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
Since you know that the DTE readout is not accurate, go with what you know, drive another 60 miles and fill up.
My wife fill up with 11-12 gallons, as she doesn't like to go too far below a quarter tank.
Got all the bells and whistles for $27,900. Has plenty of power here in Salt Lake, and if you want more the 2014 model will be at 185 HP. Test drive a
CX 5 before you by the Escape.
I have 1150 miles on car and have an lifetime avg. of 23.5 with 25% hwy 75% city. No problems with anything .
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.
LOL, I'm old enough to remember when the only nag was "your door is ajar".
The worst part is that it agrees with my wife. :P
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
EDIT: They also make large use of diesel technology, but for some reason the US manufacturers don't seem to want to bring that here, even though it is now clean enough for the EPA.
A few years ago I rented a Ford Mondeo wagon with a 2.0 TDi-6sp-manual. It was a pleasure to drive, VERY fuel efficient and very respectable power. 228Kph (142Mph) on the autobahn was plenty quick!
I look forward to having a diesel selection in North America in (hopefully) the not too distant future.
It is now known that JEEP will offer their GRAND Cherokee with a diesel engine option again; this engine is by the same company that made them when Daimler Benz was running Chrysler. Except that the company has sold its ownership from DAIMLER now to a 50 -50 partnership between GM- FIAT.
What do you want to bet that GM will soon be offering a well proven variant of that engine in its products for the US in the near future.
If FORD WERE SMARTER they would be offering a turbo diesel in the EXPLORER and larger class vehicles right now before they experience a loss in market share...they have the engines for them..in different markets right now.Australia , South America sell them right now.
http://www.ford.co.uk/Hidden/Configurator/configureKuga
Click the Engine & Transmission tab.
You can find out what your RAFE is, if you go into the diagnostics mode as described in an earlier post.
I just checked my RAFE and it is at 8.4 L/100Km or 28 MPG. (mostly highway, but not all) 2.0 FWD
So now, even with my fuel guage sitting at just over 1/8th of a tank, the DTE is showing 117Km or 73 miles.
It would be very interesting for everyone to report their Trip Time and their distance and their mileage for a tank of gas. This will give us average speed, which is pretty important when considering fuel economy.
If one driver says their City fuel economy is poor, and has an average speed of 12Mph and another reports good City mileage and has an average speed of 25Mph, it would make sense!
For me, I have not reset my Trip 1 timer (as far as I recall) since taking delivery of the vehicle.
I now have 149 hours showing. (yes, the hours roll over after 99, so my display actually shows 49 hours)
I also have 6,551 Kms (4,068 miles) on the ODO. This calculates to a lifetime average speed of 44 Kph or 27Mph. The actual speed would be slightly higher than this, as having the ignition ON, but the engine not running, still keeps the clock going.
Anyone with good or bad mileage want to post some time vs distance vs mileage data for one tank? Or maybe the lifetime average if available?
Life of 1.6 ltr FWD
1286 miles 62 hours 23.3 avg.miles per gallon
according to the cars screen information.
I know there is a lot of idle time in there.
with about 375 miles on hwy.
I will let you do the #'s
My lifetime average is 27 Mph with lifetime average MPG of 24.3. 2.0 FWD
Remote start everyday sometimes let it run out.
Cold outside avg temp about 35 lots of idle time with work, and warming up, talking to people with engine on.
Small town so no congestion at all,
ahh..... life in a small rural town.
Interesting. If people have not noticed it is only the ones who have the AWD that get the bad gas mileage, that is why we got the FWD.
I had a loaner with the last recall it was a 2.0 AWD and it got 18 town and 24 Hwy, I was keeping close watch.
I also seems like mine FWD is getting just a little better since I crossed over the 1,000 mile mark.
No problems love the car, and the mileage I am getting.