Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Are you in the market for a new car and having a hard time finding affordable options? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by 2/26 for more details.

2013 Ford Escape



  • escapeismescapeism Posts: 39
    edited August 2012
    What was the driving conditions at the time?? Lots of humidity? raining outside? How long had you been driving in these conditions? I only ask because it appears to happen with the F-150 eco when driving for long periods at highway speeds when the dew point and air temp are the same.
  • flbentflbent Posts: 5
    In each of the three times it happened weather was dry and road conditions were excellent. The dealer did call to say they needed another day.
  • flbentflbent Posts: 5
    I live in Florida. Its always humid.
  • Thanks Shark Diver. In my case they have so far taken out the windshield and put it back again as they thought it was a faulty seal. Then they intend to clean the headliner and put it back. I'm not happy and it is hard to get hold of Ford at the best of times. It is just not good enough and I intend to put my point strongly. As you say, it has probably been leaking since it left the factory. Both my wife and I have allergy issues and asthma, so don't want mold or toxic chemicals in the confined space.
    I am sick of Ford already. Should have got a Volkswagen.
  • Yes, we have roof rails, but the dealer seems to think it's coming through the windshield. They have taken it out and re installed it. The annoying thing is that they are putting back the old 'stained' headliner after cleaning it. That isn't good enough in my opinion.
  • Just had our new 2013 Escape for 11 days. Was loving it, but just noticed that water has been coming in through somewhere and soaking the headliner. Reason I know is because of a water stain on the headliner around the top of the frame on the driver's side. I notice from previous comments on this forum about the same issue. Seems like the new escape is prone to this problem.
    Be interesting to see how many people have had this issue.
    We don't have a sun roof on ours so that can't be blamed.
    A previous poster is correct when they say that it sucks the joy out of new car ownership.
    I have been in contact with Ford and awaiting a response from them and will talk to my dealer tomorrow.
    I will post when I find out more. I certainly don't want a brand new car in for repairs for days and a new headliner to hide other damage caused by the water getting in.
  • Sounds like someone on the windshield assembly line needs to be retrained. Of course the caulking could be the culprit. Geez, so many variables when it comes to this kind of stuff. Sometimes when I work on my vehicles the smallest of jobs turns into a big pain in the butt. It just reminds me of "if you want something done right then do it yourself". Of course we all can't go to the Ford factory and watch our vehicles get built, let alone build them ourselves!! Sorry about the rant cause I feel for you folks having problems.
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Posts: 196
    I hope you had the dealer sub this work to a glass shop, the dealers do not do this type of work if they did your windshield will never be like the original installation.
  • wcutlipwcutlip Posts: 1
    If you haven't purchased a car yet, would like to give my opinion on 2013 Ford Escape. Have had the SEL for almost a month now. Has 2100 miles on it. Downsizing from 8 cyl Mercury Mt. The 2013 with turbo boost was the only 4 cyl that accomodated my 8 cyl lead foot. Also test drove the Honda CRV and Chevy Equinox. No to both, not enough power. Got 28.4 MPG on a trip. About 20 around town. Everyone that drives it is impressed with it's "zippy" "snappy" driving. It does drive like a car, not an SUV. Is fun to drive. The backup camera and blind spot indicators I love. No sign of leaky roof yet as others are complaining about. Although I have noticed that the radio will turn off for no reason. The "kick the foot under the back bumper to open the hatch" is also handy when your hands are full but you seem to have to kick it just in the right spot. And you must kick, waving or swiping your foot won't work. Got the SEL to get the leather interior with power seats but I do have serious issues with the seats. They are hard, uncomfortable. And they are about an inch or two too short. Anyone over 5ft is gonna have issues with the seating. And unless you are 6ft tall and can move the seat all the way back the arm rest is worthless. It is too low and too far back. Arms get pretty tired just hanging there. Have since purchased a large piece of foam to rest my arm on. But then it covers up the only "storage" for cell phone, etc that the driver has access too, which are two cup holders. The storage under the armrest is too deep to be any use. You will have to dig and dig to find anything. Glove box is roomy but driver can't reach it. There is some storage in door. The passenger seat is the only place you have to put purse, keys, phones, etc. So I make everyone ride in the back seat...just kidding. The SYNC my ride is absolutely worthless in my opinion. I seriously suggest anyone buying this car test drive it for at least an hour. Esp if you have back problems. The seats are my main issue with this car. And others that have drivin it notice right off that the edge of the seat does extend out far enough and causes serious stress on your legs. The seats need more padding or some springs or something and the seat bottom needs refashioned. Ford supposedly fashioned these seats after high end office chairs. These seats are not high end cos I have a comfortable office chair and these seats 'ain't' it!!
  • There is a part of me that is feeling the same way. A couple of years ago I wouldn't have bought an American car. The only exception being my Jeep, which is more of a road going tractor than a car. Leaks and rattles are all part of its appeal, and the concept of fit and finish doesn't apply the same way on a vehicle with drain holes in the floorboard. Our last normal road car was an Infiniti G37 and it was flawless. We really loved that car, but we needed something that was baby friendly. I had come to believe that the American auto makers have really done a lot to improve their quality in the last few years and are now on-par with the Japanese competition, and the Escape was the only small SUV that didn't completely bore us. Now we have all these problems. I'm still not ready to say that the problems that others and I have had are anything more than statistical outliers, but we'll see. The replacement car we are getting on the 3rd is supposed to have gone through a much more rigorous inspection and build process. If that car has problems, then I guess I was at least wrong about buying this car, maybe about U.S. makers in general, and it may just make me go back to a Japanese maker.

