Howdy, Stranger!

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

Have you recently tried to lease a vehicle again after your last lease ended, and found that average monthly payments have gone so far up that you decided to get a cheaper vehicle with a lower monthly payment or purchase a used car?
If so, a reporter would like to talk to you about it. Please reach out to [email protected] by Thursday, October 18, 2018 telling us a little about your experience, and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

2013 Ford Escape Gas Mileage



  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    edited January 2013
    Automelon, go back and read my posts, it's a hell of a lot more than just the mpg's that I'm slamming Ford about. I had a 2010 Escape that had better mpgs & range than this beast & regretted opting for the "better" "superior" Escape!

    Well, if I'm only 1mpg below the EPA figures driving in the winter & using the winter blend, then the Escape was a complete disaster this summer. I guess comparing the two isn't "apples to apples" but considering the two are close enough in epa mpg figures (same hwy, 2mpg difference in city) then the Escape should've had better #s driving in better conditions this summer. I never got better than 22mpgs in mixed driving & it's only when you combine the mixed with the straight highway miles did it go above the 23mpg city rating (23.5). I hand calculate everything & keep a spreadsheet.

    As far as the comparison in weight & hp/torque, the added 500lbs has a HUGE impact on real life comparisons between the two. I subscribe to Consumer Reports, here are the comparisons of the tested vehicles:

    0 to 30: Escape(4wd) 3.4 Crosstrek 3.8
    0 to 60: 9.9 9.7
    45 to 65: 6.5 6.6
    Quarter-mile: 17.5 17.5
    Quarter-mile: 80 82

    So the Escape is quicker to 30 but slower to 60, with passing time (45-65) a statistically insignificant .1 second difference. So all that HP & Torque advantage the Escape has is completely wasted because of the weight.

    Fuel Economy Tests:

    CR's overall mileage: Escape 22 Crosstrek 26
    CR's city/highway: 15/31 19/34
    Crusing Range: 335mi 420mi

    So much for the "ECO" in that ECOboost. The Crosstrek came out +1 in EPA hwy and -6 for the city. The Escape -2 in EPA hwy and -8 for city.

    Yes, I'm slamming Ford, not on the old Escape, but this new Escape that sucks eggs as far as I'm concerned!!!
  • tinycadon, Glad you have found a vehicle you like. For whatever reason, I am able to get 24+ MPG combined in winter driving conditions, with the bigger engine and have trailer towing power and passing power to spare. I have had zero problems with my Escape. Perhaps I am lucky, or perhaps you are unlucky. In either case, happy motoring in the future!
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    There are far more "unlucky" new Escape owners than lucky, maybe you live somewhere where they have pure gas and not 10% ethanol??? I had issues with the MFT system as well, things working, not working, turning on and off for no reason & then 3 recalls for engine fires was enough for me. Glad you are satisfied with your car, I wasn't and I loved it at first, sad.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    I used the Fwd EPA #s instead of the 4wd EPA #s when I calculated the Consumer Reports test figures, the Escape did get +1mpg for hwy and -7 for the city not -2 hwy & -8 city.
  • I understand the variable factors that contribute to the actual MPG that one may see (ie ethanol content, outside temp, head wind/tail wind, snow/ice on the road, driving style etc).

    However, my 2013 Escape Titanium is the 5th new vehicle I've purchased since 1998. With the previous 4 vehicles I was able to obtain the EPA hwy mileage (cruising on the interstate @70 mph - the posted speed limit where I live) after a reasonable break in period. I've yet to come close to attaining the hwy mpg on my Escape (the best I got was about 24 mpg cruising @70). The best I've achieved - about 27 mpg was cruising @ 55 - 60. I'm at 24 mpg overall - just like the sticker says. But I live in a small town and I don't really drive in city traffic. My vehicles have always had a bias towards the highway mileage.

    I have 2,700 miles on my vehicle. I understand the 2,000 - 3,000 mile break in period stated in the owner's manual before we should check the mpg. So far it's not looking too good for the hwy mpg (in my case). But I'm not officially disappointed yet. I'll be patient and give it more time.

