Howdy, Stranger!

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

Welcome to the Edmunds forums! We are changing the way you sign into our forums. Click here to learn more.

2013 Ford Escape Gas Mileage



  • wistrodwistrod Posts: 14
    Experiment: Check mpg via three tanks of fuel; one regular grade (87 octane), one mid-grade (89 octane), and one premium grade (93 octane).
    Vehicle: 2.0L SEL 4WD. 5,075 miles.
    All three tanks of gas were purchased from same station (Citgo brand).
    Station indicates that all grades may contain up to 10% ethanol.
    While I did not drive the same exact route with each tank, I did try to drive the same type of conditions. All routes were about 80% highway (interstate or state highway, tried to maintain speed of 65 mph), and 20% city (speed limits between 25 and 35, with multiple stop signs and/or traffic lights.
    I emptied my third and last tank of fuel today. I refueled each time when the low fuel light came on.
    What did I learn - don't trust the readout on the display (calculate your mpg).
    Don't trust the low fuel light or the miles-to-empty on display (in each case I had about twice the fuel left than what was being displayed (I will be taking the vehicle in for the previously discussed Ford TSB)).
    Regular fuel. 22.3 mpg (display said 22.7).
    Mid-grade fuel. 25.7 mpg (display said 25.1 mpg).
    Premium fuel. 21.9 mpg (display said 22.8 mpg).

    I will be trying another tank of the mid-grade. I don't know what to say about the results with the premium grade fuel - actually lower than using regular! Maybe the gas station owner is pulling a fast one and is selling regular gas as premium!

    Only the tank of mid-grade approaches the EPA and Ford's reported mpg rating. Definitely won't be wasting the premium dollars n another tank of premium fuel! If the mid-grade performance holds true, I will probably stick with it, as 15% gain in mpg is better than the 5% up charge for the gas.
  • automelon48automelon48 Posts: 105
    Really interesting results. I would love to know if it was the octane making the difference or the Ethanol content. It could be that your 89 octane fuel is pure gasoline and that they add Ethanol (10%) to bring the octane rating up to 93.

    I tested some 87 octane fuel at one of my local stations yesterday for Ethanol content. (first time I have ever done this) It had no Ethanol. I am going to check various grades at the stations I usually buy gas from, just so I know.
    Seems like a lot of effort and a pain in my back bumper, but if it makes that much difference, then I want to know!

    How much are you currently paying for all 3 grades of fuel? Sometimes that is a clue to the fuel content. If the 93 is pure gas, then it should be significantly more than your 89. Does your station also offer 91?
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 12,526
    We have owned mostly Fords for quite a while.
    In my opinion, it can take about 10k before the drive train feels broken in.
    For the most part, the miles goes up every year.
    MY '02 Explorer got it's best mileage @125k, back to back tanks.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I too suspect maybe wistrod's gas stn supplier is using ethanol to raise the octane high enough to meet a 91 or 93 rating. The educated consumer wins..
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Ford have never sold at lower price points to get customers. So IMO, why should a consumer invest in all those break-in miles in order to start getting more competitive fuel economy results? Seems like a premium that only Ford loyal customers could rationalize, no? And in so doing..inadvertently perhaps makes a case for never buying a Ford as a new car. Let someone else take the expensive break-in costs on the chin, right?
  • ronsteveronsteve LooavulPosts: 474
    Seems like a premium that only Ford loyal customers could rationalize, no? And in so doing..inadvertently perhaps makes a case for never buying a Ford as a new car. Let someone else take the expensive break-in costs on the chin, right?