    I do wonder what is behind them choosing to fix your vehicle, when they replaced mine. Is it because when I had the problem, Ford had yet to see it, and thus hadn't isolated the cause and found a fix? Is it a dealership issue? I'm just curious what determines what customer gets what resolution. Maybe it was my extremely pregnant wife waddling into the dealership with tears in her eyes two days after picking up the car. Also, we did drop the car off on a Saturday and told them that under no circumstances did we want it back. The bank check hadn't even been processed by the finance dept.
    I do hope they can get it resolved to your satisfaction.
  • al63017al63017 Posts: 149
    I have only had my Titanium 4 days but trip home was 31.2 mpg all Interstate at 65mph about 22 miles and low A/C. Some rolling hills. Over the last three days with 60% hwy and 40% stop and go it shows 26.2. So far it has been flawless with no issues.

    Built on 8/14. I will do the calculator mpg thing after just filling it up over the week end. It seems to visually be fine for fit and finish and everything works. I hope all of you with issues can get them resolved because with about 20,000 of these on the road I hope that the ones with issues are the small percentge any manufacturer is going to have. The Honda forum which I looked at before buying about 10 Honda's in a row also had some owners that were not happy. The happy owners usually never post to forums has been my experience.
    I hope for a speedy resolution to all your issues. If you can get things going I think you will like the vehicle.
  • I have a 2.0 SEL FWD on order and I will let you know as soon as I get it. By the way, how long does it take for an order to come in? I didn't get a good answer from my dealer. They said 4 weeks or so.
  • We're planning to purchase a 2013 Escape SEL AWD within the next 6 months. We live in SW Michigan (flatlanders) and I'm thinking the 1.6L would be fine for everyday driving. We like to travel and here's where the advice is needed. We're planning future trips to several national parks (eg Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite) - obviously this involves a lot of mountain driving! Would the 1.6L engine have adequate power to comfortably take on the uphill climbs (BTW we won't be towing a boat or trailer) and enough "kick" for passing the RVs on the two lane roads? or should we upgrade to the 2.0L?
    We're two 60 something retirees and we don't need the extra HP for "show."
  • bdymentbdyment Posts: 573
    With the type of mountain driving that you are going to do, I would upgrade to the 2.0. The difference in gas mileage will be neglible. The 2.0 will give you a degree of safety when passing in the mountain terrain.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited August 2012
    You think he really needs the 2.0L for the <1% of the overall time he will own the vehicle...? Really poor purchasing choice.
  • nortdnortd Posts: 13

