Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I am sick of Ford already. Should have got a Volkswagen.
Be interesting to see how many people have had this issue.
We don't have a sun roof on ours so that can't be blamed.
A previous poster is correct when they say that it sucks the joy out of new car ownership.
I have been in contact with Ford and awaiting a response from them and will talk to my dealer tomorrow.
I will post when I find out more. I certainly don't want a brand new car in for repairs for days and a new headliner to hide other damage caused by the water getting in.
I do wonder what is behind them choosing to fix your vehicle, when they replaced mine. Is it because when I had the problem, Ford had yet to see it, and thus hadn't isolated the cause and found a fix? Is it a dealership issue? I'm just curious what determines what customer gets what resolution. Maybe it was my extremely pregnant wife waddling into the dealership with tears in her eyes two days after picking up the car. Also, we did drop the car off on a Saturday and told them that under no circumstances did we want it back. The bank check hadn't even been processed by the finance dept.
I do hope they can get it resolved to your satisfaction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icEoHl6ftS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1eDsI_SzMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuZdwxHzw9M
Cheers, Rollsplat
Built on 8/14. I will do the calculator mpg thing after just filling it up over the week end. It seems to visually be fine for fit and finish and everything works. I hope all of you with issues can get them resolved because with about 20,000 of these on the road I hope that the ones with issues are the small percentge any manufacturer is going to have. The Honda forum which I looked at before buying about 10 Honda's in a row also had some owners that were not happy. The happy owners usually never post to forums has been my experience.
I hope for a speedy resolution to all your issues. If you can get things going I think you will like the vehicle.
We're two 60 something retirees and we don't need the extra HP for "show."
2012 escape 4 cyl XLT auto
FYI - MY VIN was NOT on the recall list, so it took a little prodding with Ford. If you have this issue, get it fixed! You'll be happy you did.">
Cheers, Rollsplat
http://bit.ly/QPrCoP
Cheers, Rollsplat
Also, I'm wondering if you can telescope the steering wheel all the way out so that you can then move the seat back to compensate for the reach issue? Please let me know as I need to make a decision by tomorrow!
John
No, a DFI engine with a compression ratio lower than 10:1 is NOT efficient. SkyActive DFI engines are running a CR as high as 14:1. Yours would probably get much closer to 40 MPG were it not for the EcoBoost engines being so severely "detuned" in simple cruise mode, off-boost.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Horrible analysis and regurgitation of falsehoods by an ignorant person.
No naturally aspirated engine reaches its static compression ratio under
vacuum. You have to compress a full cylinder of air to reach 12:1 (14:1 under premium only) At -10inHg, the effective CR of the Skyactiv for example is UNDER 8:1!!!
From Understanding Effective Compression Ratios article:
As a general rule, the best available pump gas will work with 8:1 effective compression ratio. To get 8:1 effective compression ratio with the above rod, stroke, and cam intake closing event, you would need a 13.2:1 static compression piston.
An an Ecoboost while 'cruising' is not 'off-boost'. They either have lower vacuum than an NA engine or mild positive boost at the manifold.
You would have to be completely ignorant to think that an engine with a static CR of 12:1 stays that high under vacuum. That is not physically possible, and also blantantly false.
The Ecoboost will be very near the same effective CR as a Skyactiv under cruise, and much higher under accel. The Ecoboost effective CR peaks at 20:1 under full boost, and is higher than the Skyactiv at any throttle level above idle.
NOBODY should consider their engine 'detuned' because wwest says so.
Just curious about what kind of MPG other owners are getting?
So my wife has had her Escape for 5 weeks. It has 1617 miles and I was ignoring the computer that says she is averaging 19.1 MPG becasue I know how much those numbers flucuate based on conditions. Her Trip B has not been reset since we have owned it and that says 17.9 average.
Well then I saw her CC statement. She has spent $312 on gas since we picked up the car. There is $272.54 in charges on her card and $40 cash on Monday. Her statement does not list how many gallons she has purchased or even the price per gallon just the total. But we buy gas almost always on base and it averages .20 cheaper than a typical gas station. Im guessing about $3.65 average per gallon. Then take into account it had a full tank when we got it, she has half a tank left now and I am estimating between 85-90 gallons.
