2013 Ford Escape Gas Mileage

steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
edited October 2012 in Ford
Talk about your mpg for your 2013 and newer Ford Escape here.

For First and Second Generation Escapes, please check out the Ford Escape Real World MPG discussion here.

It helps if you note the engine, AWD/FWD, type of gas you buy, and something about the type of driver you are and your driving conditions (city/highway, commuting).


  • jrock83jrock83 Member Posts: 10
    Only 200 miles so not broken in yet. Mileage should increase once broken in. I'm averaging 25mpg combined. About 45/50/5 interstate/highway/city. Type of gas - whatever it was filled up with at delivery.
  • rpmurarpmura Member Posts: 9
    I'm only getting about 13 mpg city. Maybe 21 highway. Combined 15.2. Actually, worse mileage of any car I've had. Shouldn't be the case for "Eco" boost engine. Transmission has a serious lag. May be related. Taking it back tomorrow to have it checked. Have only had it 2 weeks.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    edited October 2012
    Getting anywhere between 23.5 and 28 so far, 40 / 60 city / highway, speeds between 35 and 70, right at 1000 miles in two weeks since buying (unusual for us, but busy time lately..). The easier I take it (cruise at 65, baby the throttle at takeoff, etc) the closer to 28 I get. This is in western VA, Harrisonburg to Staunton area, mild hills. Not too shabby for an AWD vehicle- within about 1 mpg of the 2008 Chevy Malibu V6 we had.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2012
    Thanks for mentioning how many miles your Escape has.

    Seems like it often takes anywhere from 3 to 5,000 miles or more for mpg to start approaching the EPA estimates for most drivers. My last new car kept getting (slightly) better mph even after I passed 10,000 miles on the odometer.
  • ghostpepperguyghostpepperguy Member Posts: 6
    I have about 1,400 miles on my 1.6 SEL with 4WD. So far I'm very pleased with my mileage. Locally I use 87 octane regular without ethanol. My mileage with about 50/50 city/highway driving is around 26.5. Recently I took a 150 mile round trip on a state highway driving about 58 most of the time. I was at 31 mpg going there and about 30 returning into a head wind. As many have noted in other posts, unless you have an unusual mechanical issue, mpg is really a function of driving habits. Especially speed. If I want or need to get somewhere a little quicker and drive 70 or more, I expect that my mileage will drop off and don't agonize over it. Great vehicle....so far.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Member Posts: 16
    Please let us know how it turns out! I have a similar situation with mine, which is 1.6L AWD. I'm at 1900 miles right now, doing apprx. 80% city and 20% highway, and my last 4 tanks average to 18 mpg.

    This is really disappointing with an "Ecoboost" engine... When I talked with the Service department, I was told to expect better mileage later due to the auto tranny being in learning mode, as well as the engine not being broken in yet. I was told to keep tracking until the first service maintenance.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    EcoBoost engines sacrifice cruise mode FE in favor of matching the HP of a larger displacement engine. N/A DFI engines typically have a compression ratio of 12:1, some even 14:1.

    Mazda's SkyActiv engines, for instance.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    edited October 2012

    I will be in Washington next weekend, enjoying the scenery after a business conference.

    i can very easily bring an analog boost gauge, if you have the inkling to borrow for a quick spin in an Ecoboost modern boosted vehicle if a dealer was found to allow it to be quickly hooked up.

    It would take less than a minute behind the wheel for ALL of your 'guesses' about turbocharging to be PROVEN FALSE.

    Come join the real world, won't you?

    Static compression ratios are bogus measures of fuel efficiency. Transmissions play 10x the role in fuel economy as compression ratios do. Note that Mazda has a Skyactiv transmission, which if not utilized, all applications of the pathetic Skyactiv engine would be hardly better on the highway than a naturally aspirated engine of 9:1 CR.

    The Skyactiv has a dynamic CR of around 9:1. The EB has a range of dynamic compression from above that to 20:1. This is verifiable by watching the boost gauge at anything above an idle or coast-down.

