Howdy, Stranger!

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

2013 Ford Escape Gas Mileage



  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Are any of these comments from you?

    No, but I don't disagree with most of them. It is a given that they will not apply to everyone. I'm sure they were (as have mine been) directed towards educating those online who might benefit on reflecting what their actual driving habits are.

    So..again, in using your shoe analogy, if the show doesn't fit, let someone else try it on instead of taking it personally.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    Here's some more mpg ideas:

    Hypermiling: Quest for Ultimate Fuel Economy

    The real-time mileage display mentioned would function a bit like your vacuum gauge.

    I'm more of a being "surroundings aware" kind of driver. When I lived in Boise, I would watch the pediatrician crosswalk signals to know whether I could beat the light or if I should just start coasting a block early.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited March 2013
    Yes, good tips, Steve.

    I don't have a mileage computer, and the ones that have been on cars I have demo'd last year all seem to update rather slow compared to the vacuum gauge. Maybe they are updating quicker now? Even still, the v gauge is immediate all the time. BMW and MB use to include one as standard equipment years ago..altho they didn't call them a vacuum gauge, but that is all they were.

    Not so effective on diesels tho.. :surprise: haha
    (for readers wondering why, is because diesels don't create manifold vacuum)

    I agree on your surroundings driving. Helps a lot..saves brakes, clutch, tires etc etc too :)
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    edited March 2013
    It helps that I haven't had a commute in decades. Having to drive in heavy traffic really pooches your best efforts.
  • dons8dons8 Posts: 3
    It seems to me that the defenders of Ford here are missing the key point - the Escape seems to do worse than other cars we've owned for city MPG. Yes we are driving 65-70 on the highways, but I've done that on prior cars and beaten the claimed numbers with bigger displacement V6s. Yes, I don't coast for four blocks while cars weave around me coming up to all lights and I don't take 20 seconds to accelerate to 40 while cars weave around me. I also don't jack rabbit my starts and I do make a reasonably smooth coast down to the lights. I drive this car far easier than any car I've previously owned (starting in 1965). Nevertheless the Escape gets truly awful city mileage under my real world driving. It's in fact worse than my 2003 Highlander was, which weighed in at 400 lbs heavier and had a V6. The gas mileage is bad enough that I would NOT have bought the Escape if I'd known it was going to average below 20 for mixed. I will pass on my displeasure to friends, acquaintances, and JD Powers at any and all opportunities. It seems to me that many of the people on this forum feel the same way. Ford needs to address this issue if it wants to sell Fords in 5 years, and addressing it does NOT mean explaining to me how they got their Escape to get 21/27 on a dyno.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I sure don't work for Ford. And just for the record, I don't even like Fords as I have them under boycott since the paint came off my 88 F150. And have had reasons further even though they were not needed to continue my boycott.

    This thread is one of 'em..

    It is obvious that the cramps in my arthritic arms from tediously typing and trying to help here, are all for not. I'll leave ya all to it..
  • automelon48automelon48 Posts: 105
    I use the DashCommand sorftware on my iPad, coupled with an OBDII Wifi-transmitter. Since I had an iPad, the extra hardware and sortware was less than $100 and is as easy as plugging in the transmitter. I can display (in real time, or almost no lag; boost/vaccuum, fuel economy, fuel consumption in LPH or GPH, etc etc. It would be a huge posting if I told you all the stuff I can see.
    As an example, when idling a warm engine, my fuel consumption is 1.1 Liters per hour. When I am driving and I lift off the throttle, the fuel consumption goes down to 1.1 LPH, and then after a couple more seconds of coasting, the consumption goes down to 0.5 LPH. It stays that way until I am nearing a stop, then it needs to increase back to 1.1 LPH to idle the engine.

    Maybe that's more info than most people want, but I only planned on using this display for boost pressure and now I have LOTS more stuff to look at, if I choose to.
    If you have either an Android device or an Apple device, I would highly recommend this application. No, I don't work for the company, I am just an Escape EcoBoost owner who wanted boost info, without poking holes through the firewall or cutting into the plumbing of my intake. My vehicle is leased, so screwing guages onto my "A-pillar" was not an option.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited March 2013
    Personally, I love to read the details of your new tool/toy. I'd love to have one, but don't even have a smartphone, and I'd be on here probably asking you too many questions about how to hook it all up if I did have an iPad etc.