Now I know 1617 miles in 5 weeks is a lot. Here is a quick breakdown of her usage.
390 miles round trip twice to visit her sister (99% highway driving)=780
454 miles to visit my parents, again over 90% highway driving. = 454
For work she drives 11 miles each way 8 of which are on the highway.
She only works 14 days a month and has driven her escape to work 11 times since she has owned it. 11x22=242
total of 1476 so that leaves 141 miles of her going shopping and local errands.
I am just thinking with over 90% highway driving she should be above 25 mpg average. Oh and also, she does have the Eco award for anticipation and acceleration on her dash if anyone thinks that matters.
Update:
I had posted this on a ford forum two weeks ago and have only received one reply so I figured to give this forum a shot.
So she has had her Escape now for almost 8 weeks and still getting horrible MPG. She now has 1920 miles and shows 19.2 on the trip A (reset after each fill up) and 20.8 on trip B (never reset). Again she still has the Eco Award.
As if the bad MPG wasnt annoying enough she told me last night after getting home from work that it stalled while she was at a red light and when she started it back up her Myford touch screen was blank. So I am starting to think we got a bad one. Anyway we are going to the dealership in a few minutes to see if they can get her touch screen back on and I will be mentioning the bad MPG also.
Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated, Thanks
Why are you using an Atkinson engine specification to justify an Ecoboost engine not being detuned..?
Why are you claiming a naturally aspirated engine can compress less than 1ATM of air to its static compression ratio?
Do you think an engine is getting 12:1 Effective CR in total vacuum? (I.e outer space?)
What exactly is an engine compressing? AIR.
Less than atmo, your beloved Skyactiv is NOT getting 12:1 Effective CR and you know it. It is not possible
Boosted engines, on the other hand, frequently exceed their static CR, and have a range of effective CRs under boost, up to double their base CR (bone stock, in regular gas)
That is NOT specific to Atkinson engines. Don't tell me you have your patents screwed up in your head again?
This is true of ALL 4-strokes.
ANY boost calculator on any boosted engine shows that more air in the chamber = a higher ECR.
Effective CR / Static CR = air chamber pressure / 1ATM. Simple calc that shows that under vacuum, ECR less than SCR. Above vacuum, ECR greater than SCR.
So yeah, your 'detuned' argument falls flat on its face.
I can speak for the 3.5 Ecoboost in that it has to be broken in.
The first 6 months I got 17 highway mpg. Now it's more like 23 average highway trip (granted, I'm in the non-economical F-150).
Of it is stalling at lights as well, that needs to be looked at.
Sorry cant help more.
To summarize, NO.
Skyacyiv under 'cruising' will have a Dynamic Compression Ratio of only 7.9-8.9: :1 depending on throttle position.
Whereas Ecoboost will have a cruising ECR of 9.5-11:1 CR. On average, higher than Skyactiv.
ALL the literature out there supports this. I can link I you like, but maybe another thread would be better so the good people of the Ford Escape forum don't have to hear your ridiculous theories :sick:
To sum "I like my new Escape"
Lot of local 15-20 mile trips with not much stop and go and 90 % Interstate and the rest suburban driving 40-45 mph. Using a calculator the mpg is a little over 2 mpg less. I have seen the drving style awards on MFT and not sure how they are calculated but have them on my display. I have seen almost 29 mpg on longer Interstate trips. I only have 700 miles on mine so seems like the EPA sticker is pretty accurate. They may be able to put your car on the diagnostic system and tweak a few things that relate to mpg. AWD will be slightly less mpg than fwd. I really like the vehicle more than anything I have owned and I hope your problems are resolved soon and to your satisfaction.
But.
The issue of atmospheric pressure, as even in the vacuum of space, was brung up.
So what is the effective compression ratio vs native compression at at sea level/WOT vs 1000ft altitude/WOT..??
It is my opinion that the effective compression ratio does not change as a function of atmospheric pressure. There may be less "air" to compress, but what air there is will be compressed at the sae ratio as at sea level.