    You know nothing about compression ratios, and yet are obsessed. It's funny :D
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Why don't y'all take this to email so the rest of us can stick to reading about the topic. Thanks.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    edited October 2012
    I've noticed that ours seems to be getting a little better with every fill up. Of course, I can't say for certain it's break in that's causing the improvement, as I intentionally drove 'normally' (that is, like everyone else) for the first two tanks, where I average around 24.6 and 25.5 mpg respectively. The past two tanks were both with me attempting to keep my speed at or under 65 (despite the 70 mph interstate limits around here), though my off-highway driving is pretty much the same as the other two, and my fuel economy was 26.3 for one and 27.4 for the other. The latest tank (as in now) is showing signs of hitting 29 (DIC indicated), and will most likely be around 28 when I get to filling it up (1/4 into the tank right now). I reset the primary trip (trip 1) each fill up, but have left the second trip meter alone, so that I could get a feel for the overall fuel economy too, and it was reading 25.7 at last glance.

    Granted, all of these numbers are from the car. I have actually hand calculated twice, to find that it was around .5 mpg optimistic each time, but that could as easily be ascribed to it 'lying' to me as to differences in the fill up itself. Even using the same pump every time, I really don't think that the auto cutoff is perfectly accurate. How many times have you had a pump cut off mid-fill and had to start it again, sometimes needing to hold it just to get it to keep going?

    At any rate, I noticed one other thing today, right after filling up. It reminded me of another post over in the main 2013 forum. A poster there mentioned driving all slow speed stop and go, and getting teens for fuel economy. Without beating them up too bad, that's to be expected. I drove around in downtown Harrisonburg (read: JMUville) for about two hours, at speeds no greater than 35, and with LOTS of stopping for lights, stop signs, and general parking lot traffic (both cars and pedestrians), and my readout hung out between 14.6 and 15.3 until I got out where I could get a continuous cruise going (45+), at which point it picked up quickly. My point being, if you're driving slow speed, stop-and-go, the numbers WILL be lower than the EPA numbers. That's where a hybrid (true hybrid, Prius, Ford C-Max, etc.) shines, since it will run all electric. There's most likely nothing wrong with the car.

    Results are largely dependent on where you drive, how fast you take off, how fast you go, and all the other driver-determined quirks. It isn't too hard to suck the economy down to the low-20's, even for me, and if you live in some areas, it might be hard to get above that, based on traffic and terrain.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    There's most likely nothing wrong with the car.

    Results are largely dependent on where you drive, how fast you take off, how fast you go, and all the other driver-determined quirks. It isn't too hard to suck the economy down to the low-20's, even for me, and if you live in some areas, it might be hard to get above that, based on traffic and terrain.

    Amen to that.

    For S's and G's I actually went back to the Ford dealership (pretending I didn't own one) and drove another Ecoboost.

    It got better mileage than mine for the short drive, and I seem to be one of the 'lucky' ones blessed with good mileage in my Ecoboost.

    The Ford folks got the EPA numbers because the EPA number are achievable, otherwise the EPA would not give it to them. Key point is the text they are required to include with these figures:

  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Member Posts: 16
    Thanks for your comments. Yeah, it really seems to be the stop and go at low speeds (traffic) that kills the mileage for me. I baby the throttle like there's no tomorrow, in an effort to get more decent numbers. Very smooth takeoffs, try to brake as little as possible, etc... If I can drive without traffic in the city, going a steady 35mph, then I can get around 20-22 mpg... but as soon as there's stop and go traffic, it's nearly impossible to get close to decent mileage. I don't do much highway, but when I did, it seemed to hover around 24-26 mpg.

    I do exactly like you, reset Trip1 on each drive, but use Trip2 for tanks. I've also recently starting using Fuelly to track accurately (although like you say, really hard to trust the auto-cutoff!!)

    On this tank, I've put premium (91 octane) without ethanol (previous tanks were regular with up to 10% ethanol, which is pretty much the norm here in Ontario). So far the results seem a bit better... I'll report at the end of this tank.
  • dizneydizney Member Posts: 19
    edited October 2012
    Ford Escape 2013 1.6 L Eco boost FWD

    I am getting great mileage after 800 miles. Have gone on two trips that were both a little over 200 miles each round trip. First averaged 35.5 mpg
    Second 35.8 MPG !!!! Much better than my 2009 ford Edge !!!
    Lots of power at highway speeds . On trips as above I used cruise control most of the time at 55 mph. When doing a combo city highway with more city driving my average is 26.8 mpg> Very pleased and will take those numbers any day !!
  • jrock83jrock83 Member Posts: 10
    500 miles in. Filled up with 87 octane. MPG up to 26.1 as of this morning.

