2010 Ford Escape
Anyone got any reviews/comments on this one yet? I've been speccing them out and I'm really intrigued by the new Parking Assist coupled with the NAV system/Back up Camera.
For the amount of technology your getting for such a low price they seem like really good deals.
For the amount of technology your getting for such a low price they seem like really good deals.
Tagged:
0
Comments
Salespeople sometimes get lied to by their sales manager, so it may not entirely be his fault. Seems like you deserve a good explanation though, and you haven't gotten one.
just look underneath from behind the vehicle toward the front, if you see a round opening between the rear wheels, it is 2wd version.
I'm coming off lease from a subie legacy wagon, which subie dropped. I don't want the Outback, so I'm looking at other wagons. This was recommended by a friend. Lots of toys in if for the price, but it's more suv than I'm used to. I'll check it out though.
cdndriver
But having checked www.fueleconomy.gov and checked the gas mileage using gasoline and E-85 fuel, it is 20 mpg average using gasoline and 14 mpg average using E-85. A whopping 30% reduction in gas mileage! In my area, E-85 sells for about 10% less than gasoline, 15% less at the most.
So why would anyone spend 10 to 15% less money per gallon on E-85 to get 30% worse gas mileage?
I wish Ford spent their time perfecting this engine to use gasoline and only gasoline for better performance with gasoline and not spent time and effort on an engine that uses E-85.
Bud H
Using your numbers, it's not quite as bad if you look at the cost per mile. E-85 works out to being only 18% worse.
The "why" part of your question is a little harder and looks like multiple choice:
(a) The farm lobby is more influential than the oil lobby.
(b) Ethanol is federally subsidized.
(c) It reduces oil imports by 85% :shades:
(d) Less oil usage is good for the planet. :surprise:
(e) What else would you spend the money on? :confuse:
In any case, happy new year!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
$2.40 divided by 14 mpg = 17.14 cents per mile for E-85
$2.70 divided by 20 mpg = 13.50 cents per mile for 87 octane gasoline
So the net cost per mile is 27% higher for E-85. MUCH too big a difference to be seriously considered.
Bud H
1. What attributes does the Mariner have that are plusses compared to the Escape?
2. Is the 4-cylinder engine good enough for use that is only moderately aggressive at best and is the engine almost as quiet as the V6?
Bud H
You've really got to look at the individual car, what options it has. I bought at a Ford/Lincoln Mercury dealer, so I had a choice of both. I took a Mariner Premier because of the combination of engine, color, and options.
I test drove a 4 cyl and the V6. I was coming off a Tribute V6. The 4 just didn't have the pep I wanted, I had hoped it would. I have a Honda Accord 4 cyl and that has plenty of power. I guess in a truck you just need more power.
Drive them both and see how you feel. They had more 4 cyl's on the lot than V6's, so they must sell plenty of them.
P.S. Ford Motor Company still say's this is not a problem and is a vehicle characteristic but my dealership was willing to try the above and it worked.
Apparently, the word from Ford is that it is normal for this car. Doesn't sound right to me, other cars don't do this.
I only have 1k on the car now, when it goes for the first service I'll see what they say.
Slow day? You're reading some old threads there. :shades:
Maybe....
But then only as you accelerate from a stop, accelerate from a fairly low speed, or accelerate in a fairly tight turn, low speed also assumed. These are the ONLY times you will have the F/awd system pre-emptively engaged. At all other times you will be driving a simple, inherently DANGEROUS (on adverse roadbed conditions) FWD vehicle.
Other than pre-emptively, as described above, the only time the rear drive will be engaged will be under the aspects of TC, Traction Control. Those TC events will ALWAYS be preceded by the detection of front wheelspin/slip(***). At which point TC will activate, instantly dethrottling the engine, "hammering" the front brakes, and simultaneously engaging (uselessly IMMHO) the rear drive.
Virtually USELESS F/awd system.
If you wish to have the dry road, highly tractive roadbed, traction and FE of FWD, but with the addition of appropriate torque distribution to the rear as necessary, then the Honda/Acura SH-AWD system is the only solution in the market today.
http://world.honda.com/automobile-technology/SH-AWD/
Video:
http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2004-4040401a/
*** Front wheelspin/slip due to too much engine torque being used for current roadbed conditions is such a "dire" matter, THREAT to safety, that all "stops must be pulled out" on even the slightest hind of same.
I had pre-ordered a 2000 Porsche C4 at MSRP, paid the dealer a deposit, but "my" car was sold to a higher bidder the moment it arrived. C4's were apparently in high demand but in very short supply in 2000. The dealer's "Pipsqueak" manager, Barrier Porsche in Bellevue WA, even denied I had made a deposit. My deposit was returned via USPS about a week later.
I have a 2001 C4 that I ordered over the internet, never met the dealer/salesman, took delivery of the Porsche at the factory.
SH-AWD maybe great, but it is only better in extreme situations.
My Fusion AWD has made it through many bad situations, you just have to learn to trust it.
I ordered a F150 back in 94 and had all the signed paperwork. They sold it by mistake. My sister in law was a banker and told me that it is illegal to sell a car to 2 different people so I told the dealer that they broke the law and they let me pick out any f150 on the lot.
The dealer said by disengaging the overdrive it will downshift from 6 to 4. This still concerns me - so now I can go from 4 to Low only?
Do you think this is a dealbreaker? My other option is the 2010 Subaru Outback which I think is a better car. However, as a single 30's guy, it scares me a bit since the 2009 and before were pure stationwagons.
Thanks!
I consider this to be a backward move from Ford.
80% of braking is the job of the front brakes.
our 09 also has rear drums. they seem to work perfectly well.
This seems to be a major complaint of rating companies like
Consumer Reports etc.
That said, I think it was crazy for Ford to use this as a cost cutter. Almost any suv you buy today has 4 wheel discs. This was poor judgement, in my opinion.
Almost as bad as removing the grab handles over the driver's door. There is only one left, on the A-pillar of the passenger side. I have a bad back and bad knees, and I used them often on my 2002 Tribute.
This was almost a deal breaker for me, but I still bought a 2010 Mariner.
I am holding off on my purchase for now.
Not into mechanical stuff Opinions please
my wife had an '04 v6 and now has an '09 v6, old average 19.2 mpg, new average 22 mpg.
Thanks.