Thoughts?
I have heard of other people with this issue and even my dealer has one on the forecourt with the self same problem. This has to be an issue with these and I suspect there are many more.
My dealer is trying to help, but Ford are not coming clean with this.
I have always espoused that effective compression ratio is equal to native/base compression ratio at WOT. Otherwise the effective CR is a function of throttle plate position.
You've been spouting off in hundreds of posts on dozens of threads on multiple forums about 'cruising' and now you're backtracking to say WOT? The bottom line is, you've been wrong to criticize boosted engines then.
It is all over the internet if you'd bothered to comprehend it. At WOT, a N/A engine might approach its Static CR. But a boosted engine will be nearly doubling it. Under 'cruise' conditions, even the most advanced N/A engine will not even approach a dynamic compression ratio of 10:1. There are some 'ram-air' LS-engines that can go over their 10:1 N/A Static CR, because of air movement.
So thanks for wasting hundreds of peoples' time on dozens of forums for mixing WOT CR with near-idle CR. :mad:
Look up 'compression ratio calculator'.
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/compression.htm
This is not the only one out there, and they use the same formulas. Applicable to ALL OTTO-CYCLES. This one includes altitude, per your request.
At 1000 ft, and WOT (assuming full cylinder of air, 0 psi = 1 atm) the Effective CR will be 11.8:1 on a 12:1 SCR engine.
HOWEVER, the Ecoboost delivers 15 PSI to the manifold at full boost.
Or 1000 ASL:
You are running 15 PSI of boost at an altitude of 1000 feet. Your motor's static compression is 10.5 :1. At this boost level and altitude your effective compression ratio is 21.01 :1, and without altitude correction your compression ratio would be 21.21 :1
Again, why the heck have you been using CR's as a measure of 'cruise' efficiency? That's more a factor of transmission, gearing and aerodynamics.
At 6,000ft (Denver) when the Skyactiv would be besting 10.8:1 CR at WOT adjusted for altitude, it would still get ~40 highway mpg. The power is what gets sapped. Less air available means less fuel burn. So you go slower under accel, but highway doesn't suffer all that much. You can have 40mpg at 160hp available or 40mpg with 140hp available. The effective compression ratio does NOT greatly affect fuel economy on a high plateau (flat ground).
You are married to compression ratios, which barely make up <1% of any efficiency gains between engines. Going from a 4-speed to a 6-speed to an 8-speed can see 20% fuel efficiency gains at each interval. So Ford should NOT 'abandon the Ecoboost' for some silly Skyactiv technology, because they wouldn't see economy gains like you've been alluding to. They should switch to an 8-speed transmission in their trucks and reap the benefits (like the newfangled Ram).
Again, the 9.5:1 SCR Fiat Multiair (non-DI) in a Dodge Dart gets 42 highway mpg. Its turbos will operate with the same way, with an effective CR range of about 8.5:1 (slight vacuum at cruise) to ~20:1 (WOT).
How many posts have you made where you use the WOT CR for Skyactiv, while you saddle the Ecoboost with a 'cruise' CR? That's not really fair argument when the EB peaks at ~20:1 effective CR.
You can only win this arguement by raising the Ecoboost's native CR to 14:1 in order to "equal" the FE of the SkyActiv in simple cruise mode. If you then still wished to add "boost" you would either have to seriously ENRICH (that's what's DONE) the mixture to prevent detonation or maybe even somehow SUPER-COOL the charge airflow.
Everything you just said is based on your own goofy assumptions, and are blatantly false.
First off, 14:1 is a myth in the United States. Stick with 87 Octane ratings please. Plus, with premium fuel, the EB would allow more boost post-vent valve at all RPMs, as premium fuel resists detonation.
Second, NO NATURALLY ASPIRATED ENGINE approaches 10:1 effective CR during cruising. 9:1 absolute maximum.