    I see a lot of people complaining about the mileage (here and elsewhere). Try staying out of the throttle. That will probably help. You have to remember that the ecoboost engines are designed to give you good fuel economy because it combines a small displacement engine for better mileage and a turbocharger for extra power when you need it. So if you drive it properly, keep the tachometer under 2000 rpm, you will see better economy than if you race from stop light to stop light. I say 2000 rpm because I noticed that cruising down the interstate at 65 mph the tach was settled in at about 1500 rpm and while accelerating calmly the transmission seems to shift around 1800. Yeah its fun and the engines are pretty responsive, but doing it will not save gas. Keep in mind you're trying to move 3500-3700 pounds. No easy feat for a small displacement engine. That's where the turbo helps out when its necessary to move the extra bulk at an increased rate. Economy is also highly dependent upon WHERE you live. Higher elevations won't get as good of mileage as someone at sea level. Point is, drive like a formula 1 driver and you'll see bad mileage. Drive calmly and you'll see better mileage.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Member Posts: 16
    Like I said in my previous post, these days, to try to see better results, I'm driving extremely lightly, probably to the point sometimes where it pisses off people behind me. It doesn't seem to be that simple of an explanation.

    To compare, previous car was a 2010 Kia Soul with the 2.0L, 142hp engine, 5sp manual. I was driving it a lot harder (basically not paying attention to fuel economy and rowing the gears with enthusiasm...)
    - Kia: I was getting about 260 miles out of tank of 12.7 gallons
    - Ford: I am getting about 235 miles out of tank of 15.1 gallons
    Same kind of commute (80% city).

    Official fuel economy ratings for city driving were:
    Kia: 24 mpg
    Ford: 22 mpg
    (Hwy is 30 mpg for both)

    Kia: 20.5 mpg (I thought it wasn't so great but was OK with it...)
    Ford: 15.5 mpg (this is appalling but I'll give it a bit more time)

    So on paper according to fueleconomy.gov, it's pretty close... but not in real life. Yes I know the Kia was smaller and less powerful and 2WD all but it was rated almost the same, probably due to non-aerodynamic blocky shape, antiquated engine, 5spd tranny. And that doesn't factor in my much more relaxed driving in the Ford.

    In closing, I'm mid-way with my current tank (no-ethanol 91 octane) and the trip computer projects at apprx 250 miles.....
  • jrock83jrock83 Member Posts: 10
    First things first, your engine is not yet broken in. Once it is broken in you will see an increse in fuel economy.

    Break it down a little bit for you:

    Curb weight:
    Kia: 2,800 lbs (less weight requires less energy to move)
    Ford: 3,645 lbs (heavier vehicle requires more energy to move)

    Kia: 2.0L natually aspirated, 142 HP @ 6000 rpm
    Ford: 1.6L ecoboost (Turbo - forced induction) 172 HP @ 5700 rpm (Generates greater horsepower than a naturally aspirated engine by forcing air into the intake)

    Kia: 5sp Manual (control shift point, can get better mileage or worse depending on when you shift)
    Ford: 6sp Auto (promotes incresed economy due to shorter gearing thereby decreasing time in higher RPM)

    Kia: FWD
    Ford: AWD (typically decreases MPG)

    Point is, you're moving more weight, nearly 900 lbs more weight. It's going to take more fuel to move it. And taking into consideration your driving style/location, it seems you do more stop and go which will negatively affect your economy even more considering more fuel is consumed when you accelerate from a stop. You also enjoy a more spirited driving style so that will use more fuel.

    I traded a 2010 Kia Forte Ex Sedan for my Escape. I saw 30 mpg on average. Same engine and only 100 lbs lighter. So far I'm averaging only 4 MPG less than that. Driving style has a LOT to do with what kind of MPG you get. Before my Kia, I drove a 1991 Chevy C1500 with a 5.7L EFI V8. I routinely averaged 20-22 MPG out of that. Alternatively, I owned a 1995 Jeep Wrangler 2.5L I4 with a 5 spd manual. I averaged 17 MPG out of that.

    I'm not trying to be negative here, only trying to give you some idea of why it may be possible you are getting such low numbers. An alternative may be a bad sensor. If you haven't taken it to the dealer yet, I'd suggest taking it in and have them run a diagnostic. Good luck, I hope you get it figured out.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Member Posts: 16
    Yeah the dealership said that we should wait until the first service, since it will be fully broken in. Then if it's still so high, it'd be looked into a bit more... They also gave me those comments about the transmission being in learning mode, which I'm not sure if it's true, can't seem to find much on the web about this.

