Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ford Escape



  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    It's official, the EPA has certified the mpg's. ed-at-23-33-mpg/

  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Motor Trend just posted their road test results for the 2.0l awd titanium model and 1.6l fwd se model. The 2.0 awd did 0-60 in 6.8s while the 1.6l fwd did 0-60 in 8.9s.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 22,471
    these out yet? haven't seen any, so I assume no.

    but from reading that article, the 1.6 seems to be plenty of engine for my needs if I was to get one of these.

    2015 Hyundai Sonata 2.4i Limited Tech (mine), 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's) and 2015 Jetta Sport (daughter's)

  • bg516bg516 Posts: 15
    i was reading on one post that motor trend had a 0 to 60 time on the 2,.0 turbo of about 6.6, i don;t get it, the kia sportage with about the same engine, trans combo does it in 6.0 and the ford is a better engine / trans package,
    i have been waiting for the escape before buying a new cuv/suv, as i owned one before and loved it.
    so what gives in the acceleration times, also what is the 40 to 60 times?
  • tbk81tbk81 Posts: 9
    Just ordered yesterday. 2013 SEL 2.0 EB AWD. 500 under invoice to match x-plan price. Delivered 6-8 weeks. :)
  • steverstever Posts: 52,573
    edited June 2012
    Please check back with us and give us your impression when it arrives. Meanwhile, here's a Wall St. Journal review to help tide you over:

    "The traditional SUV is going by the wayside," says Alexander Edwards, president of the automotive division of Strategic Vision, a San Diego, Calif., market-research firm. In 2006, small SUVs accounted for just 9% of the market, he says. Now they represent about 14% of all vehicles sold in the U.S.

    Part of the appeal of the smaller crossovers lies in their sleeker, more carlike design—a shift from a decade ago when the rugged contours and genuine off-road capability of the big SUVs lured buyers away from family sedans.

    The Rise of the Petite SUVs
  • tbk81tbk81 Posts: 9
    I was quoted in the article! I have now test driven an se and titanium. Very nice overall. Technology is very nice, understands voice commands. Seats could be better but I'll try that again.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,573
    edited June 2012
    Very cool. :)

    (Good thing I didn't make any snide comments, lol).
  • markus5markus5 Posts: 102
    Are those EPA mileage ratings for the Ecoboost engines based on regular or premium gasoline. ? The power ratings are given for both, and the increases in power with the premium seem insignificant for the additional cost. My question is about the mileage and driveability using the regular gas.
    My Ford dealer also sells Mazda, I plan to test drive back to back against the new CX-5 which I test drove last month and impressed me in every category except power.
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    Those are EPA numbers. I believe manufacturers can't or won't issue their internal numbers, they have to wait for the "official" numbers. I haven't seen anything regarding mpg's using higher octane and those numbers are with 87 octane. Higher octane will increase HP and torque. If this is a concern to you, I'd check the crash test results for the CX-5, I just read an article that it had a poor rating.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    edited June 2012
    If this is a concern to you, I'd check the crash test results for the CX-5, I just read an article that it had a poor rating.

    Care to share a link?

    The CX-5 is an IIHS "Top Safety Pick" and just received the highest European crash test score which I was lead to believe is more strict than the NHTSA. The CX-5 also was "best in class" going by the Euro test method.

    94% - Adult occupant
    87% - Child occupant
    64% - Pedestrian
    86% - Safety assist

    I could not find any NHTSA scores yet, so I have no clue what you might have read. Everything points to the CX-5 being very safe.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I haven't seen anything regarding mpg's using higher octane and those numbers are with 87 octane. Higher octane will increase HP and torque.

    I believe the member was asking whether the EPA estimates were achieved using Premium Fuel since the advertised HP and TQ are achieved using Premium Fuel. I went to and it appears they tested the Escape w/ EcoBoost using Regular Fuel.
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Posts: 194
    With the price of gas today why would ford put in a engine that they would recommend using premium fuel.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,573
    edited June 2012
    Unless something changes, the recommended fuel is regular unleaded. 2013 Ford Escape SUV Features & Specs

    To quote Mr_Shiftright, premium fuel is not a doggie treat for your car, and if the engine isn't designed to run on premium, there's no advantage to using it. It might even hurt your mpg.

    shipo, "What about fuel types & gas mileage?" #228, 9 May 2006 6:36 pm
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,161
    Why does Acura say when they recommend premium that the car the will run fine on regular but if you want the full hp/tq or whatever you can use premium? Is'nt that an idicator that in SOME engines putting in premium can get you slightly better performance?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,573
    edited June 2012
    The sensors can be tweaked to retard timing or whatever is needed to run on regular. In those situations (i.e., where premium is "recommended" but not "required"), the computer handles it. I don't think the opposite is true.

    Lots of people run regular in their cars where premium is "required" without obvious distress. But usually in those cases the extra hp and higher mpg make premium a better value.

    Why use premium gas when regular will do? (USA Today)

    To Save Money on Gas, Stop Buying Premium

    Maybe the real reason Acura and other luxury brands tune their engines to require premium is because it adds a "luxury" cachet to the brand. ;)
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Posts: 194
    The recommended fuel for the 1.6 engine is premium.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,573
    edited June 2012
    That'd just about be a deal killer for me.