    2012 escape 4 cyl XLT auto
  • al63017al63017 Posts: 149
    I had same type of decision and decided on 2.0. Titanium. After adding that 2.0 engine to the SEL it puts you close to the Titanium price (comes with 2.0) after also adding the Parking Technology package to SEL. I wanted Parking Technology for the safety features. I would highly recommend the Parking Technology package it is great. I do not need the parallel parking piece but the blind side alerts and reverse camera are very helpful. The gas mileage difference will be small. I had a incident going to Florida where three lanes became two and since I was not familiar with the area I had to floor the prior car I was in to get out of the way of a Semi that was coming over from the third land reduced to two. There was not much happening when I floored it. If you only use the more power in one situation it will be worth the price rather than get in a dangerous situation. That may never happen but I just did not want to being thinking "I wish I would have opted for the bigger engine." Getting over 26 mpg in daily drives of 60/40 Interstate/City driving. Only has about 300 miles but everything works fine and I am really enjoying driving the vehicle.
  • bdymentbdyment Posts: 573
    Yes I do. Much more enjoyable drive. Extra power when required.
  • Thanks for your insight - I'm also interested in the backup camera and BLIS - similarly the auto parallel parking feature has little appeal to me.
  • The dealer finally installed the 12S34 "kit" to fix the brake/accelerator carpet clearance issue yesterday. I was skeptical about how it would work, but I can say now the problem is 100% resolved.

    FYI - MY VIN was NOT on the recall list, so it took a little prodding with Ford. If you have this issue, get it fixed! You'll be happy you did.">

    Cheers, Rollsplat
  • flbentflbent Posts: 5
    i have blis on my 2.0 it is a great feature, especially when backing out of a straight in parking spot, works when you have one of those monster ford raptor trucks parked next to you and you cant see whats coming. VERY USEFUL. didn't think i'd care for park assist either, now i look for parallel parking just for the fun of it, it is a great toy. Backup camera is a must have if their are any children around, takes getting used to having it but once you train yourself to look at the dash, it makes driving easier. Especially when parallel parking without park assist. I really like my escape
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    I asked myself the same question when I was about to order. I liked the idea of a few more mpg's (hey, every little bit adds up) but I travel to my home in AZ for a month every winter, which involves mountain driving. I also travel around the region when I'm there, which includes some mountain driving. I didn't want to take the risk of the 1.6 being under powered for this type of driving and regretting my decision, so I went with the 2.0 Titanium and never looked back. Also, I didn't care about leather and I wanted HID headlights. I've been averaging 26.6 mpg (Fuelly stats) in 50/50 everyday driving and got 34 mpg on a road trip the first week I had the car. It has plenty of power when needed, (and sometimes when it's not needed) gets in my book good gas mileage and from what I've read is quieter than the 1.6 which has to strain a little in certain circumstances. Go out and drive both, I think you'll like the 2.0 better.
  • rollsplatrollsplat Posts: 12
    edited September 2012
    Here's the Before and After photo:

    Cheers, Rollsplat
  • al63017al63017 Posts: 149
    You are a wealth of information. Whatever car you buy I am buying when we both get rid of our Escapes. I am up to 8 days with vehicle 2.0--- like it more every day and like you seeing about 26.2 on everyday driving and pushing 30 on extended Interstate. Have seen over 30 a time or two but too short trip to declare that the mpg. Like it more everyday and everything works no leaks, mpg okay, no torque steer. Wow I am grateful and sorry others have had mentioned problems. Like any new car they are great when they work and the ones having problems deserve to feel good about their purchase and hope there is a resolution that they will report back on or at least hear the status.
  • Hi, I'm considering the 2013 escape SE and noticed the exact issue with the arms rests when I test drove it. I really like all other features, but the arm thing is a big issue. I like the idea of the foam for the right side (stupid question, but where did you get your foam btw?), but what about the left arm? How do you fix that?
    Also, I'm wondering if you can telescope the steering wheel all the way out so that you can then move the seat back to compensate for the reach issue? Please let me know as I need to make a decision by tomorrow!
  • Page 64 of owners manual indicates that it will telescope. Would be good to confirm this.
  • Confirmed. It telescopes and tilts.
  • You can telescope the steering wheel and move the seat back, but can your legs comfortably reach the pedals?
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "..engines that are designed to be efficient.."