    In the meantime I've purchased a little bluetooth obd2 device to monitor stuff, which I'll link to my android phone and hopefully get all kinds of neat stats. I'm looking forward to receiving that... wondering if there could be something like the Turbo kicking in too easily or something.

    I understand that there's a lot more mass to move around vs. the Kia, but there are also other things that come in play... my friend drives a Panamera which is 200 pounds heavier than my Escape, it's got a much larger, 300hp engine and despite that he gets 18-20 mpg in the same kind of commute than me, which is better than me... and he doesn't baby the throttle like I do these days (who would in a Porsche!). They got all kinds of fuel saving technologies put into their cars...

    Maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with mine and it's just not the greatest powertrain for city driving in traffic.

    Still I can't be the only one who drives through traffic in a gridlocked city and yet most people online seem to get mid-20s.

    Your Forte engine was more technically advanced than the one on my Kia: yours was the Theta engine, mine the Beta... following model year on the Soul they got rid of it (I think it was their last car still on that crappy engine) and put in a newer, more efficient engine.

    Thanks for your comments...
  • jrock83jrock83 Member Posts: 10
    Gotcha... Yeah I don't know about that whole "transmission learning" thing either. I've got less than 600 miles on mine and it's doing fine. And I can't see the AWD making THAT much of a difference... Maybe a couple MPG less than FWD... I'm pretty well out of ideas then lol. Be interested to see what results you get from your obd2 thing too... Well... one more idea... not sure if the ecoboost does this, but it is common for turbo engines to add more fuel enriching the air/fuel mixture as rpm (and therefore air) increases. IF the ecoboosts follow this, then could it be that the computer is sending too much fuel too soon? Or even too much fuel altogether?
  • printerman1printerman1 Member Posts: 68
    as I was told by the sale & service guy, its the computer in your car that 'learns', your driving habits. You just drive the car.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2012
    There's a ton of theories about how much "learning" the engine and drivetrain do and how many drive cycles it takes. I've read that it only takes a couple of minutes for the computers in a brand new engine to calibrate stuff so that the engine runs smoothly. Other people say if you change your driving style it may take 40 driving cycles or 500 miles or some other criteria for the computer(s) to adapt, change the transmission shift points, etc.

    My wife and I share our cars although I do most of the driving. But there's no appreciable difference in mpg or performance when she drives them. The computers supposedly compensate for that.

    Edmunds has a long term fleet of test cars that a bunch of different people get to take home. Editors use them for commuting or on vacation trips and they rarely drive the same car more than a few days at a time before someone new grabs the keys. And yet when you read the blogs and follow the mpg reports, there doesn't seem to be a lot of variation between one driver and the next.

    So while I don't think your sales guy is wrong, but it may not be the main factor in getting better mileage. Getting better mileage mostly boils down to not driving aggressively. And while some people get great mpg right from the start, it seems that most of us find our mpg gets better over time, and that seems to be a function of the car breaking in as much as anything.

    Plenty of people swear that their car either got peppier or better mpg after having their computer(s) reflashed. Some of that may just be the seat of the pants placebo effect though.
  • docwalleye1docwalleye1 Member Posts: 1
    First check after 500 miles on car was 27.2 on trip computer, 27.9 with actual miles divided by gallon to refill. 70% highway. next tank was 25.8, 40/60 split. Very satisfied with those numbers.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "Learning": Confusion reigns...

    The driver's driving "style" memory is totally reset, erased, each and every time you start the engine. Within a fairly short period of starting the car in motion your "style" will be "binned" into 1 of 4 types. Shortly thereafter, depending on time elapsed and/or mileage covered, your driving style will be resolved into 1of 8, then 1 of 16, etc, etc.

    The driving style memory stores a running record of (15) minutes, anything beyond drops off the end of the earth. So, the system will continuously adapt to your "changing" driving style/type.

    An example of the use of this memory is that the "panic" braking is adapted as a function of your typical time it takes you to move your foot from the gas pedal to the brake. Make that move substantially quicker and you get "panic" braking, more braking power assist.

    The "other" type of learning:

    System sensors, engine and transmission sensors for instance, all have tolerances insofar as accuracy is concerned. As the car rolls out of the factory a default set of parameters are loaded with engineering assumptions of the actual accuracy of these sensors. Now as you drive the car day after day the system "learns" to correct/adjust the sensor signals as a function of the "real world" data stream now available. This learn continues as components wear.

