Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2013 Ford Escape Gas Mileage

179111213

Comments

  • lip1122lip1122 Member 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.

    Thanks
  • dizneydizney Member Posts: 19
    Strange ? I always avg 25 - 38 mpg with my 1.6L FWD ?
  • ronsteveronsteve Member Posts: 1,190
    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?
    2015 Acura RDX AWD / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • lip1122lip1122 Member Posts: 5
    I have the 2.0 engine. I was traveling at 65 mph. I have 6,100 miles on my Escape.
  • ronsteveronsteve Member Posts: 1,190
    Is this 19.3 figure for your pure highway trip off the computer, or did you refuel and calculate based on that?
    2015 Acura RDX AWD / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • lip1122lip1122 Member Posts: 5
    I refueled and calculated it manually. The computer read 19.7 mpg
  • tinycadontinycadon Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 1,190
    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.
    2015 Acura RDX AWD / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • ronsteveronsteve Member Posts: 1,190
    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.
    2015 Acura RDX AWD / 2013 VW Jetta 2.5SE
  • tinycadontinycadon Member 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 Member 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 Moderator Posts: 234,725
    Now... you know why I never comment on MPG threads.... ;)

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

    Edmunds Moderator

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member 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 Moderator Posts: 234,725
    Yeah.. we'll see what happens. Someone is more excited than I am about it. ;)

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

    Edmunds Moderator

  • ghanashyamlghanashyaml Member Posts: 9
    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 Member 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 Member 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 interpretation..it 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.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member 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 Guest Posts: 52,454
    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 Member 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 Guest Posts: 52,454
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 production...info 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?:

    http://www.ultra-gauge.com/ultragauge/index.htm

    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 Member 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 Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited March 2013
    Maybe now that it's (supposedly) warming up, can we get a fresh round of real world mpg numbers? Thanks.
  • pdawg1pdawg1 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 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 Member 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 http://www.fuelly.com/driver/h3ll3r/escape

    I got a little over 7000 miles on the car, 1.6 AWD.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Guest Posts: 52,454
    Maybe we can get a fresh round of real world mpg numbers? Thanks.
  • pdawg1pdawg1 Member 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 Member Posts: 287
    Good Luck with that, according to Ford and a few "well informed" drivers, there is no problem!
  • tim156tim156 Member Posts: 308
    After seeing this: http://www.ultra-gauge.com/ultragauge/index.htm 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 19,204
    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.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • tim156tim156 Member 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.