    No, a DFI engine with a compression ratio lower than 10:1 is NOT efficient. SkyActive DFI engines are running a CR as high as 14:1. Yours would probably get much closer to 40 MPG were it not for the EcoBoost engines being so severely "detuned" in simple cruise mode, off-boost.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,105
    A reporter would like to talk to owners of Ford cars and trucks with MyFord Touch. If you fit this description and you&#146;d like to talk with the reporter, please send daytime contact info to [email protected] by 4 p.m. Pacific/7 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, September 11, 2012.


    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • It DOES tilt and telescope, but not a lot of either. At least as I recall... since ours has been in the dealer's shop for the past two weeks, and a total of three (out of 9 weeks ownership). They have supposedly fixed the cruise control problem... but I don't think they've done anything yet with the MyFordTouch issues. Ford directive is trouble-shoot 'one problem at a time'. I can almost understand that, because it's painfully obvious that the mechanics don't know what to do with any of the electronics. Ford stepped up and paid for a rental (without me having to ask)... but I'm going to wait about two more days before pressing for them to just replace it the vehicle. But would the replacement be any better? I'd be hoping we have an 'early build' problem and they've figured it out by now. Hard to have confidence in the vehicle at this point. :-(
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    No, a DFI engine with a compression ratio lower than 10:1 is NOT efficient. SkyActive DFI engines are running a CR as high as 14:1. Yours would probably get much closer to 40 MPG were it not for the EcoBoost engines being so severely "detuned" in simple cruise mode, off-boost.

    Horrible analysis and regurgitation of falsehoods by an ignorant person.

    No naturally aspirated engine reaches its static compression ratio under
    You have to compress a full cylinder of air to reach 12:1 (14:1 under premium only) At -10inHg, the effective CR of the Skyactiv for example is UNDER 8:1!!!

    From Understanding Effective Compression Ratios article:

    As a general rule, the best available pump gas will work with 8:1 effective compression ratio. To get 8:1 effective compression ratio with the above rod, stroke, and cam intake closing event, you would need a 13.2:1 static compression piston.

    An an Ecoboost while 'cruising' is not 'off-boost'. They either have lower vacuum than an NA engine or mild positive boost at the manifold.

    You would have to be completely ignorant to think that an engine with a static CR of 12:1 stays that high under vacuum. That is not physically possible, and also blantantly false.

    The Ecoboost will be very near the same effective CR as a Skyactiv under cruise, and much higher under accel. The Ecoboost effective CR peaks at 20:1 under full boost, and is higher than the Skyactiv at any throttle level above idle.

    NOBODY should consider their engine 'detuned' because wwest says so.
  • Hello everyone.

    Just curious about what kind of MPG other owners are getting?

    So my wife has had her Escape for 5 weeks. It has 1617 miles and I was ignoring the computer that says she is averaging 19.1 MPG becasue I know how much those numbers flucuate based on conditions. Her Trip B has not been reset since we have owned it and that says 17.9 average.

    Well then I saw her CC statement. She has spent $312 on gas since we picked up the car. There is $272.54 in charges on her card and $40 cash on Monday. Her statement does not list how many gallons she has purchased or even the price per gallon just the total. But we buy gas almost always on base and it averages .20 cheaper than a typical gas station. Im guessing about $3.65 average per gallon. Then take into account it had a full tank when we got it, she has half a tank left now and I am estimating between 85-90 gallons.