    Expensive break-in costs? These figures are generous, i.e. high compared to what I would expect most folks to experience in reality... but 10K miles of getting 20mpg instead of 25mpg... you use 500 gallons of gas instead of 400... at $4/gal that's $400. You can easily leave that on the table negotiating the price of your car! And who buys a different car over a $400 price difference? I would think if it's that close, you buy the car you actually like more.
    2006 Volvo V70 2.5T / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    OTOH, explorer stated he continued to get better FE all the way up to 120k miles.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 12,526
    edited March 2013
    My view is, to make the drive trains last longer, they break in slowly.
    Could be totally off base, but I do have 22 year old and 11 year old Fords, in addition to the others 4 that are newer.
    What are expensive break in costs? If someone can't afford to not get the EPA average, then a previously owned economy car is a better choice.
    Despite so far averaging below the EPA average, my wife's 13 Escape is getting slightly better mileage than her '09.
    They both have 240 HP and new '13 hasn't been on anything close to a road trip.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited March 2013
    Personally I believe that if I were to drive the ecoboost 1.6 or 2.0 in 2WD or 4WD, I could probably get or even exceed the EPA claims for these Escapes. But I know how to exploit any potential fuel economy going. To do that on turbos requires a bit of extra full time conscious diligence. But for real-world expectations, the average consumer will love the urge (torque) that a turbo (even in the 1.6) can deliver..but it comes at a price. Fuel injectors, pump PSI and boost, all are spec'd to offer up that urge. That means that in order to exploit its mpg abilities, it requires more than your average consumers input/restraint. It is human nature to say, "Hey, great! Get the turbo so I can have the umph and fuel economy"! Win win right? But... what your average consumer can embrace in terms of understanding the type of (restrained) throttle use required to meet their (EPA) expectations, in the real world, I believe is actually quite difficult to acquire in these Escape powertrain offerings. I say this because I have read a good number of posts of consumer findings, and their (many of them, but not all)...what I consider to be fairly reasonable expectations due to their described driving habits, personal tests and deliberate quests to try to get EPA, findings are leaving them feeling a bit short changed. I do think that Ford has maybe pulled a bit of a Hyundai/Kia here..

    North Americans love their power..not that long ago the majority opted for a V6 when we all know (if we look in the mirror and are honest with ourselves) that in most cases a properly sized and geared 4 cyl would do the trick. So Ford knows this, and they did not want to risk their investment in ecoboost tech, to get the reputation for not delivering the urge that NA's have come to expect. Remember the human nature aspect...we want our cake and eat it too. And still, in order to post fairly high expected FE numbers, Ford has still geared (the Fusion/or higher aero and static taxed 4WD versions of the Escape) as best examples of a quite heavy/safe cars, but equipped with a fairly small 1.6, its turbo urge notwithstanding) quite tall. This combo requires a delicate right foot and subdued starts and highway speeds. Which is rarely real-world.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    MY '02 Explorer got it's best mileage 125k, back to back tanks.

    My van's lifetime mpg peaked at 118k but I'm 3 years and 40,000 miles behind in updating my spreadsheet. :blush:
  • lip1122lip1122 Posts: 5
    edited March 2013
    It is obviously apparent that the vehicle has a major issue with actual mpg. I recently took a pure highway trip and got 19.3 mpg. Ford told me that this was in range and acceptable!! I was furious. So I ask everyone what steps do we take? I personally feel I was lied to and duped. I would have bought the Explorer if this was the gas mileage I would receive. I am currently getting 19.3 highway and 16.2 city. Ford told me this is acceptable but I am not going to accept it. I need help on what I can do to get out of this vehicle.

  • dizneydizney Posts: 19
    Strange ? I always avg 25 - 38 mpg with my 1.6L FWD ?
  • ronsteveronsteve LooavulPosts: 474
    It is obviously apparent that the vehicle has a major issue with actual mpg. I recently took a pure highway trip and got 19.3 mpg. Ford told me that this was in range and acceptable!!

    What was the average speed? What was your typical cruising speed on this trip?

    How many miles on your vehicle?

    1.6 or 2.0 engine?
    2006 Volvo V70 2.5T / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • lip1122lip1122 Posts: 5
    I have the 2.0 engine. I was traveling at 65 mph. I have 6,100 miles on my Escape.
  • ronsteveronsteve LooavulPosts: 474
    Is this 19.3 figure for your pure highway trip off the computer, or did you refuel and calculate based on that?
    2006 Volvo V70 2.5T / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • lip1122lip1122 Posts: 5
    I refueled and calculated it manually. The computer read 19.7 mpg
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    according to most mpg know-it-alls the problem is that YOU don't know how to drive, not that this car doesn't get the mileage Ford advertises!
  • pdawg1pdawg1 Posts: 22
    My last tank manually checked was 24.4, which is almost acceptable, however, we live out of town and our highway/city is close to 75/25, and I feel we should do better. My service manager has a ticket open for mpg and after this second manual fuel check ( if the mpg is down again ) I will take it in for him to do a 50 mile test. They fill it, drive it highway/city and refill for a manual check. What they will do if it is not close to the 24mpg, I do not know at this time........will report later. I do agree that maybe a large group of dissatisfied customers will have more power than a bunch of individuals. How do we become a group?
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    What they will do if it is not close to the 24mpg, I do not know at this time.