No, turbo'd engines do not need a higher 'native' CR, they simple run mild boost off the turbos which results in a partial-throttle pressure near 1ATM. When you say 'obviously' you follow it up with a lie. So to correct you : obviously, from the Effective Compression Calculators that take boost into account, all you would need for the EB to run a higher cruise ECR than Skyactive would be to average 1ATM. Which they do. On the highway, the EB averages 1ATM. Sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower depending on wind/terrain.
NA engines can't come close to 1ATM under anything but WOT and higher rpms.
That is a fact. You lose, the real world wins.
Third, ARE YOU KIDDING about higher rpms on a boosted engine? HAHAHA!
You're ridiculous. Boost is NOT tied to rpms on turbocharged vehicles, and the benefit to boosted engines is more torque at lower rpms due to consistent air supply (turbo's producing 1-5psi under normal driving means the EB is consistently 2-10inHg higher on the vacuum / volumetric efficiency scale).
Clearly you are ignorant. Have you ever even looked at a dynamometer printout of a turbocharged vehicle? Peak torque arrives at 1500 rpms for the Ecoboost and 4000 rpms for the Skyactiv!!!! You have it absolutely backwards, Willard. In order for a naturally aspirated engine to even exceed 9:1 effective compression, it needs to be at a higher throttle opening, and a higher rpm that a turbocharged one. For any required torque, the EB will be at a LOWER rpm than Skyactiv
At absolute best, it's a wash between them in terms of efficiency, AS IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE REAL WORLD. You lose on account of NO DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR WILD CLAIMS.
I'm sorry you're too far gone into your own little world to ever get a handle on engine dynamics. You're hilariously off-base. :P
Turbocharging changes all of that by changing an engine’s volumetric efficiency. Turbochargers can actually pressurize the air in the cylinder above atmospheric pressure, so volumetric efficiency rises even above 100 per cent. This produces more torque and over a longer rpm range. In the EcoBoost engine, the torque curve could more accurately be described as a torque “square.” It climbs rapidly to peak torque at 1,500 rpm and stays there continuously until engine redline. That means performance is strong at any rpm, and especially at common engine speeds. You don’t have to downshift or race the engine to get a lot of torque.
From Autos.ca
It is common knowledge that the entire torque range of turbocharging is lower, less friction involved. Because full boost (or any amount in the engine's range ) is available at 1500 rpms.
That means, contrary to your highly flawed understanding, the EB can be anywhere from 10.5 to 20.5:1 ECR at 1500 rpms. Whereas the Skyactiv will remain below the EB during cruising (more like 8:1) not even approach 12:1 until WOT and at 4000 rpms (I looked it up) and WOT.
This is a fact. You lose, reality wins.
You were as correct about this as you were the rest of your 'guesses'. I.e. completely off.
I am 6'4", 240, and car seats & steering wheels have not changed in 40 years.
they are designed for much shorter height & weight of men & women.
Have boost pressure in cruise mode, part throttle operation, is like taking a shower while wearing a raincoat.
Ummm... No. That's like saying there is no point in boosting against 8 closed valves and 4 open. Why not just leave all intake valves open at all times? :P
It's not a positive displacement compression-ignition turbine. (jet). Appropriate boost can make it past a partially open throttle plate, same as it can await entry into the cylinders sitting in the manifold. The whole journey of airflow doesn't have to be like a hamster in a tube. It is sliced and twisted in every which way.
These little turbos can't help producing 1-5 psi pre-manifold under cruising. That amount of boost is a biproduct.
Ford specifically engineered them to be small, so that they would work at low rpms and low levels of exhaust gas pressure.
The proof is in the size: if these were to be for high-rpm acceleration... Ford would have used huge turbos. Not small ones. Small turbos tell the purpose of boosting low, soon, and often.
And wouldn't you know it... There is a boosted engine that gets better power, torque, and fuel economy than your beloved Skyactiv. The Fiat multiair with a 9.5:1 static CR. That's reality. My understanding offers a theory of why this is... Yours doesn't. My understanding can be verified in reality... Yours can't.
So if ECR is as important as you think it is... small engines with tiny turbos must be running at a higher ECR than Skyactiv. Tiny little turbos eliminating the vacuum an allowing the Fiat to run ~atmo on the highway.