    Now I know 1617 miles in 5 weeks is a lot. Here is a quick breakdown of her usage.

    390 miles round trip twice to visit her sister (99% highway driving)=780
    454 miles to visit my parents, again over 90% highway driving. = 454
    For work she drives 11 miles each way 8 of which are on the highway.
    She only works 14 days a month and has driven her escape to work 11 times since she has owned it. 11x22=242
    total of 1476 so that leaves 141 miles of her going shopping and local errands.

    I am just thinking with over 90% highway driving she should be above 25 mpg average. Oh and also, she does have the Eco award for anticipation and acceleration on her dash if anyone thinks that matters.


    I had posted this on a ford forum two weeks ago and have only received one reply so I figured to give this forum a shot.

    So she has had her Escape now for almost 8 weeks and still getting horrible MPG. She now has 1920 miles and shows 19.2 on the trip A (reset after each fill up) and 20.8 on trip B (never reset). Again she still has the Eco Award.

    As if the bad MPG wasnt annoying enough she told me last night after getting home from work that it stalled while she was at a red light and when she started it back up her Myford touch screen was blank. So I am starting to think we got a bad one. Anyway we are going to the dealership in a few minutes to see if they can get her touch screen back on and I will be mentioning the bad MPG also.

    Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated, Thanks
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "...As a general rule....8:1 intake closing event...would need 13.2:1...."

    Why are you using an Atkinson engine specification to justify an Ecoboost engine not being detuned..?
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    What are you talking about? The example in the article was actually for a small-block Chevy. Standard Otto-Cycle.

    Why are you claiming a naturally aspirated engine can compress less than 1ATM of air to its static compression ratio?

    Do you think an engine is getting 12:1 Effective CR in total vacuum? (I.e outer space?)

    What exactly is an engine compressing? AIR.

    Less than atmo, your beloved Skyactiv is NOT getting 12:1 Effective CR and you know it. It is not possible :D

    Boosted engines, on the other hand, frequently exceed their static CR, and have a range of effective CRs under boost, up to double their base CR (bone stock, in regular gas)

    That is NOT specific to Atkinson engines. Don't tell me you have your patents screwed up in your head again?

    This is true of ALL 4-strokes.

    ANY boost calculator on any boosted engine shows that more air in the chamber = a higher ECR.

    Effective CR / Static CR = air chamber pressure / 1ATM. Simple calc that shows that under vacuum, ECR less than SCR. Above vacuum, ECR greater than SCR.

    So yeah, your 'detuned' argument falls flat on its face.
  • Ars2010,

    I can speak for the 3.5 Ecoboost in that it has to be broken in.

    The first 6 months I got 17 highway mpg. Now it's more like 23 average highway trip (granted, I'm in the non-economical F-150).

    Of it is stalling at lights as well, that needs to be looked at.

    Sorry cant help more.
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    I have a 2.0L Titanium and my Fulley stats show I'm averaging 25.8 with 50/50 driving. The one thing I noticed is you have to be light on the accelerator from stops or mpg's suffer.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    No, a DFI engine with a compression ratio lower than 10:1 is NOT efficient. SkyActive DFI engines are running a CR as high as 14:1. Yours would probably get much closer to 40 MPG were it not for the EcoBoost engines being so severely "detuned" in simple cruise mode, off-boost.

    To summarize, NO.

    Skyacyiv under 'cruising' will have a Dynamic Compression Ratio of only 7.9-8.9: :1 depending on throttle position.

    Whereas Ecoboost will have a cruising ECR of 9.5-11:1 CR. On average, higher than Skyactiv.