    Unplug the battery and ALL of the new learned parameters will get replaced by those factory defaults. Now the car will "act" differently for a few days, drive cycles, until those parameters can be corrected to match actual system components conditions.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    edited October 2012
    "Maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with mine and it's just not the greatest powertrain for city driving in traffic."

    It's pretty much this one.

    My 2.0l 4WD is still doing great. I've been intentionally trying to push it higher lately, staying in the right lane at 60mph (I-81, 60/65/70mph limits posted). I managed a 28.2 indicated, 27.8 calculated for the last fill up (last night). Two great pieces of news, for me, anyway:

    1) Gas prices have gone even lower. The local Harrisonburg Walmart was selling regular unleaded at around $3.27/gal (using a preloaded Walmart card to get a 3 cent discount) for the past few days. Now most area stations have come down to about the same- the Sheetz are showing $3.29 (get a free Sheetz card, swipe it before the payment card at the pump, save another 3 cents / gal over that- so I paid $3.269- can't forget the sneaky .009 per gallon!). This is a trend I like!

    2) On the way home (Broadway VA) from the Sheetz on University Blvd. (Harrisonburg, VA), my average fuel economy readout got as high as 36 mpg. Of course, this was still driving like a much older man (60). It's by far the highest I've seen though, and I have over 1500 miles on it as of the last tank, too, whether that actually makes a difference or not.

    Observations backing up my reply to you h3ll3r-
    In town, leaving the Sheetz to get on I-81N, my average readout got down to around 15 mpg. This is several stoplights, ~35mph speed limits. If I caught all the lights while they were green, it stayed closer to 20 mpg, but once I started having to stop, and especially when taking off from the lights (even babying it, as I was), it dropped down quickly. I'm fairly certain that the turbos on these cars are set up to be providing boost at low RPMs. Combine that with a certainty that your car also gets up to 2500-3000 rpms when taking off (and not really dropping under 2000 until steady-state speed is achieved), and it suffers. Even light acceleration in my car causes the tach to hit those, which is why I'm sure yours is at least doing the same.

    So, definitely *not* the best drivetrain for in-city stoplight-to-stoplight traffic. Great for cruising, even at low speeds, but not if you're going to be constantly stopping and starting over short distances. Again, probably a hybrid's territory, as most gas engines do worse than EPA city numbers in this situation (even your Kia did, though not as much so as your Escape). Or at least a mild hybrid, with start-stop tech, so as to gain maybe 1 or 2 mpg by *not* running the engine while idling at a light..

    I hope you prove me wrong though. Good luck!
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    edited October 2012
    Great for cruising, even at low speeds, but not if you're going to be constantly stopping and starting over short distances

    Yup. It's not a light vehicle, and Ford's transmissions shift too much and too hard, but its relatively aerodynamic. City will suffer while highway is quite good.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Highway, cruise, FE could be a LOT better were the engine not derated in order to accommodate more reasonable FE on boost.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Member Posts: 16
    Yep usa1fan, the way you describe it is EXACTLY how I see it too... any kind of stop and go greatly hurts the FE, but then if I'm able to coast (at 30-35 mph) without hitting too many red lights, then the mpg readout improves very rapidly...

    Unfortunately it degrades rapidly as well during accelerations from a still position.

    On "good" drives to pick up my daughter from school (10 miles round-trip through city) , I'll do 21-22 mpg... On a bad one (lots of red lights, traffic), I'll do 15-16 mpg.

    Overall, on a tankful, I'm at 16 to 18 mpg, it's been pretty consistent over the previous few weeks so while I hope for some break-in improvements down the road (I'm at apprx 2000 miles on the odo), I'm not really counting on it at all.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Now that y'all have exchanged email addresses, the rest of us will get back to reporting real world mpg for the Ford Escape. Come back in 3 or 4 years and let us know how it turned out. :D
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited October 2012
    Any one who wishes can find me via google:

    "pioneer 10" Osprey kellogg
  • flaviofflaviof Member Posts: 4
    Do you live in Montreal ?? I am having the same issues as you.... I am getting 13 mpg in the city !! I have problems with the door adjustment also (this car is terrible... I should get the new Santa Fe instead)... I went to the dealer this week and they said the same for me, I should wait for the first service (after 6000km only !!), but I do not believe that I will get something better than 15 mpg in the city.... I think that I will propose to ford to return my car and take a V8 mustang.... for sure I will have more fun with the same fuel "efficiency level" !
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Member Posts: 16
    I'm in Toronto... probably a similar kind of traffic!!
    What kind of range are you getting with the car? I'm getting about 380km so far with the tankful, with the check fuel light coming up at 320-330km.

