Howdy, Stranger!

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





Monthly Update for January 2017 - 2017 Ford Escape

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 9,602
edited February 15 in Ford
imageMonthly Update for January 2017 - 2017 Ford Escape

The Edmunds long-term 2017 Ford Escape SE AWD checks in with its report card for the month of January.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • legacygtlegacygt Posts: 563
    "Seems the EcoBoost range is particularly sensitive to those times when you're not driving it exactly like an EPA driving cycle." This has been obvious pretty much since the EcoBoost engines started appearing in Fords. Turbocharging is fantastic but it is not magic. If driving the car requires regularly dipping into the turbo, you are not going to see the promised fuel economy. Period. Turbo power can often be fun but, in my experience, they only deliver great fuel economy when the engine is sufficiently large/powerful enough to motivate the car in daily driving without spooling up the turbo too often. In the ideal scenario, the engine is powerful enough on it's own and delivers fantastic fuel efficiency except for the times when additional boost is needed from the turbo. It's like having two engines in one. Performance when you need it and efficiency when you don't. However, with EcoBoost, Ford has a habit of putting smaller engines in these cars to the point where the turbo is "always on." The result is satisfactory power but an engine that drinks fuel like a larger one...all the time. Ford has to know this which is what makes it so aggravating. They are cynically selling cars that ace the EPA efficiency tests but are much less efficient in real world driving. Other carmakers may be guilty of this as well but Ford is the worst.
    Note, I have nothing against turbocharging. And Ford has done it well in some scenarios. The 3.5L Ecoboost is good almost everywhere they use it. The 2.3L is good in the Mustang and Focus RS. But there are others where they are forcing undersized engines into cars that are too large/heavy. Most egregious was the 2.0L in the Explorer (since it has improved a bit with a 2.3L).
  • I have owned 3 F150s with the 5.0L V8 and I just purchased a 2016 F150 with the 2.7L Turbo. Overall performance is impressive in both city and highway driving. I live on a large hill and I think that the 2.7L actually pulls up the hill better than the 5.0L. I have 4000 miles on the truck and I'm at 18.9 MPG, which includes a combination of city and highway plus north east winter right now! I agree with legacygt that Ford needs to take care in pairing the right displacement with the right vehicles. Personally I think that the 2.0L in both the Escape and Fusion are excellent and so far I'm really happy with the 2.7L in the F150! I also think that Ford should include "driving aids" on the LCD screen similar to ones they have in the hybrids. This would help the driver to make a choice about driving for fuel economy vs. performance. Empowering drivers to get the results they desire is key to Ford maintaining a strong consistent brand in my opinion.
  • sirius2sirius2 Pothole City, MIPosts: 43
    I have a 2017 Escape Titanium 2.0 4wd and drive the pothole ridden streets of Michigan. The Escape accelerates and handles great, and I have no squeaks or rattles despite the daily punishment this vehicle endures. I do turn off the automatic start/stop, mostly because Im afraid of long run wear and tear, since I keep my vehicles for over 10 years.
Sign In or Register to comment.