    Well, they may try derating the engine output.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    If you drive 65+ mph you can't reasonably expect to EPA fuel economy figures compared to those who drive 55.
    Many want to get EPA, and perhaps compared to their usual drive-it-on-the-rug practice, they are driving quite sedately in their mind, but unless they are prepared to drive it the way EPA did (and for simplicities sake, most easily replicated by setting cruise at 55 on level road, no more than two people or one person and 150lb of luggage with no wind for at least 100 miles and refuel. Take digital pics of your speed and the fuel readout. This will help you make your case at the dealer. Until these customers try this, it is doubtful they will understand the difference in FE 10 or 15 mph less can make.

    That said, I would like to make a retraction about when I said I could probably achieve EPA or better. I say that because I have been able to with every vehicle I have ever had. Admittedly some were way harder to get there than others. And this is why I would like to make the retraction. It sounds like Ford might have had too high expectations and exercise a little embellishment with their ratings. They haven't been the first to do that.

    I still say though, I strongly urge you to try setting the cruise (unless you have a very steady foot...some drivers literally only press and release, press and release and that is their idea of driving :sick: ) and try even 50 mph with occasional 55's on a quiet two lane road with moderate or no hills. If you do use cruise, it is imperative that you disengage it and let the car go below the set speed little by little, rolling off the throttle very gradually as you climb grades and timing it so that you reach the top of the grade at say...50, if you were doing 55 at the bottom. Even kick off the A/C for that hill. That in of itself will make a HUGE difference.

    In going to these lengths you will get to learn when the transmission wants to downshift (costing fuel) and you will be able to determine that maybe if you enter the hill at 57 is better than 55..or whatever. This will vary by car a lot.

    Now I get that not all owners are going to go to these lengths to achieve higher FE, but I absolutely ASSURE you, this is how your dealer is going to drive it when they do their test. And if it doesn't deliver after them going to those lengths, then and only then, does that strengthen your case if you were to exercise any type of lemon law regarding unrealistic fuel economy claims.

    If you are so-inclined I recommend having a simple vacuum gauge installed. They are not expensive and are a great tool in helping a driver know, when they should be letting off the throttle a bit. This will also keep the turbo from spooling up. If it spools excessively then you are burning more gas. With more driven air, it requires more gas to mix with it.
  • ronsteveronsteve LooavulPosts: 474
    That said, I would like to make a retraction about when I said I could probably achieve EPA or better. I say that because I have been able to with every vehicle I have ever had. Admittedly some were way harder to get there than others. And this is why I would like to make the retraction. It sounds like Ford might have had too high expectations and exercise a little embellishment with their ratings. They haven't been the first to do that.

    If it can be shown that Ford published numbers that their cars did not achieve in the EPA tests, owners have a legitimate gripe.

    If it can be shown that Ford did not administer the EPA tests correctly, owners have a legitimate gripe.

    If the Escape's tuning is such that it achieves numbers on the EPA tests that are very difficult to achieve in everyday driving, too bad.
    2006 Volvo V70 2.5T / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • ronsteveronsteve LooavulPosts: 474
    Hey now, I'm just asking tough questions... They're questions, not accusations, and if you really want them to be accusations, well... if the shoe fits, wear it.

    Here is why I get cynical whenever I read people's complaints about their MPG...
    Back in the day, my now-ex-wife had a Mazda B2300 pickup... basically a twin to the 4-cylinder Ford Ranger.

    One day she complained to me that it was using too much gas, and asked how big the tank was. I told her 16 gallons.