    At least the percentage differential between regular and premium when you get up in the $3.50 - $4.00 a gallon region is less than back in the day when regular was $2 and premium was $2.20. Going from $4 to $4.20 isn't quite as bad.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,161
    I've been seeing a lot of stations add .12 for midgrade and .25 for premium. I think the oil companies are realizing the 10% increase of old is now 5% and the public can "weather" a little increase.

    Anyway, so some engines can be enhanced by higher octance but still run regular just fine but they have to built to do that and just putting premium into an engine strictly designed for regular does absolutely nothing. Am I getting that correct?
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 8,862
    The 1.6L will run on 87 but just like any turbo engine, it returns the best fuel economy and performance with premium fuel. Using regular is just a false economy in high compression engines.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,573
    edited June 2012
    Maybe swapping "enhanced" and "designed" for "tuned" for most of the passenger car engines out there would be even more accurate. I doubt that the average daily driver knows or much cares anyway.
    Robr2 brings up a good point about turbos. And they are smaller, get better mileage and are higher performance than a six cylinder. A lot of us older geezers still don't trust those though. :blush:

    The real question is who's shopping the 2013 Escape and who (knowinng the details) is going to upgrade to the engine trim that's designed, tuned and enhanced to be "sportier"?
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Posts: 194
    It's not a question of being sportier but why be forced into buying an upgraded engine just to get a few practical options like AWD since the basic model hardly has any options.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,573
    Ah, yes, there is that. We're still a ways from being able to order a car with just the options you want without having to pay for stuff you don't want.
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    Sorry, I'm still not used to the term CX-5 and still think of the 7 and 9 when reading about Mazda's. Here's the link and a quote from the article, take it as you will. -90f07151c1b0

    Two crossovers, two SUVs, two pickups and the Jeep Wrangler are among the vehicles deemed the most dangerous in America by the business blog 24/7 Wall Street. The website analyzed safety data compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Consumer Reports, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration and J.D. Power.

    "The cars with the worst scores most commonly received poor grades in the rollover and rear-impact tests," writes Michael B. Sauter of 24/7 Wall Street. Those include the Ram 1500, Mazda CX-7 and CX-9, Chevrolet Colorado Crew Cab, Suzuki SX4, Nissan Pathfinder and Jeep Wrangler.
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    edited June 2012
    No it's not. This is what it states in the Owner's Manual:

    Regular unleaded gasoline with a pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87 is recommended. Some fuel stations offer fuels posted as regular with an octane rating below 87, particularly in high altitude areas. Fuels with octane levels below 87 are not recommended.
    Note: Premium fuel will provide improved performance for vehicles with EcoBoost® engines and is recommended for severe duty use such as trailer tow.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    My local Ford dealer just received a 2013 Ford Escape 2.0L EcoBoost AWD Titanium in Ginger Ale Metallic. The list price was almost $36,000. That's pretty steep for this segment. I understand there is extra performance and features such as the power lift gate and park assist, but is that what people in this category really look for? I have to question the move by Ford on this. Even SE AWD models with the 1.6L EcoBoost are over $31,000 and it does not have navigation or leather seats. You can get a CR-V EX-L with nav and a CX-5 Grand Touring w/ technology package for less.

    I really think Ford is not banking on the "value" minded shopper and have decided to market to a different audience. That's just my opinion. It could turn out to be a huge success, but only time will tell. All things considered, it is a nice car in person.
  • tbk81tbk81 Posts: 9
    Someone mentioned premium recommended for the 1.6? All Escape engines have recommended fuel of regular (87). Manual states that, for towing or heavy use, premium can be used.

    As for price - I think there are so many things you get with this car that I have not seen on other platforms...and incentives will come. I do wish Ford would offer a longer warranty, however.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    All Escape engines have recommended fuel of regular (87). Manual states that, for towing or heavy use, premium can be used.

    I have an issue with Ford advertising 178hp for the 1.6L and 240hp for the 2.0L when those number are only achieved using Premium and then go to say you can use Regular but you have to do a little digging to find out you get less power. I know we are only talking about a few ponies here, but it is still a dig at the consumer, if you ask me.
  • kapohokapoho Posts: 2
    Ever pull into a gas station and find all the Premium pumps locked off because they are out of fuel? In that case, it's nice to know you can use regular without trashing the engine.
  • kapohokapoho Posts: 2
    I'll be purchasing a very well equipped Escape in the $36K price range. The equivalent vehicle is NOT an under-powered CR-V or CX-5. Vehicles with comparable torque to the Escape are the Acura RDX, Lexus RX 350 and BMW X3, at a cost of thousands more.
    The Escape has available safety features that rival vehicles in the $50K price range. Also, I really enjoy Ford's convenience features, such as entry key pad and capless fuel filler (RE: On-Star vs keypad: if I locked my keys in the car, I probably left my cell phone inside, too). The Escape is not cheap, but it is an excellent value.
Sign In or Register to comment.