    The final exam will be next month when I head to Florida (from SW MI). I'm planning a round trip of about 3,000 miles with quite a bit of time spent on the interstate. I'll post the results after my trip.

    But I'm beginning to think Ford engineered this vehicle to perform on the EPA test and not on the road (wrt to fuel mileage). If so, they may be technically correct and passed the EPA test but could lose in the court of public opinion.

    Overall, on all other factors I'm extremely satisfied with my new Escape! The vehicle's performed flawlessly so far (even the My Ford Touch)!
  • "There are far more "unlucky" new Escape owners than lucky, maybe you live somewhere where they have pure gas and not 10% ethanol???"

    What's your source for this conclusion? or is it simply an emotional knee jerk reaction? I'm interested in the hard data source.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Hey Johnny, read the thread before attacking my assertion, unless you go around personally testing out every single Escape on the road yourself where's your "Hard Data" to support your assertion that most people ARE getting close to EPA ratings? You want "Hard Data" then buy yourself a subscription to Consumer Reports like I did, their "Hard Data" is right there in their "Hard Data" tests. In a 4wd 1.6L SE the "Hard Data" they came up with was 15mpg in city driving, 7mpg under the EPA rating of 22mpg. Is that "Hard Data" enough for you???
  • Pretty much mirrors my mileage experience. Not sure I made the right choice with this turbo.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Let's try to keep the focus more on the Escape and less on each other please.
  • dons8dons8 Posts: 3
    edited January 2013
    I have to agree with FortherRock - I have a new 4WD Escape Titanium and a new Focus Titanium in the drive and neither is coming close to their city or highway MPGs. I just did a 3 hour drive down from the Sierras and even with an hour coasting down hill for a 38 MPG average it was down to 24 by the time I got home - virtually all the last 2 hours at 70 MPH on interstate. I like everything else about the two cars and I quickly learned the quirks of the Ford information system, but the gas mileage is a real disappointment ..... especially the Escape which has been averaging around 17.5 MPG in city driving for my wife. I'm really concerned that since MPG ratings have suddenly gotten important Ford is rigging their ratings. Both cars are over 1000 miles now and I'll watch carefully and try to take the Escape on a long level drive (btw - it only did 19.5 MPG going up to the Sierra's).
  • I'm not even remotely close to questioning my choice about the 2.0L turbo. I wanted more hp than the 4 cylinder competitors (Honda CRV, Toyota RAV 4 and Mazda CX-5) that I test drove before I bought the Escape. As I recall, all 3 of those vehicles have about the same City mileage rating and a slightly better Hwy mileage rating than the Escape EPA rating. The 2013 versions of those 3 vehicles are also unavailable with larger engines with more hp. That's why I chose the Escape (I really liked the CX-5 and maybe would have bought it if not for IMO an underpowered engine). I also thought about the Chevy Equinox. The Equinox is available with a 3.6L V6 (301 hp) that has an EPA Hwy rating of 23 MPG. I was not impressed with the Chevy. Overall my Escape is an excellent vehicle. My overall mileage is right on at 24 MPG and maybe after several thousand miles the Hwy mileage will approach 28MPG (In the vehicles I've purchased in the last 15 years - I've generally seen improvement in fuel efficiency once the mileage has climbed beyond 10,000 miles).
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    I'm glad to see someone else that is satisfied with their Escape's fuel economy.

    In my latest update, our 2.0l SEL 4WD, since around Christmas Eve, has returned an average closer to 25.5 mpg overall. This also needs to take into account colder temperatures during this period. We got snow XMas Eve and again 2x since, just in large enough amounts and with enough cold air to keep most of it around for two weeks, and even now there are small patches that haven't melted completely away yet, but mostly where it was piled from shoveling or plowing. The worst average tank for this period was just over 23 mpg.

    Overall, taking into consideration the 'ideal' nature of the EPA testing process, this is right in line or even a bit better than the car is 'supposed' to return- I have a mixed drive of rural highway, town, city, and interstate, with speeds anywhere from 25 to 70 mph, and these tanks were with me driving five over wherever the speed limits were under 70, or 70 in 70 mph zones.