    She remembered that and later complained, my truck is only getting 20 mpg! This was based on the fact that she had to fill up after 325 miles. She hadn't saved her gas receipt, but later, I filled it up. She was complaining that she needed gas after 325 miles, so I put gas in it... 14 gallons. She was getting 23 mpg. She thought that was still an issue, since she drove mostly highway, and her truck was rated for 22/28. This is why I always ask if people are calculating their gas mileage, or going by what the computer shows. That and my Volvo usually shows me 22-24 MPG, and it's more like 25-26 when I fill up and calculate it.

    We took a road trip in her truck, and I drove it. For a whole tank of gas. When we filled up, I calculated it out to 25 mpg. The difference? I drove 70-75, instead of 75-80 like she did. What sucked is that it was geared so tall that it seemed like we were lugging the engine... even at 70mph it pinged up hills in 5th gear. Using mid-grade gas helped. This is why I ask how the vehicle is driven.

    When we moved to NC, we were in a flat place, instead of hilly Kansas City. We were also at sea level. And I ended up doing a fair bit of driving on FLAT road with 55-60mph speed limits. The lack of elevation and hills meant it no longer pinged on regular. Cutting the cruising speed back to 65mph meant we got 28-30mpg on highway trips. This too is why I ask how the vehicle is driven.
    2006 Volvo V70 2.5T / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    If you're responding to my EPA MPG know-it-all claim and I'm not directing it at you then "if the shoe fits!"

    My problem with MPG know it alls is that they'll come on here and tell someone they have no clue about, all about how poor their driving habits are and proceed to explain why they're not getting the #s they're complaining about. They're not driving the right speed, they're not accelerating correctly, this that or the other. WHAT!!??!!?? I have no gripe with people who do get the numbers, my issue is being told why I'm not getting mine by that same person who is clueless about mine or others driving habits/style. Plain and simple, A LOT of people aren't getting anywhere near the MPG numbers Ford is touting & if you are, then God bless you because you are one of the exceptions and not the rule.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I think my ears are burning..

    If someone posts tips or possible reasons to those who are not achieving their mileage goals, it should be considered advice to those who maybe do not have good driving habits. In reading what the tips are they can do a personal check list. Get educated if you will. Open-mindedly of course..

    If it doesn't apply to you, then why post disgruntlement? Or....

    If the shoe is not fitting you...let someone else try it on...
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 86,499
    Now... you know why I never comment on MPG threads.... ;)


    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited March 2013
    Yes. Yes I do now..

    I was only trying to be helpful, not point fingers. I have to believe that some readers will garner some useful info here or maybe from my long post last week about understanding octane. They may not be able to achieve EPA, but if they can adjust driving habits to even get an extra 3 mpg across the board..that's worthwhile. At least to me, but I am not very well off so save where I can.

    btw, I'm rather excited for you vicariously in getting the Saabaru this week. Sure hope that goes well for ya. After researching some more, I find that that is an incredible deal. Let's hope it is a good car tho under the skin. Your son is darn lucky, hope he cares for it well. With care that car might come close to tripling its miles with not a lot of dollars to get there.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 86,499
    Yeah.. we'll see what happens. Someone is more excited than I am about it. ;)


    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • If you are so-inclined I recommend having a simple vacuum gauge installed. They are not expensive and are a great tool in helping a driver know...

    I would like to know more about this gauge and how it will help.

    My mpg is around 16.7 (displayed, dropping consistently from 17.8 from the day I purchased it). 80% city driving trying to be light footed now all the time.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Are any of these comments from you? These are some previous comments that I'm talking about where people on here are being very PRESUMPTOUS about knowing why people are getting the MPGs they're complaining about. It's one thing to give advice, it's another to make these statements:

    “What were your speeds during the Los Angeles trip? 70-80, most likely, when not creeping around in gridlocked or slow-n-go traffic, right?”

    “for better gas mileage you should only be driving 50 to 55 even on freeways”

    “Unfortunately that means one of two things -
    1. You (and a lot of others here) bought a lemon (and I didn't), or
    2. Your conditions / driving aren't really in tune with the car's most efficient operation (regardless of what the DIC tells you).
    No offense intended, but all indications are pointing to #2.”