    ALL the literature out there supports this. I can link I you like, but maybe another thread would be better so the good people of the Ford Escape forum don't have to hear your ridiculous theories :sick:
  • flbentflbent Posts: 5
    edited September 2012
    OR, only the people with problems post. I Purchased A white tricoat SEL 2.0 With touch, park assist, Navigation, sunroof, blis, (loaded) In July. I now have over 4,800 miles on it Average gas (my calculations) mpg is 28. I had 1 problem with the car stalling on a hard acceleration(not good) 1 trip to dealership who talked with ford while they were troubleshooting, never saw the problem again and that was in the first week of ownership. My Ford Touch works fine for me. It took a while of sitting in the car with the instruction manual and several errors on MY part to get it. Nobody, but maybe Bill Gates, is going to hit the ground running with a new operating system like this. If you own one or are test driving one, the best place to start is ask: "what can I say?" read the screen, find what you deem useful and go from there. If your trying to learn and drive at the same time, GOOD LUCK. My favorite so far is to tell her "I'm Hungry" she ask local or in town and away we go to dine, actually found some great restaurants that i did not know about. But probably the most important thing MyFord Touch has done for me was getting myself to an ER after an injury. I didn't know where the closest hospital was, (wasn't life threatening, just painful) but i declared an emergency, then hospital, and the car guided me to help. It wasn't a lifesaving event by any means, but I think I appreciate this new technology a little more.
    To sum "I like my new Escape"
  • al63017al63017 Posts: 149
    I have had mine since 24th of August just a few days past 2 weeks and display shows consistently now just over 27 mpg. Titanium 2.0 fwd.
    Lot of local 15-20 mile trips with not much stop and go and 90 % Interstate and the rest suburban driving 40-45 mph. Using a calculator the mpg is a little over 2 mpg less. I have seen the drving style awards on MFT and not sure how they are calculated but have them on my display. I have seen almost 29 mpg on longer Interstate trips. I only have 700 miles on mine so seems like the EPA sticker is pretty accurate. They may be able to put your car on the diagnostic system and tweak a few things that relate to mpg. AWD will be slightly less mpg than fwd. I really like the vehicle more than anything I have owned and I hope your problems are resolved soon and to your satisfaction.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I have always espoused that effective compression ratio is equal to native/base compression ratio at WOT. Otherwise the effective CR is a function of throttle plate position.


    The issue of atmospheric pressure, as even in the vacuum of space, was brung up.

    So what is the effective compression ratio vs native compression at at sea level/WOT vs 1000ft altitude/WOT..??

    It is my opinion that the effective compression ratio does not change as a function of atmospheric pressure. There may be less "air" to compress, but what air there is will be compressed at the sae ratio as at sea level.

  • My brand new 2013 Escape is now in the shop for the second time for a leak somewhere in the roof. It always shows itself on the door pillar head liner just at the top of the driver's side windscreen. Last attempt to fix meant removing and resetting the windshield. It still leaked.
    I have heard of other people with this issue and even my dealer has one on the forecourt with the self same problem. This has to be an issue with these and I suspect there are many more.
    My dealer is trying to help, but Ford are not coming clean with this.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    Wwest, you are being ridiculous.

    I have always espoused that effective compression ratio is equal to native/base compression ratio at WOT. Otherwise the effective CR is a function of throttle plate position.

    You've been spouting off in hundreds of posts on dozens of threads on multiple forums about 'cruising' and now you're backtracking to say WOT? The bottom line is, you've been wrong to criticize boosted engines then.

    It is all over the internet if you'd bothered to comprehend it. At WOT, a N/A engine might approach its Static CR. But a boosted engine will be nearly doubling it. Under 'cruise' conditions, even the most advanced N/A engine will not even approach a dynamic compression ratio of 10:1. There are some 'ram-air' LS-engines that can go over their 10:1 N/A Static CR, because of air movement.

    So thanks for wasting hundreds of peoples' time on dozens of forums for mixing WOT CR with near-idle CR. :mad:

    Look up 'compression ratio calculator'.
    This is not the only one out there, and they use the same formulas. Applicable to ALL OTTO-CYCLES. This one includes altitude, per your request.