    I find it quite interesting to read the consumption drops to .5 LPH after a bit of coast down. They must have the fuel injectors shutting almost right off, or closed so much that an A/C cycle doesn't trigger an engine snuff sorta thing. Cool! Although to be honest, I find the 1.1 figure hard to believe. I say this comparing to what I suspect my CRV uses idling. I think it uses a fair bit more. (2.4 NA)

    Anyway, but that's me. I love details..the more the merrier. I suck up info (once deemed credible) like a sponge. But I'm pretty sure I don't represent much of that type of demographic on this thread, but with obvious exceptions such as yourself..

    It seems obvious that a key piece of info I offered in my last long post about being armed with the knowledge to present to their local dealer that maybe some of their engine management components could be off spec due to perhaps a large batch lot size during that would tell their dealer that hey, this customer has done some technical digging and lets take another look at their car and see if we can't sort it out, has flown like a jet over at least one poster so far..

    Btw, this device you have, is it anything like this?:

    Cheers to you though... I found your post quite interesting.

    -edit.."cutting into the plumbing of my intake"
    It's really not as bad as you make it sound. It's a dead simple T off whatever main manifold line is easiest to get to. Finding a clean hole through the firewall can be a chore tho depending on car..Sometimes a main vac line to HVAC controls gives you a source already inside the car, but not all use vacuum controls still, but I suspect most do..
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    So..again, in using your shoe analogy, if the show doesn't fit, let someone else try it on instead of taking it personally.

    ??? HUH ??? If none of the comments I quoted about how other's on this site seem to know the answer to why other's MPGs are so low without knowing ANYTHING about it, why get involved??? It's like the goofy dog at the dog park who sees two other dogs start fighting and has to go over and get their nose into it and gets bit. Hey, if you don't want your nose bit, keep out of it.

    Like I've said in the past, MOST, not ALL, but MOST people on here know how to drive to obtain EPA MPG numbers. So if people KNOW how to drive to obtain these numbers AND they're not even CLOSE to obtaining those numbers, then it's NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DRIVE!!! Is it so hard to believe that it's not always the person & that this vehicle doesn't come close to EPA #s in the real world, REALLY, is it that hard to believe???
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    edited March 2013
    Maybe now that it's (supposedly) warming up, can we get a fresh round of real world mpg numbers? Thanks.
  • pdawg1pdawg1 Posts: 22
    I live in Montana, this has been one of our mildest winters in a while, below zero just a few days and above average for most of the others. I have been driving in 40-60 degree weather for a while now, no it is not 70-90, but not cold.
    I have asked my service manager if the Intelligent 4WD could be on all the time and how would I know? He said yes it could be on, but the tech said it should should make the engine light come on with a code if it was on all the time, but who knows. It seems that the ones having more issues here are the 2.0 with 4WD.
    My service manager is sending some of these posts to his Ford engineer, I hope they are working on a fix, but they need more input from many customers for this to happen, so the more of us that take our vehicles in, the better the chance of something being done............
  • automelon48automelon48 Posts: 105
    That ultraguage looks pretty good for the money.
    Yes, DashCommand is very similar, but more graphic.

    You can see a couple of screens here. link title
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 4,098
    edited March 2013
    " ... I have asked my service manager if the Intelligent 4WD could be on all the time and how would I know? He said yes it could be on, but the tech said it should should make the engine light come on with a code if it was on all the time, but who knows. It seems that the ones having more issues here are the 2.0 with 4WD. ..."

    I'm driving a 2008 Escape Hybrid AWD, but I don't think they have changed the way the AWD is programmed. It is used every time you pull out from a stop, as well as the obvious use when the front wheels lose traction. I have a ScanGuage 2 hooked up to my FEH, and have watched the AWD in action. It gradually shuts off power to the rear wheels as you gain speed. They used to call it "intelligent 4WD", but I don't know if that terminology is still current.

    To my mind, this causes an especially bad MPG "hit" in traffic and city conditions, when one is constantly pulling out from lower speeds/stops.