    The most recent tank, with temperatures in the mid-upper-50's, is already over 25.5 mpg, and looking to hit 26 (warmer weather, slightly higher % hwy affecting the numbers). I've had over 29 on occasion, without ever having a single tank of *all* highway driving.

    I'd love to get the opportunity for the latter, but time and opportunity have to get together first.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    edited January 2013
    Forgot to mention- while I drove at reasonable speeds, I still very rarely do jackrabbit starts, and always attempt to ease up to lights and away from them (reasonably, NOT supergranpa-style). I don't mind if the guy in the next lane over gets ahead of me between lights, especially if it means that I get to keep moving, while he's coming to a stop, taking off, accelerating, then braking hard[er]. One of us is getting significantly lower fuel economy for no more return in terms of time, distance, or frustration factor. :D
  • for better gas mileage you should only be driving 50 to 55 even on freeways-- that is why 'they' (govt) changed ALL freeway speed limit(s) to 55 miles per hour back in the 70's & we were NOT paying any where NEAR $3.00 a gallon!!
    Most people don't seem to understand -- Supply & Demand!!! -there goes your money!!
  • dizneydizney Posts: 19
    edited January 2013
    55 MPH LOL LOL
    NOT ME ! NO ONE will tell me that I can't drive 70 MPH !!! LOL
    AT 70 I get to cry and complain about my mileage !! Waaaaaaa.....

    At 55 MPH I got 38.1 MPG 1.6L FWD Now that makes sense :) :) :) :) LOL
    The choice is YOURS!!!
  • I have the 2013 Escape Titanium 2.0. The only reason I got rid of my GMC Envoy was I believed i would be getting 22/30 mpg in the Escape. I have gotten between 13/17 in the 4 months I have owned my Escape. The dealer tells me there is no problem! Has anyone had any success in dealing with Ford to get this problem resolved? I feel like I was lied to and am extremely disappointed with Ford. I need advice on how to go about dealing with Ford with this issue.

  • lip1122 Sorry to hear about your troubles with fuel economy. By the look of your expected numbers, you appear to have the 2.0 FWD, is that correct?
    If so, I have the same setup. I have recorded the first 12 tanks of gas and have been between 20.6 and 27.6 MPG with my average at 24.2. All winter driving with snow tires.
    If you are convinced that it is your vehicle (and not your right foot, traffic patterns, etc) then you should try to take some proof to the dealership. I have used the OBDII port with a wireless "dongle" and an iPad app called DashCommand to monitor my engine functions and fuel-economy while driving. See post 435 and subsequent posts on that topic, under the 2013 Escape title

    Maybe you could monitor your mileage on a short trip with a mechanic and discuss your results?
    Let the mechanic drive, to see what mileage he/she can get.
    The DashCommand app shows instantaneous mileage, one minute averages for 5 minutes, 5-minute averages for 30 minutes and 30-minute averages for 3-hours. (and the overall average, which you will find, agrees with the overall average you see on your Escape dash)
    Good luck!
  • tl9tl9 Posts: 2
    I have a 2.0L 4WD SEL I live in Mississauga and my driving is a mix of hwy and city. I thought my gas mileage was horrific at 420 km a tankful, but yours is even worse. I am way past the so called "break in" period. I have 13500 km. Don't let them fool you into the old break in period speech. I even had my torque converter replaced because of stalling issues and that didn't even help the fuel consumption.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    Yeah, I think these cars are really geared towards relaxed highway and light traffic. Stop and go kills fuel economy on this car. I suspect the Turbo engages a lot on acceleration despite our best efforts at taking off slowly.

    Last few tanks were slightly better for me. It wasn't that cold yet (nothing like the last week) and I did 376km over 46.9L (12.4L / 100km avg), 95% city.

    Now that it's really cold outside, I'm back into the mid-13s.

    I drove to Quebec City back and forth over X-Mas, and managed roughly 600-610km with these tanks (averaging 8.4 L/100km), going at 112-114km/h. Quite the difference...