    “And, as I've posted many times before, the main problem with windows stickers is that people don't understand what the purpose of those numbers really are, or are just being willfully stupid”

    “Maybe they should go straight to a 1-100 scale, without even referencing a mpg number at all, since most people simply can't seem to grasp the real purpose of the sticker anyway.”

    “I guess what really irks me in all this isn't just that people place the blame on the car when there's really nothing wrong, though that stands out too, it's that they complain about fuel economy and yet make excuses for why it's not *their* fault. Somehow everyone thinks that cars should return maximum fuel economy with minimum effort. If you want good gas mileage, you've got to make a personal adjustment.”

    “if you're a typical driver- that is, impatient, heavy foot between lights, afraid to make the people behind you slow down even 1 mph in the race to the next light (which also means you probably accelerate quickly, then slow down / stop suddenly while you wait for the next light, rather than just catching it as it goes back green..).”

    “I see a lot of people complaining about the mileage (here and elsewhere). Try staying out of the throttle.”
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    In order for it to work, it depends heavily on the driver's use of it. A vacuum gauge shows manifold vacuum at any given time as a constant. Applying throttle, lowers vacuum and gauge will show a low figure. If you hold the throttle steady, (as if you were using a stick stuck on top of the accelerator pedal between the bottom of the dash) and if you start to enter onto a grade in the road, you will see the vacuum gauge drop as the load on the engine, created by the hill, starts to increase. Setting cruise would exaggerate the gauges quickness to drop. The only time you would ever get full readings on the gauge is if you let your foot off the accelerator completely and coast. If you use the 'stick' example on that hill...(or cruise of course) as you start to reach the apex of the hill, you would see the load decreasing on the engine and the vacuum gauge would start to swing positive indicating that that load on the engine is reducing. As you crest the hill and start down the other side the gauge would go almost full swing positive. Now take the stick out of the equation, and then the gauge would go full swing positive.

    So how you as a driver can use this gauge info, is that you can better see in real live-time, how hard you are working the engine. This info is especially useful on an engine that is turbo'd because the turbo's ability to exploit the engines torque abilities are masked by the function of the turbo. So it can help inform you when you can back out of the throttle at times always trying to keep the gauge higher. Of course when you merge aggressively or pull away from a light faster than really gentle, you will see the gauge drop progressively with your throttle input. But as soon as you come up to speed, of course you will see the gauge want to swing positive again. The idea is to try to keep the gauge in the green (positive swing to the right) as often and as far as you can, without impeding your forward motion of the car. The boss still wants you to get to work on time, so you won't be able to always keep it in the green, naturally..

    It really doesn't take too long to learn how to work with this gauge.

    The ONLY negative to using one is if you fixated on it too much rather than paying attention to your surroundings. Of course the same can be said about any distraction in your car. In a surprisingly short period of time, you will find that all it takes is a quick glance. You will get to know how to work with it.

    All that said...I am getting a feeling that Ford needs to spend some serious effort in addressing what seems to be not a very fuel efficient combo. It would be great to learn that they could simply alter engine/transmission management electronic algorithms enough to get a better result, but I am thinking that the problem likely goes deeper than that. Fuel injector size, pump PSI, gearing, turbo boost etc etc there are numerous factors that are involved.

    It also seems that the owners who seem to report closer to EPA are the 1.6 litre owners and also those with only 2WD. This again points to things not really well sorted on the other engine and powertrain configurations. The fact that some owners seem to get EPA and others (many) don't even get close, (*but also in lieu of various driving habits...through online does seem that even the most gentlest of drivers are still finding it basically impossible to duplicate EPA*) could also point to possibly some components that are not up to spec in terms of calibration etc. Perhaps it can eventually be narrowed down through build dates? That would be the best solution. Just replace faulty components with proper ones up to their originally designed spec..(assuming Ford got the R&D right in the first place).

    * and because of this and the fact that at least one owner has had very positive results using mid-grade 89 gas, also suggests that Ford's engine management algorithms are retarding the timing too much when faced with running on 87 octane. See my other post from last week for more details on this.
Sign In or Register to comment.