    This is in contrast to most AWD systems, that use the rear wheels ONLY when the front wheels slip.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    I'm in full agreement with your post and this represents my state of mind very well (except that's I've been driving *only* since 1998!! hahaha)

    Things seem a bit better these days. My last 2 tanks were exactly 20.1 mpg (11.7 L/100km). A bit more highway than normal (roughly 100 of the last 830 kms were highway at 65-70 mph). And weather is milder these days in Toronto as we're getting into spring.

    I've switched from Shell 91 V-Power gas (no ethanol) to Pioneer premium 91 (likely 10% ethanol) to Pioneer regular 87 octane (likely 10% ethanol) due to not thinking it was worth the hefty extra cost, not really seeing any difference, and surprisingly, these last 2 tanks with regular gas are my best since ownership.

    I did notice the performance of the car was less lively however.

    I may try another couple of V-Power tank in the future to see if the weather was skewing results significantly, but even if I was to get one more mpg, I don't see it being worth 15-18 cents more per litre... meaning 7-8$ more for the tank.

    My fuelly is at

    I got a little over 7000 miles on the car, 1.6 AWD.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 4,098
    "...I got a little over 7000 miles on the car, 1.6 AWD. "

    I didn't realize that they put AWD on the 1.6.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Checked out the link, very cool. I'd like one. Haven't had as cool a toy for a long time. Does it use internet time usage during the time it is in use? That would kill it for me..Of course I don't have an iPhone either. What are the total costs to get this working, not counting the phone?
  • automelon48automelon48 Posts: 105
    edited March 2013
    I paid $50 for the OBDII WiFi transmitter and the iPhone or iPad application is also $50.

    With the Apple products, you must connect using WiFi. If you get an Android phone, then you can connect using a Bluetooth OBDII device and they are only about $25

    So with Apple it's about a $100 investment. With an Android it's a $75 investment. No wires with either. You have the ability to do datalogging, record Min/Max values, etc.

    No internet time to use the product. Once you have it, it's free to use. I have also read "check engine" codes for two friends and reset the "check engine" light for one of them who asked me to. If you wanted a tool like this 10 years ago, it would have cost $1000 +.

    There are also versions that you can get for a Computer, but I don't think having a laptop computer in your front seat is very convenient.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    Thanks, tiny. Most all of those quotes are from me.

    1) you are very presumptuous when you conclude that the majority of people with these vehicles are doing as poorly as you for fuel economy, especially using data from complaints on ANY forum. People with gripes make up 95% of all posts in any product forum. This is relative to the fact that usually the vocal 95% is part if the 10% experiencing a problem. The other 90% have only a 5% representation on the forums, and many of those avoid posting because those who are upset don't like to hear that their car is an anomaly (misery loves company).
    2) I had my worst tank in the past week, with snow, remote start, general slow driving because of poor road conditions- 19.7 mpg. I know you don't want to hear this (you pretty much seem to think only complaints belong here, because they somehow prove all the cars are defective, rather than it being yours, your location, or your driving style).
    3) if it wasn't for other near 'attacks' on posters who say "I get decent fuel economy with my car", many of us wouldn't feel the need to educate anyone about how to drive for fuel economy.
    4) the majority of traffic I see anywhere I've driven is not driving in any way, shape, or form conducive to being even close to EPA fuel economy numbers, meaning a large part of the population either doesn't care or doesn't know how. Combine that with the large number complaining and it should be easy to see why the few of us even willing to post our 'good' results get frustrated.

    Last, I post once in a long while, just because this board is hostile to positive result posts, whether or not advice is given. Anyone who does so seems to be told that 'we don't care- most of us aren't getting the numbers, and that's he issue, so stop disturbing our flow of bad posts.'

    There, that should give you plenty more to quote going forward. ;)

    Seriously though. There is an issue with these cars being harder to get better numbs, so some of you have valid reasons to complain. But stop snapping at this of us who aren't, and we'll stop telling you how bad a driver you are. Fair?
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    Well said.

    My average is slowly improving with slightly warmer temps. Currently I'm averaging 22.9 to 23.5, but I'm one of the lucky one's.
  • izedamanizedaman Posts: 16
    Most of the people on here that are getting crap mpg, are not liking the posts that we cannot drive, or we are lead foot, or we only drive up hill in the snow both ways to work... when alot of people have other cars that get the posted numbers.
    The only thing I can see is that some people are getting better MPG with higher octane... I ran for 1 month, on the expensive stuff, and actually lost 1 mpg. but it was worth a shot... the only thing that has helpd me was bumping my psi to 39... that im sure will help others, that try it. I will still continue to watch the thread to see one day when someone comes back from the dealership and says they fixed it... there is the info you need to tell your shop..