    Agree with you on the "break-in" period, there has been little difference for me over time... I'm at 8500km now.
  • I have done a bunch of monitoring of the turbo boost pressure while driving. My normal acceleration, pulling away from a light (in a 2.0 FWD) takes my RPM up to 2500. There is virtually no boost when I do this. (smooth throttle application and likely no more than 10%)
    On the other hand, a couple of days ago I had the cruise control on, and my speed was approx 70Kph (44mph) and the tranny was in 6th gear. It produced 4 lbs of boost at just 1200 RPM. This is because the cruise control was opening the throttle further and further to maintain speed as I went up a gentle hill. (transmission then downshifted)

    I have really found the turbo to be a function of throttle position more than RPM. It is amazing how much pull these engines have at a very low RPM, and how much boost they can produce at a low RPM.
  • gmen97gmen97 Posts: 2
    I just bought my wife the same engine and transmission combo; she complained and after a little research I found out her registered mpg was not 18.5-19.5 but actually 23mpg. My wife stated she could not fill the fuel tank when on empty with 15 gallons, the vehicle would only take 10.8 when the fuel hand was behind the red marker. when I divided 11 gallons into the 255 miles she was using it comes out to 23mpg. Ford for what ever reason has made its fuel sensing gauge not read a total of 4 gallons of gas reserve in the tank. I have argued with the Dealer who says they can't adjust the unit. And Ford hasn't given an answer yet if they will fix it. Most of her driving right now is 95 percent city.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited January 2013
    Folks may want to manually check their mpg for a while to see how their numbers compare to the mpg readout gauge.

    "Edmunds Testing Finds Overestimated MPG Is Common."

    Your Fuel Economy Gauge Is Fibbing

    That said, I've real a lot of posts around the forums where people were getting very close to what the instrument panel was telling them.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    Gas left in the tank (reserve) doesn't impact the mpg calculation. mpg is all about the number of miles driven and the gas that was used to drive those miles. What's left in the tank isn't part of that calculation.

    What's impacted is the range, i.e. it'll tell you 0 miles left but there are a few gallons left in the tank. It's the same for me, my biggest fuel-up was exactly 13.0 gallons, and just before I did, the trip computer was telling me a range of 0... and I could probably have added a bit more gas in the tank but it was clicking and I didn't want to risk overflowing...

    I calculate every tank manually and compare with the mpg readout: it's always been within 1 mpg or so... most of the times within 0.5 mpg. The difference is usually not in my favor, i.e. my manual calculation comes out a bit worse than the mpg readout, which is a little bit optimistic.
  • In my own testing I have found the Escape Fuel Economy Guage to read anywhere from 6% optimistic to 3% pessimistic. About half of the time the hand calculated numbers and the displayed numbers are virtually identical.
    Average out those numbers and my display is 1.5% optimistic.
    I am quite impressed by that, as my previous vehicle from another manufacturer was about 15% optimistic on average.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    How many gallons do you consider a tankful? I am used to filling all of my vehicles up at around 1/4 tank or just under indicated on the guage, which is actually between 9.5 and 10.5 gallons to fill, on average (annoying, as others have pointed out, for a vehicle with a 15+ gallon sized tank). Based on that, and on the fact that 420 km is about 261 miles, it doesn't sound like your mileage is very horrific at all. It's anywhere from 24.8 to over 27 mpg, for a vehicle that is EPA rated at 24 mpg combined (mixed, as you say your driving is).

    If you're running it to the red on the fuel guage, you could be using up to about 13 gallons for the tankful, though many times my low fuel warning comes on at around 11.8 gallons or so.. Which is why I ask how many gallons you are calling a tankful. That same 261 miles becomes something between 20.1 mpg and 22.1 mpg if you consider your tankful to be running it to indicated 'dry' on the guage.

    If you're like most of us, your tankful is probably the 1/4 tank mark or around. If so, you are exceeding the EPA estimates, and are actually in line with my own observations for my 2.0l AWD SEL.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 94,073
    You can't use your gas gauge or the size of your tank to calculate fuel mileage...