    Well I guess we'll see what they say at the first service, even though that's in a while... maybe it'll be better at that point.

    Just thinking out loud here... I'm wondering if there could be ECU tweaks to be done, for people driving mostly in the city? Like, reduce the turbo's involvement a bit unless you floor it more... That's wishful thinking for sure, but I see in the UK that they got new ECU programmings that boost the 1.6L engine by about 20-30 hp so maybe there's some room to maneuver? The way I'm "forced" to "drive" the car to avoid abysmal FE, I'm probably not using more than 100 of the available ponies! ... I don't think I got the engine above 4000rpm the entire week.

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2012
    If you're driving the 401, you're going to be lucky to get 10 mph and a bent fender every six weeks. That's my candidate for the worst highway in North America. I think the truckers must all remove their governors on that road. :P
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105
    edited October 2012
    I am curious to know what kind of gas everyone is using. Are you using Regular (87) or Premium (91)?

    For the best mileage try to find gas with NO Ethanol. The more Ethanol in your fuel, the more you will use. The EPA ratings are made with 100% gasoline, not E10 or E15.

    Expect at least 3-4% more fuel consumption with E10. (according to EPA) This will vary from one type of engine to another.
    Most gas stations do not put Ethanol in their 91 octane Premium fuel. Find out what your gas station serves. It varies from one station to the next and one city/region to the next.
    On the other hand, 93 or 94 octane fuel is sometimes Premium (91) spiked with Ethanol, which raises the octane rating. In any case, 100% gasoline should give best mileage.

    My Escape arrives in just under 2-weeks, (2.0 FWD) so I will be sharing my real-world results when I put some fuel through it.
    (Most every 2.0 at the dealerships in my area are 4WD. I had to order a FWD and I did so, because it uses about 7% less fuel and saves me almost $2K off the price)

    Also, just a footnote; I bought an Escape because I need the power to tow a trailer in the summer and I wanted something fun and economical for the rest of the time. This seems like a good balance of all three of my criteria.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Pure-gas.org will let you find ethanol free gas stations in your area.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 216,452
    Good luck with that.... Nothing within 50 miles of where I live (metro area with over 1 MM population)..

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Funny, I'm in the deep boonies and there's some a mile or so away (maybe being close to the lake helps and the marina people buy it?). They dropped the regular flavor though and only offer premium ethanol free.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 216,452
    premium ethanol free

    That sounds like some good stuff, there.... mmmmmm... :P

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Regular at that station is $3.55. Premium is $4.45. It better be some good stuff.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    Ours is (or was, yesterday..) running around $3.29 for regular. I haven't paid attention to what premium is, but I may be trying a few tanks of that soon to see what kind of effect there is on fuel economy with these little turbo engines. My 08 Malibu LTZ V6 saw no effect at all (not really expected though- rated for regular, with nothing from Chevy / GM indicating it would be different with other grades). Since Ford has rated the power higher with higher grade gas, maybe it'll impact economy too?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I think drivers should run the octane that their car is tuned for, and the gas cap or manual will tell you that. (link)

    To quote Mr. Shiftright around here, premium gas isn't a doggie treat for your car. :)
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..impact economy too?.."

    No. unless you mean $$ economy.

    Premium gas will only make a difference at or near WOT, when the cylinders are being fully filled with A/F mixture and thus effective CR = base/native CR.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Most modern day engines are "tuned" on the fly, mixture ratio and timing "remapped" .
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105
    Premium gas may give better fuel mileage IF it is 100% gasoline AND your 87 octane fuel contains ethanol.
    This is confusing to many consumers as they may be led to believe that Premium gas allows for better fuel economy than regular gas. ie; 91 octane is better than 87 octane for mileage.
    It might, but it may be the ethanol content in the two fuels that makes the difference, not the octane rating.