    I do like seeing that people are getting close to posted EPA results... Its leading me to believe that there might be a problem with the car... but Ford will be the last one to say they did something wrong..
    Every escape owner ive talked to on the street, no matter what model they have.... 1st question is 'what mpg do you get'

    So to me IMHO something is not right with some of the escapes... now that im seeing more on the road, more people will complain, Ford will quietly fix something, then we will all be happy.. one day
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    I'm not snapping specifically at you, I'm snapping at the ones who are getting the EPA MPG #s and seem to know how everyone else on here drives. Like I said, most of the people on this thread, MOST not ALL, know how to drive to get EPA #s, flatly dismissing them because you can do it is flat out WRONG! I see a lot of overweight people at my office complain about losing weight but eat a bag of chips and big gulp of coke at lunch. Then I see others who eat good and still can't lose weight. So do I just say, oh, because those other people eat bad but you eat healthy then obviously the problem is that you eat bad when you get home because all the other overweight people eat bad, even though I have NO IDEA how they eat at home. It's an absurd argument!!!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    Maybe we can get a fresh round of real world mpg numbers? Thanks.
  • pdawg1pdawg1 Posts: 22
    I would think that most of us want to see constructive ideas and how we can get Ford involved on a solution vs [non-permissible content removed] for tat banter. There are obviously enough well informed owners here, that know how to drive for optimum mpg and not getting close to those numbers, that are frustrated. Again, getting Ford on board, that there is an issue, is what I hope we are all here to accomplish. All other communication to me is a waste of time............
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Good Luck with that, according to Ford and a few "well informed" drivers, there is no problem!
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    After seeing this: in your post, I checked it out online and decided to purchase one. My thoughts are to set a 4-quadrant main screen to Avg. MPG, instantaneous MPG, vacuum pressure and gallons/hour. This should answer the age old question...
  • sven7sven7 Posts: 1
    In the 1000 miles since Ford returned it after the recall, my 1.6 eco has averaged just over 28 mpg in 80% highway driving using 89 octane 10% alcohol (the cheapest grade in Iowa). If the computer is to be believed on the highway 32-33. I'm hoping to improve a bit more when (if) spring ever comes. It doesn't appear to be getting much worse at 70 mph than at 55 (unlike the long-term rental I had with the 2.0 AWD whose mileage fell off a cliff between 65 and 70). It does appear to use a lot of gas on cold startups, perhaps the turbo runs full time until its warm.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    I did. I know, it's lost in the rest of the post. I mentioned my current worst-ever results being 19.7 (hand calculated- 20.4 indicated), cold weather, snow, remote start, windy, etc.

    I also just filled up again today. This tank was 22.3 mpg (again, hand calculated), with 23.9 indicated.

    These two tanks are both lower than my usual, but we've had three successive weeks with Sunday+ snows, wind, etc.

    FWIW, the DIC is all over the place, not just high. It reported 26.7 for the 28.5 mpg tank three weeks back.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    Not using higher octane fuel here. Like you, I tried it, with inconclusive results (aka- basically no significant difference). It's most likely not the octane, but could very well be affected by additives, like ethanol.

    If the latter is true, I still pay .30 less per gallon of 10% ethanol than the local Pure usually charges, so any savings in fuel economy are at least a break-even proposition in terms of cost / mile.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 11,793
    In the first 2 months of 2013, over 44k Escapes were purchased.
    How many are complaining about the fuel mileage?
    I expect March sales numbers to be higher.
    Our 2.0 AWD is averaging about 10% below the EPA average so far, but we are expecting it to improve as the weather warms up.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2014 Ford F-150 FX4
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    I'm not complaining, I've been one of those addressing driving conditions, driving style, speed and climate, I just wasn't named in the indictment. Last summer when it was very new, I averaged 26-28 and as high as 30 city/highway and 36-38 on a autumn road trip on two lanes at 60 mph. As I mentioned before, I averaged 25.6 at 70-75 mph over 1700+ miles from Phoenix to Mpls. I don't know, I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...
Sign In or Register to comment.