    Fill your tank
    Reset trip odometer
    At next fill up, note mileage on trip odometer and divide that number by the gallons needed to fill up.
    That number is your miles per gallon..

    Nothing else matters.. doesn't matter how big your tank is, how much you have left, how accurate the gas gauge is, etc, etc, etc....


    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • usa1fanusa1fan Posts: 68
    600km! That's amazing. I had to convert to US units, then mpg to do the comparison (for most of us US types). 8.4L / 100km = 2.2gal/62.1mi. Total trip distance of 610km comes to 379mi.

    Doing the math, 62.1mi / 2.2gal = 28.2 mpg <-- the important part to compare, for us. Not unreasonable, but many here might claim otherwise.

    It's the 379 miles for that tank that sounds most interesting though, because that means you used 379 mi / 28.2 mpg = 13.4 gallons of gas for that tank, which tells me you probably ran it down at least far enough for the low fuel warning chime / indicator, and probably to the red fuel guage mark. Yet, you still had around 2 gallons left in the tank.

    Sure wish Ford would recalibrate the fuel guage on these. I can adjust (filling up with a lesser amount indicated on the guage), but it drives my paranoid wife nuts to see me waiting until it gets down close to 'empty'. :P
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Posts: 16
    LOL yep! I was happy with the highway range, for sure...
    BTW no need for manual calculations, you can simply type this in google:
    "8.4 L/100km to mpg"

    So the trip was roughly 800km one-way... In fact I did 8.2 (28.7 mpg) on the way there, and 8.6 on the way back (27.3mpg). Might be some slight differences in speed, elevation, temperature to explain the difference...

    It was done with cruise control set most of the time, at 112 km/h (69.5 mph) but I did do a little higher at times to pass and stuff.

    So yeah, around 28mpg, it's not the best out here but it's not bad either, I was not trying to get the best number ever. And it's during winter in Canada, pretty cold weather (was around -15C out there). Definitely satisfied with that however, now if only the city numbers would be that close to the rated numbers!

    Yep I often fill up when the fuel gauge is deeply in the red!! But I don't feel too bad about it, knowing that there's still a lot of gas left due to the huge reserve...

    Also, what I typically do to estimate my "true" range, is take whatever value I drove (ex. 365km) and add to that the estimated range left that the computer provides (ex. 20 km to empty) so then I'd tell myself that my range was 385km with that tank. I know it'd probably eeke out an an extra 40-50km if I really wanted to push it and run dry but that wouldn't be too wise, especially in the eyes of the missus... lol...

    In what I said above (600 km for the roadtrip), it was truly driven kms on the odometer, but with almost nothing left in the tank at the end (playing it a bit risky).
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    My in-laws have an Escape 1.6L SEL AWD they had as a factory order and took delivery Oct 1, 2012. It has gotten no better than 19.5mpg average and sometimes less. It has been in the shop for over 3 week total for other various issues. While the car is pretty to look at and has lots of features, it is obvious total quality control during manufacturing is not consistent. Ford better fix it fast because the press around these EcoBoost engines is souring really, really fast.

    CR just bashed the Fusion and this Escape Fuel Economy thread is starting to look like the Elantra Fuel Economy thread.
  • Has anybody seen a drop in their mpg's after the most recent recall? Before the most recent recall on the 2013 Ford Escapes, I was seeing 26-28 mpg's. But afterwards I have been through 9 fuel ups and have been averaging 23-24 mpg's. I checked tire pressure, I use all synthetic oils and fluids, I use the same gas station (Shell), I put gas line anti freeze in to help aide in the colder temps in New England, I put fuel injector cleaner in one tank and am lost to how I could lose 3 mpg's. Ford is saying it is because of the cold temps but it does not make any sense cause it has been cold since November and I was still seeing 26-28 mpg's. I do believe the Ford computer fix also included running the engine richer to help aide in keeping the engine cool. Any thoughts would be well appreciated.
Sign In or Register to comment.