    At 1000 ft, and WOT (assuming full cylinder of air, 0 psi = 1 atm) the Effective CR will be 11.8:1 on a 12:1 SCR engine.

    HOWEVER, the Ecoboost delivers 15 PSI to the manifold at full boost.
    Or 1000 ASL:
    You are running 15 PSI of boost at an altitude of 1000 feet. Your motor's static compression is 10.5 :1. At this boost level and altitude your effective compression ratio is 21.01 :1, and without altitude correction your compression ratio would be 21.21 :1

    Again, why the heck have you been using CR's as a measure of 'cruise' efficiency? That's more a factor of transmission, gearing and aerodynamics.

    At 6,000ft (Denver) when the Skyactiv would be besting 10.8:1 CR at WOT adjusted for altitude, it would still get ~40 highway mpg. The power is what gets sapped. Less air available means less fuel burn. So you go slower under accel, but highway doesn't suffer all that much. You can have 40mpg at 160hp available or 40mpg with 140hp available. The effective compression ratio does NOT greatly affect fuel economy on a high plateau (flat ground).

    You are married to compression ratios, which barely make up <1% of any efficiency gains between engines. Going from a 4-speed to a 6-speed to an 8-speed can see 20% fuel efficiency gains at each interval. So Ford should NOT 'abandon the Ecoboost' for some silly Skyactiv technology, because they wouldn't see economy gains like you've been alluding to. They should switch to an 8-speed transmission in their trucks and reap the benefits (like the newfangled Ram).

    Again, the 9.5:1 SCR Fiat Multiair (non-DI) in a Dodge Dart gets 42 highway mpg. Its turbos will operate with the same way, with an effective CR range of about 8.5:1 (slight vacuum at cruise) to ~20:1 (WOT).

    How many posts have you made where you use the WOT CR for Skyactiv, while you saddle the Ecoboost with a 'cruise' CR? That's not really fair argument when the EB peaks at ~20:1 effective CR.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Assuming a throttle setting/opening resulting in equal HP cruise output a SkyActiv CR of 14:1 will result in a higher effective CR vs an Ecoboost starting at 10:1. Quite obviously the Ecoboost would need to operate at a higher RPM, more frictional losses vs the SkyActiv.

    You can only win this arguement by raising the Ecoboost's native CR to 14:1 in order to "equal" the FE of the SkyActiv in simple cruise mode. If you then still wished to add "boost" you would either have to seriously ENRICH (that's what's DONE) the mixture to prevent detonation or maybe even somehow SUPER-COOL the charge airflow.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012

    Everything you just said is based on your own goofy assumptions, and are blatantly false.

    First off, 14:1 is a myth in the United States. Stick with 87 Octane ratings please. Plus, with premium fuel, the EB would allow more boost post-vent valve at all RPMs, as premium fuel resists detonation.

    Second, NO NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE approaches 10:1 effective CR during cruising. 9:1 absolute maximum.

    No, turbo'd engines do not need a higher 'native' CR, they simple run mild boost off the turbos which results in a partial-throttle pressure near 1ATM. When you say 'obviously' you follow it up with a lie. So to correct you : obviously, from the Effective Compression Calculators that take boost into account, all you would need for the EB to run a higher cruise ECR than Skyactive would be to average 1ATM. Which they do. On the highway, the EB averages 1ATM. Sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower depending on wind/terrain.

    NA engines can't come close to 1ATM under anything but WOT and higher rpms.

    That is a fact. You lose, the real world wins.

    Third, ARE YOU KIDDING about higher rpms on a boosted engine? HAHAHA!
    You're ridiculous. Boost is NOT tied to rpms on turbocharged vehicles, and the benefit to boosted engines is more torque at lower rpms due to consistent air supply (turbo's producing 1-5psi under normal driving means the EB is consistently 2-10inHg higher on the vacuum / volumetric efficiency scale).

