Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I checked it out recently for the Escape to see what it showed.
Basically, it shows that the 2013's are averaging as good or better than any of the previous generation Escapes. Many owners, many thousands of miles reported.
link title
My average tank of my first 7 tanks is 24.25 Mpg in my 2.0 FWD. Just slightly ahead of the 2013 reported average. My best was 27.6 and worst 20.6.
Unfortunately the website does not seem to differentiate between engines and 2WD/4WD. It is just an average of all fill-ups from all configurations.
Very pleased with my Escape. (mileage and everything else)
They want their customers to be comfortable with what they have.
Thanks
Chris
PS- Only other issue is that it rides very rough with the 19" wheels in the city, other than that I love the car. Acceleration is great, features are awesome, park assist etc. etc.
I have the 2.0L 4WD, and just turned 1,200 miles. Based on my last two tanks I am getting combined mpg of 23.3 mpg. Most of my driving is city (guessing 75% city and 25% highway). based on the real time readout, I estimate that I get around 21 mpg city and 29 or 30 highway. I will also add the mpg indicator in the vehicle provided quite accurate (the readout for each tank full of gas was within 0.1 mpg of the calculated actual).
So, as I said, I don't take issue with the mpg. What I hate is the range! Refueling shortly atfter the low fuel indicator goes on, I'm getting only 250 miles on a tank! Has anyone confirmed that the tank on this vehicle is 15.1 gallons (run out of gas and refueled to full)? Here is why I ask. Besides calculating my mpg when I fill up, I also monitor via the tripmeter (reset at each fill up). On my last two fill ups (one resulted in 22.8 mpg and the other in 23.8 mpg) the "miles to empty" indicated that I had 46 and 47 miles respectively (matching the mpg reading). Here's the issue -- when I filled up, each time the vehicle took 11 gallons of gas, meaning that with a 15.1 gallon tank, I had 4.1 gallons remaining. Given the mpg, my range until empty should have read closer to 95 miles, and not 46 or 47. On each tank of gas, I traveled about 250 miles -- this was stated accurately on the tripmeter. So, I contacted Ford and asked them to 1) confirm that the tank is actually 15.1 gallons and not 13.1 gallons, and 2) verify whether or not the "miles to empty" calculation provides an intentional false reading, that includes a buffer of 2 extra gallons? After 3 days, Ford responded by saying "take the vehicle to your dealer!"
Anyone else monitor their mpg and system readouts as I have described above? what are your results? Are your "Miles to empty" reported accurately, or does it seem to under-estimate the actual range?
You said your cruise control was set for 70Mph half the time. What speeds were you driving for the other half of the time?
Cruise control is very inefficient if you are driving on any hilly terrain. Not sure if there were any hills on your trip.
Were you driving against the wind at any point in your trip?
70 Mph is not the most efficient cruising speed. If you are looking to get the EPA estimate, you should be driving closer to 60 Mph.
What kind of gas? I think I sound like a broken record on this topic, but the gas you buy will vary your mileage.
The EPA uses 91-93 octane Ethanol-free gas for testing.(from everything I have read) Try to find some 91 octane Ethanol free fuel, to see if this has any effect.
I would not expect more than a 5% improvement after break-in.
Im not even running the A/C, im know its gonna be worse in the summer, when I use the push to start to cool off the car.... bla still a fun car but the MPG did play alot into me buying the car.
so now I need to buy high octaine gas, The info I had from Ford said no, that would only give me a boost in HP not MPG. And I need to buy gas with out corn.... I dont think that is possible living by Houston... even out of town gas stops have 10% E . So there is no way I can achieve those EPA numbers. and yes my tires are filled with nitrogen at posted on the door limits. and I have no cargo other then my big butt. I do log my fule at the www.fueleconomy.gov site. I only see 4 people recording for the 2.0 T
As more of these hit the roads I think alot of people are gonna be pissed
Given that the car is rated by the EPA at 21/28 city/highway, my numbers are not too far off from the bottom range. However, this is not what I expected or expect! Doing the math and given the EPA numbers, I should be averaging 22.75 mpg given the 75/25 percent city/highway driving that I do. Right now I am under that mark by 16.7%, that is quite a miss! So even if the system improves by 5% by further break in mileage my mpg will still be under the claim by over 11.6%. Not exactly what I expected.
The second beef I have with the car is its limited range. I now have to gas up almost every week and at most get 250 miles on a stretch before I need to fill up. On the last fill up where I got the 19.26 mpg reading the system says that my range is 273 miles before the next fill. Too bad Ford did not put an extra gallon sized tank on.
Outside of these two things the car is a blast and I thoroughly enjoy it. It is a great ride, fun to ride automobile that could have been made just great with a little extra care and effort from Ford.
Unfortunately that means one of two things-
1. You (and a lot of others here) bought a lemon (and I didn't), or
2. Your conditions / driving aren't really in tune with the car's most efficient operation (regardless of what the DIC tells you).
No offense intended, but all indications are pointing to #2.
My wife's 2.0 AWD is averaging 250-275 between fills @22 mpg.
She is going to try premium gas at some point to see if it makes a difference.
She was filling up between 275-300 in the 09 Escape V6 AWD.
Fuel mileage was a little lower.
I have bought quite a few bleeding edge Fords over the years. Some have had real problems, most not.
1. Drive like a sissy, or
2 drive downhill both ways.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
My wife's Escape has every option and no problems.
it's her 3rd Escape and we still have the other 2.
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:
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.
BTW, your numbers don't sound bad at all, based on those driving conditions, and are definitely in line with EPA estimates.
link title">link title
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.
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
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 )
It was a PIG on gas........
Glad I bought the 1.6 L FWD. Great gas mieage!
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 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)
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.