.8 mpg). 100% city, often congested. Very conservative driving, rarely any vigorous acceleration. Very cold weather, -10 to -15 C. Trying to release the gas pedal as much as possible to coast. Interestingly, trip computer had me at 13.4 L/100km (17.5mpg) on the last tank. Wonder if the "volume adjusted to 10 C" sign at the gas station plays a role in this, i.e. it shows more gas at the pump than I'm really putting in.

    http://www.fuelly.com/driver/h3ll3r/escape
  • frenifreni Posts: 2
    My mileage is also a disappointment. 16.8 city 18.9 combined. All other aspects of the car I enjoy but the mileage is really disappointing.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    I need to correct a few things in my post and take a better look at it before I post it.

    I live about hour from CR HQ and we have E-10 all year long. Now we have winter formulation on top of that.
    We have an '09 Escape AWD V6, in addition to the '13 AWD 2.0. By the 3rd year it matched what the new one is getting already.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,788
    The whole point of the Turbo is to get better performance from a smaller engine. That is how they achieve higher MPG. Turbocharging is not inherently going to give the consumer any better MPG by itself. The reason the smallest engine model (1.6L) gets similar (or better) MPG than the 2012 (2.5L) is that it is a full .9 liters smaller in displacement.

    But I still think that to get the best MPG, one has to keep out of that turbo as much as possible, while still having the power available when really needed.

    My big disappointment was their dropping the FEH, which was a great vehicle.
  • Decided to go with the Escape SE 1.6L mainly for the MPG. Wish we would've seen all these posts on various websites IRT the 2013 Ford Escape MPG. We too are averaging 17.9-18.1 MPG combined 75% Highway. Marysville Ford tells us we have to put 7,500-10,000 miles on the engine to break it in. Please tell me how I'm averaging 22.8-24.1 MPG on my 7 month old just now 3,184 mile 2012 Challenger SXT? Driving her from GA to MD we averaged 27 MPG on I-95. Now the Escape driving pure highway best MPG is 24 MPG after going from Everett, WA to Vancouver, WA. Please tell me Ford why? I feel cheated once again by Ford. Class action lawsuit seems to be in order here folks!
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    edited February 2013
    FYI, even though CR isn't really all that reliable a source for this kind of thing (yup, that's my opinion, and I'll stick to it based on prior reading of their CRap), the numbers they posted aren't really outside the realm of reasonable for a vehicle with the posted EPA combined ratings they ALSO list.

    For example, their results for the 1.6L Ecoboost Escape shows that they saw 22 mpg combined in their testing (assuming you can call it testing). This is compared to the EPA 25 mpg combined numbers. Doing the math, 3/25 = .12 * 100 = 12%. That's well within the range of effects seen because of driving style, traffic conditions, altitude / speeds, tire pressures, etc.
    And for the 2.0L Ecoboost, the numbers are even less meaningful, at just 22 CR vs 24 EPA, which is 2/24 = .0833 x 100 = 8.33% off of the EPA ratings..

    Edit: researched a bit, and found that some tests show the 2.0L Ecoboost Escape 0-60 (AWD) at just over 8.0 secs, which is in line with the CR data, so I removed and retract my last paragraph, about their data being all out of whack. I still stand by the fact that nearly all, if not all, of their numbers are within the reasonable range of the EPA combined ratings though.
  • I agree that the short stints are hard to get any conclusive data, which is why I really only trust the full tank method.
    Yesterday on my 4-hour trip, I was monitoring the fuel consumption instantaneously and in 1-minute increments and 5-minute increments using the OBDII port and an iPad application. I tried these 4 speeds a few times and had fairly consistant results. It's never a perfect method, as there are small differences in terrain etc, but the graphs were quite consistantly showing the difference on this trip.
    On my current tank which is 80% Hwy, I have gone 305 Km (190 miles) and still have 49% fuel remaining. Showing 8.5L-100km or 27.6Mpg. It was just the city driving that pulled it down that low.

    Highway driving is not too difficult to interpret as you can more or less drive at at reasonable speed and call it highway driving.
    City driving on the other hand is a dogs breakfast for mileage ratings. One persons City driving might have an average speed of 40Kph while another persons City driving could have an average speed of 15Kph. The EPA has their testing criteria, but I would imagine that the real world results can be much better and certainly much worse.
  • I'm still not sure how the EPA came up with the drive cycle they use for their tests. Given that, in the real world, most people treat the posted speed limit as a "go not less than this, and preferably 10 over.." on the highways, EPA should test at 80mph for the highway portions.

    As you point out, the city part is a complete snarl. Even two people in the same city are almost guaranteed to have different results for their in-city driving.