    Clearly you are ignorant. Have you ever even looked at a dynamometer printout of a turbocharged vehicle? Peak torque arrives at 1500 rpms for the Ecoboost and 4000 rpms for the Skyactiv!!!! You have it absolutely backwards, Willard. In order for a naturally aspirated engine to even exceed 9:1 effective compression, it needs to be at a higher throttle opening, and a higher rpm that a turbocharged one. For any required torque, the EB will be at a LOWER rpm than Skyactiv

    At absolute best, it's a wash between them in terms of efficiency, AS IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE REAL WORLD. You lose on account of NO DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR WILD CLAIMS.

    I'm sorry you're too far gone into your own little world to ever get a handle on engine dynamics. You're hilariously off-base. :P
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    There is more to look at than just peak torque figures, however. For normally-aspirated engines, peak torque is achieved at the engine rpm with the highest volumetric efficiency, which is typically in the 2,200 to 2,600 r.p.m. range. Volumetric efficiency is the percentage of the engine cylinder that is filled with air. Torque will increase as engine rpm goes up and then gradually decrease at higher rpm after peak torque is reached. When graphed, this produces a smooth curve shaped like a mushroom top.

    Turbocharging changes all of that by changing an engine&#146;s volumetric efficiency. Turbochargers can actually pressurize the air in the cylinder above atmospheric pressure, so volumetric efficiency rises even above 100 per cent. This produces more torque and over a longer rpm range. In the EcoBoost engine, the torque curve could more accurately be described as a torque &#147;square.&#148; It climbs rapidly to peak torque at 1,500 rpm and stays there continuously until engine redline. That means performance is strong at any rpm, and especially at common engine speeds. You don&#146;t have to downshift or race the engine to get a lot of torque.


    It is common knowledge that the entire torque range of turbocharging is lower, less friction involved. Because full boost (or any amount in the engine's range ) is available at 1500 rpms.

    That means, contrary to your highly flawed understanding, the EB can be anywhere from 10.5 to 20.5:1 ECR at 1500 rpms. Whereas the Skyactiv will remain below the EB during cruising (more like 8:1) not even approach 12:1 until WOT and at 4000 rpms (I looked it up) and WOT.

    This is a fact. You lose, reality wins.

    You were as correct about this as you were the rest of your 'guesses'. I.e. completely off.
  • what persons height is the car designed for.
    I am 6'4", 240, and car seats & steering wheels have not changed in 40 years.
    they are designed for much shorter height & weight of men & women.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Have boost pressure in cruise mode, part throttle operation, is like taking a shower while wearing a raincoat.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2012
    Natural aspiration is like taking a shower in a down parka. Feels soggy and slow. ;)

    Have boost pressure in cruise mode, part throttle operation, is like taking a shower while wearing a raincoat.

    Ummm... No. That's like saying there is no point in boosting against 8 closed valves and 4 open. Why not just leave all intake valves open at all times? :P

    It's not a positive displacement compression-ignition turbine. (jet). Appropriate boost can make it past a partially open throttle plate, same as it can await entry into the cylinders sitting in the manifold. The whole journey of airflow doesn't have to be like a hamster in a tube. It is sliced and twisted in every which way.

    These little turbos can't help producing 1-5 psi pre-manifold under cruising. That amount of boost is a biproduct.

    Ford specifically engineered them to be small, so that they would work at low rpms and low levels of exhaust gas pressure.

    The proof is in the size: if these were to be for high-rpm acceleration... Ford would have used huge turbos. Not small ones. Small turbos tell the purpose of boosting low, soon, and often.

    And wouldn't you know it... There is a boosted engine that gets better power, torque, and fuel economy than your beloved Skyactiv. The Fiat multiair with a 9.5:1 static CR. That's reality. My understanding offers a theory of why this is... Yours doesn't. My understanding can be verified in reality... Yours can't.

    So if ECR is as important as you think it is... small engines with tiny turbos must be running at a higher ECR than Skyactiv. Tiny little turbos eliminating the vacuum an allowing the Fiat to run ~atmo on the highway.
Sign In or Register to comment.