    Ford does state that the Ecoboosts make more HP on 91 octane, that is public knowledge. Does 91 octane yield better fuel mileage than 87 in an Escape Ecoboost? I think I would have to ask a Ford engine designer that question.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2012
    People always get confused about the performance aspect too. It really boils down to whether the engine application has been designed to take advantage of it.

    "Octane ratings are not indicators of the energy content of fuels. " (Wikipedia)

    "If your car is designed to run on 87 octane gasoline then a higher octane will not improve mileage, and if it does there is likely a problem with the control system for your engine." (Bettermileage101)

    Those links aren't the last word by a long shot, but I think the best bet is to follow the recommendations in the owner's manual.
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105

    Below is a great article that I read, way back in 2001 that is very informative. Nice to see that it is still available on the Car and Driver website.

  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    Thank you for the link Steve. The last three paragraphs on page one explain exactly *why* I'm interested in the results of trying out higher octane fuel with my Escape. It is exactly what is described there- Ford 'recommends' regular unleaded, but has indicated an increase in power with premium (9 hp?). This indicates that it is in fact relying on the knock sensor to allow for timing advance. Another site I found indicates that this can have a side benefit of increased fuel economy in some situations (enthusiastic driving, pulling a certain gear on a grade longer before requiring a downshift because of increased torque, etc.). I don't know if or how much benefit there might be, but the simple fact that the power and torque numbers increase, by a not quite insignificant amount, at least when you consider how much some will spend to get the same increase from other cars, means that the ECU is doing something with these cars. ;)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2012
    One "advantage" of higher gas prices is that the .20 or .30 cent a gallon difference between regular and premium that's typical around here is that the percentage difference isn't so much.

    Back in the day of $1.50 a gallon gas, a twenty cent bump was a lot bigger percentage difference. $3.50 to $3.70. Big whoop. :shades:
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105
    usa1fan, I suspect that an engine as modern as the ecoboost has many options for preventing knock. Valve-timing, ignition timing and boost pressure can all be varied on these motors.
    It's interesting how the Range Rover Evoque has the same Ford powerplant and is rated 240 hp and 251 lb-ft of torque yet they recommend Premium fuel only.

    I suspect (IMHO) that the Ford engineers would like to see the Escape running on Premium fuel, but if it was marketed this way, fewer of us would buy one. (lets face it, we did not want to spend the extra $10+K for a Rover)
    The engineers seem to have done a very good job at making these engines run just fine on regular, so good on them!
    I guess it's up to us guys on the forums to determine the efficiency gain (if any) on the different fuels.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    Absolutely. It's hard to believe that prices have more than tripled in just around 12 years!
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    That's what I got from everything I've read about these Ecoboost four cylinders, at least the 2.0's. I would love to see official EPA numbers with premium fuel. Most people still beat up on those ratings, but fail to see that they provide a consistent standardized baseline for comparison, even if they don't directly represent the exact numbers we'll see in our own use.
  • fortherockfortherock Member Posts: 6
    edited November 2012
    There is no "Eco" in my Ecoboost Engine!!!
    I purchased a 2013 Ford Escape Titanium AWD 2.0 Liter Ecoboost in August 2012.
    Estimated MPG 21 City / 24 Combined / 28 Hwy
    After 3,000 Miles: MPG 17 City / 20 Combined / 23 Hwy

    This is 20% lower than the EPA on the Sticker with only a 15 gallon tank, the range is horrible!!!
    Note: in the manual it states "Did you know you can get 15% better fuel economy if you drive 55 instead of 65 on the highway?" It would be quite upsetting if the car was tuned to drive that far below the speed limit, putting drivers at risk in higher speed traffic as they try to achieve better fuel economy!!!

    The first week I drove the car on a flat highway at 75 mph nonstop for a full tank of gas, and only calculated 23 mpg. Its never improved. I drive conservatively and never get close to 21 mpg on the highway. Watching the average mpg on the dash drop has caused me to tame my driving habits, but still no improvement.

    I purchased the Escape for an SUV with power, but also good fuel economy. I love everything else about the car - the looks, the technology, the seat comfort. However, if I knew this was the mileage I would be getting, I would have never purchased the Escape. There are plenty of SUV's available with more comfort, power, bigger gas tank, and for less money at 17/20/23.

    Hyundai, Kia to pay 900,000 owners for overstating mileage on window stickers
    http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/hyundai-kia-pay-900-000-owners-overstatin- - g-mileage-125024437.html
Sign In or Register to comment.