    And while it might not sound like it, I can understand the frustration of getting lower fuel economy than the sticker says. It's just that most people need to keep in mind that the sticker never promises anything- it is really just to compare relative numbers between cars (why I'd suggest a 1-100 scale ranking cars rather than providing absolute mpg figures on the sticker).

    There are two things that make it harder for me to place the blame on the car company (when people say they are misleading) or the car (when people say that a specific model isn't giving them the promised fuel economy):

    1. I only read and attempt to respond to replies about the vehicles I own and have operated, and in every case, I've matched or exceeded the EPA numbers (city, highway, and combined).

    2. In every case, as a forum regular, here and elsewhere, there's always a large vocal group that doesn't get the EPA numbers, and that insists that the car is defective, or that the car company is lying.

    Those two themes seem to be universal over each of the last six vehicles I've owned (a Silverado, an Avalanche, two different model Malibus, a Trailblazer, and the Escape).

    I do have to say that the Escape makes me work the hardest to get the better numbers. I attribute it to the smaller engine and turbo making me have to be much more careful about acceleration. Which is most likely why CRs numbers, while reasonable, seem consistently lower for the turbo cars than the NA cars. If driven carefully, the smaller displacement turbos can give better results than are possible with the larger NA engines. Unfortunately, in the real world, most people aren't willing to drive carefully in return for better fuel economy- they want to drive the way they always have and get better fuel economy. So the larger engine options are probably best for them.

    And the EPA really needs to up the speed of the highway test, add way more stop and go and low speed / rapid acceleration to the standardized testing procedures, along with cold temperatures, low tire pressures, non-flat terrain, 10% ethanol fuel, etc. Have I missed anything that normally affects people's fuel economy in the real world? The idea is that the sticker should represent the bottom 5% of expected numbers for city / highway / and combined. Of course, the sticker still can't be used for government fuel economy standards, unless those standards are lowered to realistic numbers, based on the real world drivers and conditions (1/3 or less the current standards, in my estimate).
  • May I ask what is it (not opinion) that CRap does in their mpg testing that leads you to believe that their "testing" can not be trusted???
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,114
    edited February 2013
    Companies get owners mad at them if they over-promise and under-deliver. Again I'm thinking Hyundai/Kia mostly.

    On the Ford website, you have to dig a little to find any "ad copy" about mpg, just the EPA ratings.

    On the "Green" page, there's this:

    "The 2013 Escape has an eco-friendly side. For example, there are two available EcoBoost® engines that are designed to be efficient. In fact, the 1.6L EcoBoost engine delivers 33 highway mpg, the best automatic highway fuel economy in its class.*"

    Unless you travel for work, you probably aren't highway cruising all that much. Perhaps fewer people would get frustrated if city mpg of 23 was the emphasis.

    But yeah, aggressive driving, speeding, or a lousy commute can really hammer your own mpg.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • Here's my issue. My last vehicle had an EPA combined number of 17. Over tracking more than 70,000 miles on this vehicle, I typically averaged 19 (about 12% higher than the EPA rating). The EPA combined rating on my 2013 2.0 AWD is 24. I struggle to average 21-22! That's 12% below the EPA rating. I haven't changed my driving habits (in fact I baby this new vehicle in attempt to increase my mpg), I haven't moved, I haven't changed my driving routes. Given my current driving style, I would expect to be getting at least 12%, if not higher gains above the EPA rating - I ought to be achieving 28 to 29 mpg easily! Why am I not? This is "real world" information. Frankly I don't care how the EPA arrives at their numbers. I do know that the numbers ought to be consistent across all vehicle platforms, so that they can be used as a "fair" comparison tool. In my situation, they are not - they are far from it. Something isn't right!
  • cohanncohann Posts: 1
    edited February 2013
    I am reading this forum with interest, maybe too late, since I already bought my 2013 Ford Escape and am fairly disappointed with the mpg. I am in no way as technically proficient as other people posting, but my fuel economy DROPS when I am driving on the highway and struggles to get above 22.5. Could roof rails ( the cross bars) be causing significant drag or something? I realize my 2008 VW Passat wagon had rails that ran the length of the car, but not across, and I got much better highway mileage. I am only at about 3500 miles, but have taken 2 separate 4 hour highway trips and am so surprised at the low highway mileage, at least compared to what was advertised. Thanks for any input. Btw, no cargo was on the roof in either trip.
  • Anything protruding above the roof of your car is an aerodynamic disaster, it can reduce your MPGs by 5%-10% depending on the speed you're traveling.
  • That's just it- I need to see evidence of any form of 'controlled' testing before I decide to trust their numbers as representative of any vehicle's 'normal' fuel economy. Just as none of the numbers here are standardized, because we all have far too many variables separating our results from each others' experience (for that matter, within our own results from one tank to the next), without tightly controlled, well-documented procedures and variables (air temp, tire pressures, speed, time, humidity, etc..) the comparison numbers are meaningless, other than to illustrate that it is possible to get xx mpg with AAA car, because I do. With CR, I refuse to cut them slack, because things such as brand new first model year import vehicles (Tundra, for example) get recommender or 'above average expected reliability' ratings, while others, such as a redesigned Silverado don't, despite having a good reliability rating for the prior generation. They claim to only have bias for reliable vehicles, etc., but instead their actions have consistently proven otherwise.

    So, until they show evidence otherwise, I don't trust that it was a controlled testing routine that provided the results in that table, rather than an ongoing and preexisting issue with domestic manufacturers.

    And I understand if you get low fuel economy numbers for short, it-didn't-even-warm-up-the-car trips in cold weather and 25 mph stop and go city traffic. But if you do, you should be able to understand why the numbers are low.

    Again, I think turbos are more sensitive, so the way I see most people drive will probably return lower numbers than a naturally aspirated engine application would. Btw, that's not a compliment or an excuse- if you really wan good fuel economy and it's really that important, why aren't you willing to adjust, if you can, to maximize whatever the results with whatever vehicle you drive? Many seem to want good numbers with high speeds, first away from this light and at the next, beat you to the on ramp, got your pinkslip sucka style driving. For the rest (very few, watching traffic anywhere I go), if the numbers are too low, it's probably where you drive, and maybe you just need something different. The car can meet or exceed the EPA numbers, as my own and other posts here have said. It just might not be well suited to your conditions (gets back to EPA adjustments presenting worst case, so nobody feels left out over the sticker, and since the cars will never give the same results for everyone).
  • Ok, but my take on CR, regardless of their bias issues towards Japan/US vehicles, is that they drive all their cars in the same fashion, how "normal" people "normally" drive, so any numbers they derive are all derived in the same fashion.

    As for your take on how to adjust your driving to get the most mpgs from a turbo, that's not the issue, the issue is they are marketing this vehicle as both Better Power AND Better MPGs. They're not saying it's either/or, they are saying you can have both. THAT is what people are upset about, and THAT is why people are complaining, if anything, it's false advertising but not fraud. If they're going to advertise that you can have more power AND better mpgs, you shouldn't have to use kid gloves to drive it. I never had to drive like an 85yr old grandmother going to church to hit the EPA number for highway. I could get 27mpg doing 70-75 in the naturally aspirated Escape, why shouldn't I expect the same results in the "ECO"boost? Why should I have to drive 50-60mph to get the same results?
  • apparently my 6 cyl is learning my driving habits thusly affecting my gas mileage. HAL are you listening. problem is who makes the software, Bill Gates? Their INsync software is Windows based...careful! windows is known for being full of sxxxx (holes)
  • That's a good point, about the advertising. But you can only go so far with that, if they actually went by the book to get the numbers on the sticker. The advertising isn't really any different than any of these companies- recall the price in most ads overlaying the top trim models? It's usually the base starting price. They all would like us to believe that you can have the nicest car, for the low price, and drive however, while still getting class-leading fuel economy.

    Now, just because these Escapes can get the numbers (ie. for me and a few others) doesn't mean they got those numbers testing properly. Unlike others, I'm not saying they can't have, because my own results say otherwise. I'd love to see what the EPA finds out if they test themselves though. Because, admittedly, the manufacturers are biased toward getting results they can sell us on, while the EPA just wants facts.
  • "the issue is they are marketing this vehicle as both Better Power AND Better MPGs. They're not saying it's either/or, they are saying you can have both. THAT is what people are upset about

    I tend to think that I have both power and better MPG's. The idea is to have (in my case) the fuel efficiency of a 2.0L engine, when that is all that is needed, AND have the power of a MUCH larger engine, simply by pressing the accelerator. I just came from a 4.0L Chrysler engine (2008, which was a good engine) and it had less torque than the 2.0 EcoBoost !

    I do understand however, if I get pushed back in the seat of my Escape, then I am using a significant amount of fuel to do this. Likely a similar amount to what my 4.0L was using.
    The good thing is, I can let off the pedal and I am right back to having 2.0L efficiency.
    Granted, it may not be quite as efficient as a 2.0L, 150 Hp normally aspirated engine, but it's not far off. (and I wouldn't want to own one)

    Like I said, I feel I have the best of both worlds. But I have to choose at any given time, do I want to enjoy the fuel efficiency of my 2.0L engine or feel the torque of the turbo.

    Again, I can only report on my experience.
1568101121
Sign In or Register to comment.